Sack Article

[17to85]

 

There is a lot more to consider about rushing yards allowed than the overall stat.

 

 

We have been hurt by being the worst against the run

 

more time on the field for the defence and less time on the field for the offence, which leads to less points scored.

More time for the defence translates to a defence which is more tired later in games and cost us at least a couple of games

bad tackling and schemes on defence cost us touchdowns against.

many times inability to stop the run put us behind, and hurt our own ability to call run plays. 

 

It's not so simple to say the run didn't hurt us.

 

but it is that simple. Thinking still of that game against the Riders, they got 3 points out of all those yards from Messam, the TOP wasn't tilted because of the Riders running, it was tilted because the Bombers offense didn't stay on the field. They're playing a bend but don't break idea on defense, not my ideal thing but I accept that for what it is, and they have this season for the most part been that kind of defense. The catch for that though is you need to pair it with an offense that can move the ball and eat up some TOP itself. It worked well to start the year but as the year went on the offense fell into the 2 and out routine we've seen so much and the D is simply on the field too much. So yes you're right nothing exists in a vacuum, but you have it backwards. The defense isn't limiting the offense, it was the offense limiting themselves and putting the defense in the bad spot of being on the field too much. 

[blitzmore]

 

 

There is a lot more to consider about rushing yards allowed than the overall stat.

 

 

We have been hurt by being the worst against the run

 

more time on the field for the defence and less time on the field for the offence, which leads to less points scored.

More time for the defence translates to a defence which is more tired later in games and cost us at least a couple of games

bad tackling and schemes on defence cost us touchdowns against.

many times inability to stop the run put us behind, and hurt our own ability to call run plays. 

 

It's not so simple to say the run didn't hurt us.

 

but it is that simple. Thinking still of that game against the Riders, they got 3 points out of all those yards from Messam, the TOP wasn't tilted because of the Riders running, it was tilted because the Bombers offense didn't stay on the field. They're playing a bend but don't break idea on defense, not my ideal thing but I accept that for what it is, and they have this season for the most part been that kind of defense. The catch for that though is you need to pair it with an offense that can move the ball and eat up some TOP itself. It worked well to start the year but as the year went on the offense fell into the 2 and out routine we've seen so much and the D is simply on the field too much. So yes you're right nothing exists in a vacuum, but you have it backwards. The defense isn't limiting the offense, it was the offense limiting themselves and putting the defense in the bad spot of being on the field too much. 

 

Afraid not...you pick out one game to support your point of view. I don't have it backwards it is more complicated than that. You were the one who basically said the yards against rushing did not cause us to lose games. It was a bend but don't break defense originally, but we also had a pretty good pass rush. That basically went away, and what was left was rushing yards against, which Etch never figured out a way to stop. Other teams knew that obviously, and as always happens they figured out the Etch defense. Rushing yards against are very important in games in more than one way, and you just refuse to see that.

[Goalie]

It's not just one game tho, it was a bunch, the offense went cold for a long time, i think some should go back and rewatch several of the games we played earlier in the year and then go back and watch games later in the year, The D is pretty much the same D, it's the offense that regressed pretty big time. 

[do or die]

Just a few things went wrong, this go-round:

 

We struggled running with Grigsby.....opponents ran the ball up our butt, all year

We struggled to sack the QB.............opponents ran up record number totals on us

We had too many turnovers..............didn't get enough takeaways

We missed far more many tackles....than opponents

 

Plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the ball.....to say nothing about schemes/playcalling

[SPuDS]

Can everyone please stop implying that O'Shea is an ostrich with his head in the sand now? He straight up said "we can't give up they many rushing yards.." Also commented on too many,penalties and on turnovers...

So, enough with implying he's either a liar or an idiot..

[Mark H.]

Can everyone please stop implying that O'Shea is an ostrich with his head in the sand now? He straight up said "we can't give up they many rushing yards.." Also commented on too many,penalties and on turnovers...

So, enough with implying he's either a liar or an idiot..

 

And he's had time to watch the film now...

[17to85]

 

 

 

There is a lot more to consider about rushing yards allowed than the overall stat.

 

 

We have been hurt by being the worst against the run

 

more time on the field for the defence and less time on the field for the offence, which leads to less points scored.

More time for the defence translates to a defence which is more tired later in games and cost us at least a couple of games

bad tackling and schemes on defence cost us touchdowns against.

many times inability to stop the run put us behind, and hurt our own ability to call run plays. 

 

It's not so simple to say the run didn't hurt us.

