Leggett thinks we need to get tougher meaner

[do or die]

Fighting through adversity, and making things happen in the key moments. ...is closer to my idea of being mentally tough

[Goalie]

I like MO but he was invisible until he moved to LB. Dude didn't show up early in the year.

[Brandon]

Wasn't Picard the loud mean guy we brought in to add toughness..

[do or die]

.....and to block people....

[Dragon37]

The defence crapped the bed just as much as the offence.

[Fatty Liver]

.....and to block people....

 

Oh right, that too.

[do or die]

...and to shotgun snap....

[Mike]

The defence crapped the bed just as much as the offence.

 

Would disagree strongly with that.

[James]

Defense is fine... add a great DT and DE and it will be a dominant unit.

Offence continues to be the problem year in year out.

[17to85]

 

The defence crapped the bed just as much as the offence.

 

Would disagree strongly with that.

 

Of course you would, you are capable of rational thought. The defence wasn't perfect but they were better than the offence by very large amounts. The offence was quite frankly an embarrassment. 

[IC Khari]

Offensively we thought we had something after the first game but came to realize it was the Riders ...

[Noeller]

Offensively we thought we had something after the first game but came to realize it was the Riders ...

Came to realize there's a massive drop off after Drew Willy. Offense showed great things under Willy other times (Calgary) as well.

[Mike]

You could argue the defense bent and broke at times we would've liked them to have not. Obviously. But let's also factor in how long they were on the field in certain situations. How many times they made a stop only to have the O put them right back on the field.

 

We need a few players (a DT, a DE and maybe a guy to replace Demond) but other than that our D is VERY solid. They just need to get a little more time on the sidelines courtesy of our offense.

 

The offense is atrocious and even with Drew Willy, we were hindered. Bellefeuille was a terrible OC during his time here and I'm glad to see him gone.

[TBURGESS]

The defence was better than the offence, but that doesn't make it good. We were 8th in Points allowed, TOP against and Net Offense against, which is horrible. We were 6th is points against which tells me that our bend don't break worked, but not really that well.

 

I get that a lot of folks want to just blame the offense for our defenses problems, but we gave up tons of yards in first halfs and that's before they were tired. Quite frankly, our defence couldn't get the opposition off the field quickly enough most of the time.

[bigg jay]

You could argue the defense bent and broke at times we would've liked them to have not. Obviously. But let's also factor in how long they were on the field in certain situations. How many times they made a stop only to have the O put them right back on the field.

 

We need a few players (a DT, a DE and maybe a guy to replace Demond) but other than that our D is VERY solid. They just need to get a little more time on the sidelines courtesy of our offense.

 

The offense is atrocious and even with Drew Willy, we were hindered. Bellefeuille was a terrible OC during his time here and I'm glad to see him gone.

 

I was just about to mention this.  Any defense that is on the field as much as ours was, is going to give up yards & points.  

[Noeller]

If our O had progressed like the D did this season, as it went along, we would've been outstanding by the final third of the year. Took the D awhile to get going but once they did, they looked good. As mentioned, just spent way too much time on the field.

[TBURGESS]

The oppositions time of possession was 31:58. Those 2 minutes aren't the difference between being good and being worn down.

[do or die]

Need 2 D Linemen... and 1 or two cover guys in the D backfield. ..

[M.O.A.B.]

How much can we also factor in the adjustment from an orthodox style D of Etcheverri to a more coventional D of Hall ?

[voodoochylde]

The oppositions time of possession was 31:58. Those 2 minutes aren't the difference between being good and being worn down.

 

It's all about where and how those minutes are logged.  The offense comes out of the gate flat and leaves the defense on the field for 20 minutes of the first half, do you not think that has an impact on the rest of the game?  Granted it's not always as simple as saying that the offense failed to sustain drives .. there were times where the defense simply couldn't get off the field .. but the defensive side of the ball was capable of making adjustments as the game went on .. and at least gave the team a chance.  

[TBURGESS]

 

The oppositions time of possession was 31:58. Those 2 minutes aren't the difference between being good and being worn down.

 

It's all about where and how those minutes are logged.  The offense comes out of the gate flat and leaves the defense on the field for 20 minutes of the first half, do you not think that has an impact on the rest of the game?  Granted it's not always as simple as saying that the offense failed to sustain drives .. there were times where the defense simply couldn't get off the field .. but the defensive side of the ball was capable of making adjustments as the game went on .. and at least gave the team a chance.  

 

Sure the lack of offense is a contributing factor, but the defense came out flat a bunch of the time too and gave up tons of yards in the first half.

 

The second half defensive adjustments in the last 3rd of the season were good. No doubt about it. Still doesn't turn a 7th or 8th ranked defense into a good one.

[17to85]

The D might have come out slowly in some games, but they adjusted and got better and gave the team plenty of chances. Sometimes you need your offence to take some heat off of them and that includes scoring your way out of troubles. Basically if the D wasn't phenomenal the team was in a big hole because the offence wasn't able to string any drives together.

[Tracker]

 

You could argue the defense bent and broke at times we would've liked them to have not. Obviously. But let's also factor in how long they were on the field in certain situations. How many times they made a stop only to have the O put them right back on the field.

 

We need a few players (a DT, a DE and maybe a guy to replace Demond) but other than that our D is VERY solid. They just need to get a little more time on the sidelines courtesy of our offense.

 

The offense is atrocious and even with Drew Willy, we were hindered. Bellefeuille was a terrible OC during his time here and I'm glad to see him gone.

 

I was just about to mention this.  Any defense that is on the field as much as ours was, is going to give up yards & points.  

 

We were also saddled with a poor D-line which had little pass rush and a middle linebacker who seemed lost most of the time, particularly against the run when the opposition was running the ball to eat up the clock.

[Mr Dee]

It's not about the defence being tired as much as it is the defence, after 2 minutes, having to go back on the field. When the offence is a two-and-outer, it sure as hell works in the opposing team's favour to get right back on the field and build the momentum.

Tell me what offence doesn't like being out there more and more when the other team can't move the ball?

Another chance they say? Great!

[17to85]

It's not about the defence being tired as much as it is the defence, after 2 minutes, having to go back on the field. When the offence is a two-and-outer, it sure as hell works in the opposing team's favour to get right back on the field and build the momentum.

Tell me what offence doesn't like being out there more and more when the other team can't move the ball?

Another chance they say? Great!

plus you get into the whole lopsided field position game which takes it toll.