Wylie post practice

[Jpan85]

Wylie post practice scrum

First time I think since he has been here that they have had a scrum with him.

He lit up a reporter when asked about his oline giving up 59 sacks last year.

 

[Floyd]

Good interview...

Still confused about all the 'new talent' for the OL...  the starting five were all here last year

[Jpan85]

Bond Hardwick Foteki Couture

[Noeller]

Don't underestimate the importance of depth along the line....hoggies get tired!

[Fatty Liver]

10 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

Bond Hardwick Foteki Couture

That's Foketi! 

Would love to sit down for a beer between Wylie and Dave Ritchie, A-1 entertainment value.

[BomberBall]

I think ol' Bob may have had enough of all those sacks being placed on his doorstep.

Wonder if that reporter pissed himself.

[Mike]

If this is the kind of entertainment we get from the mandatory assistant interviews, I'm ALL for it.

It's about time somebody tore into some of the stupidity that gets peddled by our local media. Notice how when Wylie asks a football related question, NOBODY in that scrum has an answer for it? They can look at numbers all they want on a piece of paper but ask them to actually talk about what goes on down at field level and they're speechless.

[Noeller]

My dream is that all the reporters that bitched about lack of access to assistants come to regret it...

[BomberBall]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

If this is the kind of entertainment we get from the mandatory assistant interviews, I'm ALL for it.

It's about time somebody tore into some of the stupidity that gets peddled by our local media. Notice how when Wylie asks a football related question, NOBODY in that scrum has an answer for it? They can look at numbers all they want on a piece of paper but ask them to actually talk about what goes on down at field level and they're speechless.

Yep, that dude didn't have a clue what goes into a sack or the prevention of it.

[bryan35]

7 minutes ago, BomberBall said:

I think ol' Bob may have had enough of all those sacks being placed on his doorstep.

Wonder if that reporter pissed himself.

When a guard and tackle get fooled on a simple stunt that's on the oline. They double team the end and the tackle gets in free to the qb. 

[Jpan85]

Was interesting that in 2014 the 71 sacks they gave up 26 were Oline fault.

[Fatty Liver]

Just now, Jpan85 said:

Was interesting that in 2014 the 71 sacks they gave up 26 were Oline fault.

No kidding, I'd love to have a further breakdown on those numbers between QB's, RB's and receivers.

[tacklewasher]

WTF was wrong with the sack question? Yes they aren't all on the O-line, but why the rant about it. Seemed like a decent question to me. Team gave up 59 sacks last year, what has changed on the o-line to improve on that? Seems he's trying to spread the blame around instead of answering the actual question.

[BomberBall]

8 minutes ago, bryan35 said:

When a guard and tackle get fooled on a simple stunt that's on the oline. They double team the end and the tackle gets in free to the qb. 

Okay.  Not sure what that has to do with my post.

[17to85]

2 minutes ago, tacklewasher said:

WTF was wrong with the sack question? Yes they aren't all on the O-line, but why the rant about it. Seemed like a decent question to me. Team gave up 59 sacks last year, what has changed on the o-line to improve on that? Seems he's trying to spread the blame around instead of answering the actual question.

Orrrrrrrrrrrr he's trying to show how the number of sacks isn't always an OL problem. If the RB misses a block that's not a problem with the offensive line, if the quarterback runs into a guy all on his own that's not the OLs fault, if the OL gives time but the qb hangs onto the ball that's not their fault. 

The question was stupid because it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the game and tries to distil it down into a simple talking point. You guys gave up 59 sacks, you suck. When the reality is that the reporters have no clue how many sacks the OL actually gave up vs. other areas being responsible for it. 

Spreading the blame around? How about he's actually addressing what the real problems are rather than having his offensive line take all the heat for it?

[Floyd]

37 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

Bond Hardwick Foteki Couture

Just explain to me how these guys are different from the depth that was in camp last year...

Seems pretty much the same...  three import OL and a couple draft prospects

That being said, excited to see Couture - but I don't see any proven depth on this line at all

 

 

[Jpan85]

Can you tell me exactly how they are not different?

[Mike]

6 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Just explain to me how these guys are different from the depth that was in camp last year...

Seems pretty much the same...  three import OL and a couple draft prospects

That being said, excited to see Couture - but I don't see any proven depth on this line at all

 

 

You're right, all import OL and all prospects are the same.

[The Unknown Poster]

That was great!  Loved hearing an old school coach answer questions and talk football in an off the cuff and insightful way.  When it was just the HC, there is a lot of choosing the words carefully and "controlling the message".  Very nice to hear the specific coaches discussing their positions.  And with such passion. 

[Logan007]

With his thick accent there were a few times I thought he was about to say the F word, but it ended up being Five or First.  But the way he speaks it just felt like F*** was going to role right off his tongue.  LOL

[Floyd]

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

You're right, all import OL and all prospects are the same.

Typical smarmy non-response.

Last year, we brought in Bryant, Picard and Dile...  This year, its a new crop of imports and Keeping.

One of our random imports from last camp is now a starter instead of Greaves...  guess we'll see, but no import OL has really stepped up and grabbed a job yet...

Either way, its nice to hear from the assistants.

 

 

[Fatty Liver]

20 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Orrrrrrrrrrrr he's trying to show how the number of sacks isn't always an OL problem. If the RB misses a block that's not a problem with the offensive line, if the quarterback runs into a guy all on his own that's not the OLs fault, if the OL gives time but the qb hangs onto the ball that's not their fault. 

The question was stupid because it shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the game and tries to distil it down into a simple talking point. You guys gave up 59 sacks, you suck. When the reality is that the reporters have no clue how many sacks the OL actually gave up vs. other areas being responsible for it. 

Spreading the blame around? How about he's actually addressing what the real problems are rather than having his offensive line take all the heat for it?

Nothing wrong with the question as it opened a dialogue that produced information that was previously unknown, that's a starting point.  Now we know, 71 sacks given up, 26 were Oline fault.  Okay, further elaboration is necessary because there is no denying that the number of sacks given up have been a huge problem the last two seasons.

[Noeller]

Reporters are morons when it comes to OL play, and even they'll admit that, so when they ask a question a certain way (sounding like an accusation) you  better believe he's going to stand up to them. Position coaches are always going to be defensive of their boys. I love seeing the arrogant smirk wiped off the face of guys like Wiecek, Friesen and Bender...

[bryan35]

Anyone know how the 26 sacks that were the Oline's fault compare to other teams?

Edited June 15, 2016 by bryan35

[TBURGESS]

That was fun to watch. I'm so glad that the CFL forced media access to other than the head coaches. 

I don't think the question was ignorant or uncalled for. Wylie's rant probably means it will never be asked again and that's exactly what he was going for. As for the stats he quoted... He could say any numbers he wanted to and no one could call him on it because they simply wouldn't know without having all the game film and knowing what they were looking at. Assuming that he's right and 'only' 26 of the sacks were totally the O lines fault how does that ratio compare to the rest of the teams?