 

but it is that simple. Thinking still of that game against the Riders, they got 3 points out of all those yards from Messam, the TOP wasn't tilted because of the Riders running, it was tilted because the Bombers offense didn't stay on the field. They're playing a bend but don't break idea on defense, not my ideal thing but I accept that for what it is, and they have this season for the most part been that kind of defense. The catch for that though is you need to pair it with an offense that can move the ball and eat up some TOP itself. It worked well to start the year but as the year went on the offense fell into the 2 and out routine we've seen so much and the D is simply on the field too much. So yes you're right nothing exists in a vacuum, but you have it backwards. The defense isn't limiting the offense, it was the offense limiting themselves and putting the defense in the bad spot of being on the field too much. 

 

Afraid not...you pick out one game to support your point of view. I don't have it backwards it is more complicated than that. You were the one who basically said the yards against rushing did not cause us to lose games. It was a bend but don't break defense originally, but we also had a pretty good pass rush. That basically went away, and what was left was rushing yards against, which Etch never figured out a way to stop. Other teams knew that obviously, and as always happens they figured out the Etch defense. Rushing yards against are very important in games in more than one way, and you just refuse to see that.

 

But when I look back on the season I can only come up with a couple specific examples where the run defense really did cost them the game.... Labour day on the last drive by the Riders, the game in Toronto, though on a short week when the offense couldn't string together any drives they were gassed at the end so it's hard to blame them entirely, and perhaps the first game against the Esks where Rielly ran a bunch, but again it was a game where the offense couldn't get anything going. Ottawa and Edmonton blow out losses were about a complete team pants crapping so I'm not going point to just the run D there. People like to bring up the rushing defense numbers, but it's not that big a problem in the big picture. If the offense is doing it's part (and in the last part of the season they really weren't) our D was doing fine, but like any defense you don't give them a break then yeah, it all falls apart. Look at what happened to the Riders D when their offense started leaving them on the field more often, doesn't look nearly as good as it did early in the year right? Big picture our defense did an acceptable job this year keeping the team in games and giving them chances to win. No they weren't a great defense and there's areas they need to improve on in terms of talent, but most nights they did what they set out to accomplish and other parts of the team were let downs. Lot of kick return tds given up, lot of 2 and outs in the last half of the season by the offense.  

[SPuDS]

Can everyone please stop implying that O'Shea is an ostrich with his head in the sand now? He straight up said "we can't give up they many rushing yards.." Also commented on too many,penalties and on turnovers...

So, enough with implying he's either a liar or an idiot..

And he's had time to watch the film now...

Hes known all along but you don't admit it to the media.. thats like cutting your arm and putting it in a piranha tank..

Thats why the obligatory "gotta watch the film" or "we played hard..." Etc etc..

[blitzmore]

 

 

 

 

There is a lot more to consider about rushing yards allowed than the overall stat.

 

 

We have been hurt by being the worst against the run

 

more time on the field for the defence and less time on the field for the offence, which leads to less points scored.

More time for the defence translates to a defence which is more tired later in games and cost us at least a couple of games

bad tackling and schemes on defence cost us touchdowns against.

many times inability to stop the run put us behind, and hurt our own ability to call run plays. 

 

It's not so simple to say the run didn't hurt us.

 

but it is that simple. Thinking still of that game against the Riders, they got 3 points out of all those yards from Messam, the TOP wasn't tilted because of the Riders running, it was tilted because the Bombers offense didn't stay on the field. They're playing a bend but don't break idea on defense, not my ideal thing but I accept that for what it is, and they have this season for the most part been that kind of defense. The catch for that though is you need to pair it with an offense that can move the ball and eat up some TOP itself. It worked well to start the year but as the year went on the offense fell into the 2 and out routine we've seen so much and the D is simply on the field too much. So yes you're right nothing exists in a vacuum, but you have it backwards. The defense isn't limiting the offense, it was the offense limiting themselves and putting the defense in the bad spot of being on the field too much. 

 

Afraid not...you pick out one game to support your point of view. I don't have it backwards it is more complicated than that. You were the one who basically said the yards against rushing did not cause us to lose games. It was a bend but don't break defense originally, but we also had a pretty good pass rush. That basically went away, and what was left was rushing yards against, which Etch never figured out a way to stop. Other teams knew that obviously, and as always happens they figured out the Etch defense. Rushing yards against are very important in games in more than one way, and you just refuse to see that.

