This is probably the softest D I've watched in decades a Bomber fan. I'm flummoxed. Owsh Walters and Hall (edit woops thats a bit embarrassing) had the off season to try and plug holes but it looks like it's the same old same old: not enough consistent pressure and incredibly  soft coverage. It's just infuriating. 

So what are some immediate things the coaches can do to try and make this D, arguably as bad or maybe worse than Hamilton's, closer to middle of the pack?

Edited September 3, 20178 yr by White Out

3 hours ago, MOBomberFan said:

This sounds logical to me. Unfortunately I don't know where to verify those numbers. Can I find average starting field position following a kickoff on cfldb.ca? Or is this more of a 'feels true' statement than an 'is true' statement? I don't have a horse in this race, I just like to know the facts.

It's in the team stats report the CFL puts out weekly, average kickoff distance and return averages for Bombers and their opponents.  I can't find the updated Bomber specific one only the league stats.  Search CFL team stats and it usually comes up.

4 hours ago, 17to85 said:

I am not talking about going for it on 3rd down or not, I am talking about some of the super passive play calling that leads to getting into 3rd down situations in the first place. 

Let's be honest here, Brink and Elliott weren't the only qbs he had. He had Pierce and Jyles to start with and didn't accomplish much with them. 

 

Lapo is a smart man I've said that before and he can come up with a good play books, his problem has always been with his play calling. He's just not good enough at it. You don't remember all of us here screaming for Khari to call the plays when Lapo was first here? No lack of talent on that team and the play calling was still suspect. 

When pierce arrived here he quickly lost confidence and was damaged goods.... wheres Jyles at now? Lapo has become a much better OC than he was when Khari was calling the plays over the years.

Lapo has Khari/Milt/Blink/Sellers/Gordon in 2003 and led an offense that regressed from 2002 when he ran Worman's system. Just saying.

Just now, rebusrankin said:

Lapo has Khari/Milt/Blink/Sellers/Gordon in 2003 and led an offense that regressed from 2002 when he ran Worman's system. Just saying.

So you're saying we should find Worman, and get him into rehab?

I agree with 17to85...    watching the last two games it was night and day in difference on being aggressive.      

On 9/12/2017 at 10:37 AM, JuranBoldenRules said:

Because our average starting field position on kickoffs is lower than average.  This is based on where kickoffs are placed.  Teams kick short to Finch, Rainey, even Logan.  No fear of Lankford they just let fly and let him run them out of bounds at the 30.

My recollection is Lankford has us closer to the 40 then the 30 most often

If stats are for losers, even the good stats... who are bad stats for?

On 12/09/2017 at 8:36 PM, Brandon said:

I agree with 17to85...    watching the last two games it was night and day in difference on being aggressive.      

I mean he had to change for the banjo bowl because he got his lunch money stolen and stuffed in a locker on labour day with the game plan he came up with. 

There is no reason to complicate an argument with facts.  Facts like winning 8 of 11 games knowing the defense is going to allow over 30 points against in every game.  The Bomber offense has been very good.  Apparently in spite of the OC.

Lankford is no Quincy McDuffie but he's not bad either. He is neither great or bad at what he does.  He earns his salary which is likely quite a bit less than what McDuffie is making now.  Not that he's done a bad job at receiver, but he is a receiver that we should be looking to upgrade on.

Lapo is not Dave Dickenson, they have different styles. That does not make Lapo's style poor though? Lotsa ways to skin a cat, Lapo's ball control offence is time proven and he is an excellent play caller and makes excellent in game adjustments and progressions throughout the season. A very effective offence, that is shown in both the stats and the standing to be one of the best in the CFL.

1 hour ago, gcn11 said:

Lapo is not Dave Dickenson, they have different styles. That does not make Lapo's style poor though? Lotsa ways to skin a cat, Lapo's ball control offence is time proven and he is an excellent play caller and makes excellent in game adjustments and progressions throughout the season. A very effective offence, that is shown in both the stats and the standing to be one of the best in the CFL.

Show your work.......... 

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

Show your work.......... 

He probably didnt think he had to... cuz you know.. were 8 and 3 despite having one of the worst defences in the league... you guys are grasping at straws and missing the real weakness of this team.. 

Edited September 14, 20178 yr by James

15 hours ago, Noeller said:

Show your work.......... 

Don't have to, it's self evident.

If Lapolice isn't the best OC in the league right now, he is at least top 2.  He is far and away the best OC we've had since Lapolice.

Lapo is a great play caller, however with the caveat that he overthinks himself at times where keeping it simple would suffice.

The first drive against Edmonton would be the best example.

15 hours ago, Noeller said:

Show your work.......... 

First in total points scored. First in rushing yards, top 3 in not turning the ball over on offence, QB leading the league in QUAR, 8-3 record.

Not sure how anyone can point to Lapo (or the offence in general) as a weakness of this team. As others have pointed out, occasionally he out-thinks himself, but he has been a great play caller since returning to the Bombers. And our offence has to be this good in order to make up for a defense that, while generating alot of turnovers, gives up more yards and points than any other team.

16 minutes ago, Mike said:

Lapo is a great play caller, however with the caveat that he overthinks himself at times where keeping it simple would suffice.

The first drive against Edmonton would be the best example.

You don't think the first drive was scripted? Usually is.

yup...agreed....at times he tries to be too cute and fancy and score in the sexy way...he just needs to stick with the basics and what is working at the time and grind.

With our back, and O-line thee is no reason that when in first and goal we don't/can't pound the ball in on the ground in 3 attempts. That should be our gameplan 90% of the time and just use some passing plays occasionally to keep teams honest

59 minutes ago, Booch said:

yup...agreed....at times he tries to be too cute and fancy and score in the sexy way...he just needs to stick with the basics and what is working at the time and grind.

With our back, and O-line thee is no reason that when in first and goal we don't/can't pound the ball in on the ground in 3 attempts. That should be our gameplan 90% of the time and just use some passing plays occasionally to keep teams honest

Are we not the best team in the league at converting redzone attempts into touchdowns?

no clue

2 hours ago, shadybob said:

First in total points scored. First in rushing yards, top 3 in not turning the ball over on offence, QB leading the league in QUAR, 8-3 record.

Not sure how anyone can point to Lapo (or the offence in general) as a weakness of this team. As others have pointed out, occasionally he out-thinks himself, but he has been a great play caller since returning to the Bombers. And our offence has to be this good in order to make up for a defense that, while generating alot of turnovers, gives up more yards and points than any other team.

Only questioning the play calling, which has been very suspect at times... Not the overall offense he built. 

2 hours ago, gcn11 said:

You don't think the first drive was scripted? Usually is.

probably... but I find it hard to believe a gadget or trick play would be scripted... that should only be called in certain circumstances... in the Edm game, it should not  have been called...

But let's discuss that play more b/c I don't actually think it has ever come up here! 

I look at the failed gadget gamble as an attempt to demoralize the other team early on. Obviously it didn't work out that way... but imagine we capped that opening drive with Nichols catching a TD pass. That would knock the wind out of their sails a tad. Success would have been worth more than 6 points 

37 minutes ago, MOBomberFan said:

I look at the failed gadget gamble as an attempt to demoralize the other team early on. Obviously it didn't work out that way... but imagine we capped that opening drive with Nichols catching a TD pass. That would knock the wind out of their sails a tad. Success would have been worth more than 6 points 

you know what woulda knocked the wind out of their sails more? Having had the ball pounded down your throats without being able to do a damned thing to stop it. Getting straight up beaten physically does a lot more to demoralize an opponent than trying something cute.