 

But when I look back on the season I can only come up with a couple specific examples where the run defense really did cost them the game.... Labour day on the last drive by the Riders, the game in Toronto, though on a short week when the offense couldn't string together any drives they were gassed at the end so it's hard to blame them entirely, and perhaps the first game against the Esks where Rielly ran a bunch, but again it was a game where the offense couldn't get anything going. Ottawa and Edmonton blow out losses were about a complete team pants crapping so I'm not going point to just the run D there. People like to bring up the rushing defense numbers, but it's not that big a problem in the big picture. If the offense is doing it's part (and in the last part of the season they really weren't) our D was doing fine, but like any defense you don't give them a break then yeah, it all falls apart. Look at what happened to the Riders D when their offense started leaving them on the field more often, doesn't look nearly as good as it did early in the year right? Big picture our defense did an acceptable job this year keeping the team in games and giving them chances to win. No they weren't a great defense and there's areas they need to improve on in terms of talent, but most nights they did what they set out to accomplish and other parts of the team were let downs. Lot of kick return tds given up, lot of 2 and outs in the last half of the season by the offense.  

 

In many ways we agree...I'm just saying that regardless, having the run slammed down your throat virtually every game, is from even a common sense point of view, not a good thing. I agree the offence has to do their part, but hard to do if they're not on the field for long stretches...while the other team is running the ball down your throat, especially in the 4th quarter.

 

We all know we are definitely not good against the run, and to add to that we are second last in sacks as of now.

 

So I guess Etch's defensive schemes are good for you next year regardless of personnel? You seem to like him as defensive coordinator.

[17to85]

 

So I guess Etch's defensive schemes are good for you next year regardless of personnel? You seem to like him as defensive coordinator.

 

No I really don't like him as a defensive coordinator, I am just tired of hearing all the pissing and moaning about how terrible the defense was when it really wasn't anywhere near as bad as some people want to make it sound. Considering how poor the defensive line play was this season I don't see how the guy deserves a pink slip. Get some better defensive linemen in and see what the D looks like because that needs to happen regardless of who the defensive coordinator is. I get that a lot of people don't like a defensive coordinator who says stopping the run isn't a priority, but the logic is there and it really didn't cost us a lot of games this past season. I've said it before but I am far more concerned about what's going on with the offensive coaching than the defensive. 

[blitzmore]

 

 

So I guess Etch's defensive schemes are good for you next year regardless of personnel? You seem to like him as defensive coordinator.

 

No I really don't like him as a defensive coordinator, I am just tired of hearing all the pissing and moaning about how terrible the defense was when it really wasn't anywhere near as bad as some people want to make it sound. Considering how poor the defensive line play was this season I don't see how the guy deserves a pink slip. Get some better defensive linemen in and see what the D looks like because that needs to happen regardless of who the defensive coordinator is. I get that a lot of people don't like a defensive coordinator who says stopping the run isn't a priority, but the logic is there and it really didn't cost us a lot of games this past season. I've said it before but I am far more concerned about what's going on with the offensive coaching than the defensive. 

 

Well I wouldn't really say it's pissing and moaning...it's all about having schemes on defence that allow us to be reasonable on both the pass and run, like some of the other teams that are successful. If you want to talk about getting tired...I'm really tired of having the ball run down our throats "virtually every week". I'm with you on the offence though. Defence wins championships and ours the way it is structured is simply not good enough to do that.

[do or die]

We didn't get consistent pressure on the QB or stop the run.  These are not hallmarks of a "good defense"

[Mark H.]

 

 

Can everyone please stop implying that O'Shea is an ostrich with his head in the sand now? He straight up said "we can't give up they many rushing yards.." Also commented on too many,penalties and on turnovers...

So, enough with implying he's either a liar or an idiot..

And he's had time to watch the film now...

Hes known all along but you don't admit it to the media.. thats like cutting your arm and putting it in a piranha tank..

Thats why the obligatory "gotta watch the film" or "we played hard..." Etc etc..

 

 

Yes, yes...I was being a sarcastic Captain Obvious...if there is such a thing.

[do or die]

We didn't get consistent pressure on the passer,  got pushed around by everybody's run game, and were 7th in total yds against.   These are not hallmarks of a "good defense", anyway you slice it.

 

So I have a number of reasons not to like Etch as a DC.   At least we are agreed on that.....

[17to85]

We didn't get consistent pressure on the passer,  got pushed around by everybody's run game, and were 7th in total yds against.   These are not hallmarks of a "good defense", anyway you slice it.

 

So I have a number of reasons not to like Etch as a DC.   At least we are agreed on that.....

Those are hallmarks of a poor defensive line however.. now are we going to blame Etch for the DL being so underwhelming or are we going to just say that those players didn't play well enough? Cause in my mind we need better play from that position next year regardless of who is running the D. 

[Rich]

I believe it is a combination of scheme and players.  Yes, we could get better play from our front 4.

 

But a lot of Etch's schemes involve putting a large number of players on the LOS for confusion.  Sometimes it is an all out blitz, sometimes they drop back in coverage.

 

When we are blitzing, we need to get more pressure on the QB consistently.   This wasn't always the case in the later half of the year.

 

When we are dropping back into coverage, this is when we are more susceptible to the run, because if the RB makes it past the initial line of attack, we don't have linebackers in a more "classic" formation to cover the running back (because they were on the LOS and are retreating to get back into position), so the running gains tend to be bigger.

 

Personally, I prefer a much more in your face, smash mouth, simple defense.  We do what we do and we do it well.   Something you can deliver like BC when you have players like Elimimian and Bighill to bring the hurt.  I do realize those players don't come along every day, but I prefer that style to the disguise and confuse of Etch.    

[mbrg]

 

 

 

So I guess Etch's defensive schemes are good for you next year regardless of personnel? You seem to like him as defensive coordinator.

 

No I really don't like him as a defensive coordinator, I am just tired of hearing all the pissing and moaning about how terrible the defense was when it really wasn't anywhere near as bad as some people want to make it sound. Considering how poor the defensive line play was this season I don't see how the guy deserves a pink slip. Get some better defensive linemen in and see what the D looks like because that needs to happen regardless of who the defensive coordinator is. I get that a lot of people don't like a defensive coordinator who says stopping the run isn't a priority, but the logic is there and it really didn't cost us a lot of games this past season. I've said it before but I am far more concerned about what's going on with the offensive coaching than the defensive. 

 

Well I wouldn't really say it's pissing and moaning...it's all about having schemes on defence that allow us to be reasonable on both the pass and run, like some of the other teams that are successful. If you want to talk about getting tired...I'm really tired of having the ball run down our throats "virtually every week". I'm with you on the offence though. Defence wins championships and ours the way it is structured is simply not good enough to do that.

 

 

My vote is for pissing and moaning.

 

Stats vs points.  If the other team's stats don't translate into points then it is successful in what it's trying to achieve.

 

Last week Desia Dunn had a chance to wrap Poblah up along the sidelines.  He somehow missed and Poblah went trotting down the sidelines 40 yards for a TD.  Should that be on Etchevery?

 

If I'm looking at the Bomber season and asking "what led to these points?", the amount of blame that is placed on Etch relative to the answers from "what led to these points?" is highly disproportionate.  Our defence was more often than not a positive factor in the games, not a negative.  So my vote is for pissing and moaning.

 

 

I believe it is a combination of scheme and players.  Yes, we could get better play from our front 4.

 

But a lot of Etch's schemes involve putting a large number of players on the LOS for confusion.  Sometimes it is an all out blitz, sometimes they drop back in coverage.

 

When we are blitzing, we need to get more pressure on the QB consistently.   This wasn't always the case in the later half of the year.

 

When we are dropping back into coverage, this is when we are more susceptible to the run, because if the RB makes it past the initial line of attack, we don't have linebackers in a more "classic" formation to cover the running back (because they were on the LOS and are retreating to get back into position), so the running gains tend to be bigger.

 

Personally, I prefer a much more in your face, smash mouth, simple defense.  We do what we do and we do it well.   Something you can deliver like BC when you have players like Elimimian and Bighill to bring the hurt.  I do realize those players don't come along every day, but I prefer that style to the disguise and confuse of Etch.    

 

There are many benefits to a traditional style defence, and I too would probably enjoy those more than a disguised defence.  My two biggest issues with our defence were:

 

a ) the lack of layers in our defence led to much bigger gains than should happen from fairly simply plays.  No one is perfect, and if mistakes are made by defensive players our arrangements often led to huge expanses of field with no one able to get there.  So yes, while we can say that the tackler missed and that's on him, we also have to accept that this is going to happen from time to time with even the best players.  There are times in every game where a defence has to sell out, but it should not happen multiple times per series.

 

b ) if a QB sees thru the disguise and audibles, oh crap.  This happened a lot in the middle of the season when we continued to overload blitz from the left side of the line.  Smart QBs just audibled a run to the right.  We didn't do that forever, but we stuck with it for too long.  In that formation we were often beating ourselves, which shouldn't happen.

[gbill2004]

Etch's philosophy on tackling is speed; don't worry about missing a tackle. He believes speed will create turnovers and if you miss a tackle, a teammate will be there to help.

[17to85]

Etch's philosophy on tackling is speed; don't worry about missing a tackle. He believes speed will create turnovers and if you miss a tackle, a teammate will be there to help.

That is something that is shared by most defensive coordinators though... run to the ball, get to the ball with speed, everyone to the ball... not unique with Etch. The only thing that is really unique about Etch is how much he likes to gamble. 

[Mr. Perfect]

My biggest issue with Etch is that the running back in most cases can see the gap pre-snap. There's no disguise or movement to it after the snap to create confusion for the running back. As much as I dislike Suitor as a colour commentator, he pointed out that for example, that on the Riders final drive on Labour day, the running back was staring at the gap pre snap and ran right to it with little to no effort. The scheme just simply doesn't work. Yes it has it's good points, but overall it is a fundamentally flawed scheme.

[gbill2004]

 

Etch's philosophy on tackling is speed; don't worry about missing a tackle. He believes speed will create turnovers and if you miss a tackle, a teammate will be there to help.

That is something that is shared by most defensive coordinators though... run to the ball, get to the ball with speed, everyone to the ball... not unique with Etch. The only thing that is really unique about Etch is how much he likes to gamble. 

 

Most DC's put more of an emphasis on actually making the tackle, compared to Etch. 

[17to85]

 

 

Etch's philosophy on tackling is speed; don't worry about missing a tackle. He believes speed will create turnovers and if you miss a tackle, a teammate will be there to help.

That is something that is shared by most defensive coordinators though... run to the ball, get to the ball with speed, everyone to the ball... not unique with Etch. The only thing that is really unique about Etch is how much he likes to gamble. 

 

Most DC's put more of an emphasis on actually making the tackle, compared to Etch. 

 

I don't agree with that at all. If you think that they don't care if someone misses a tackle or not then you are just being dumb on purpose. Perhaps what you are trying to complain about is the idea that you don't need to always put a guy in a position to make a tackle initially because he believes that speed and pursuit should create a tackle before too much damage is done, but that's a different matter entirely. 

[gbill2004]

Etch's philosophy on tackling is speed; don't worry about missing a tackle. He believes speed will create turnovers and if you miss a tackle, a teammate will be there to help.

That is something that is shared by most defensive coordinators though... run to the ball, get to the ball with speed, everyone to the ball... not unique with Etch. The only thing that is really unique about Etch is how much he likes to gamble.

Most DC's put more of an emphasis on actually making the tackle, compared to Etch.

I don't agree with that at all. If you think that they don't care if someone misses a tackle or not then you are just being dumb on purpose. Perhaps what you are trying to complain about is the idea that you don't need to always put a guy in a position to make a tackle initially because he believes that speed and pursuit should create a tackle before too much damage is done, but that's a different matter entirely.

It's okay if you don't understand Etch's philosophy.

[Mark H.]

I find (after watching for an entire season) that Etch's scheme puts players in more one on one tackling situations.  When linebackers and even DB's are retreating from the LOS after the ball is snapped, the player who ends up being in a tackling situation is less likely to have help.  Simply because his team mates have not had enough time time to read and react to the play.  A more traditional alignment affords LB's and DB's more time to read the play and react to it.

 

As the season wore on, we started noticing more missed tackles. IMO, that was because teams became more aware of how to exploit the scheme...not because the linebackers forgot how to tackle.

[mbrg]

I find (after watching for an entire season) that Etch's scheme puts players in more one on one tackling situations.  When linebackers and even DB's are retreating from the LOS after the ball is snapped, the player who ends up being in a tackling situation is less likely to have help.  Simply because his team mates have not had enough time time to read and react to the play.  A more traditional alignment affords LB's and DB's more time to read the play and react to it.

 

As the season wore on, we started noticing more missed tackles. IMO, that was because teams became more aware of how to exploit the scheme...not because the linebackers forgot how to tackle.

 

And many of our alignments only allow help from our other defenders in certain areas of the field.  Other spots, large spots, there was just too much ground to cover regardless of how fast the players are.  Starting so close to the line will do that.

 

The CFL field is large and a well executed play will always have the ability to go for big yards.  Many of the plays that went for big yards against us were not the types of plays that should have.

 

And yet, in terms of points on the board, the design of this defence isn't as big a culprit as it's made out to be.