So, as usual, I take a couple of days off from the board after a game especially after a loss, ESPECIALLY after THIS loss, to get away from the insanity of the emotion right after a game, but I also read through the angry posts after my cooling off period and caught the usual flavour. Many blame Hall and his bend don't break style (which has held up in 9 wins BTW - and that last drive was more a busted coverage for a 60 yard gain than a soft zone - that WAS break, not bend, on that play at least), many blame LaPo. Some ID breakdowns in the secondary, some point to the missed kicks, one or two spread out the blame to all parties. A couple point to blown calls by the ref, especially the missed helmet swing which should have had Adams Jr. ejected by the letter of the rule. A couple looked at Streveler and his ill-timed INT, but many more seemed to be willing to give him a pass (not surprisingly, the loudest of those were the same people who have been dumping on Nichols all season and pumping Strev's tires - or blowing something else of his, since the start of the year). It is almost comical the level of self-flaggellation this fan board goes through after a defeat like this, hope there weren't too many sprained ankles from yet again hopping off the bandwagon. However, one thing in particular that has been a repeated theme is the "we go conservative on offence, why change what worked. LaPo tries to out-think himself and be a genius, he is too predictable and lousy, etc. etc."

Therefore, rather than knee-jerk reacting to jump on the Lapo-bashing train or try too hard to defend him against the chattering noise without any substantive backing, I looked at the offensive play-calling from the game to get a feel at least for what was being called and if it did change, or if the critics are merely venting and seeing what they want to see to defend their inherent biases. We know Harris' carries by quarter were 5, 3, 2 and 3, and Streveler was 5, 3,1 and 3 (and 2 of those 3 in the 4th were actually both sacks), but was the reduction in running a play-calling matter or simply the fact that they ran less offensive plays overall due to Montreal being on the field longer? The raw data shows that the Bombers ran 19, 11, 12, and 12 offensive plays (counting field goals and attempts but not punts) by quarter, and Montreal ran 7, 17, 14 and 24.

Anyway, here is what the numbers say. Make your own analysis of it to defend your entrenched points of view (I'm sure a few will), but I guess in the end what I see is that the same "inept, useless (fill in your vitriol-filled adjective here) LaPo playcalling" that cost us the game in the 4th is the same that got us the big lead in the first place. Maybe Montreal made adjustments, maybe the INT was a big momentum switch, maybe the issue isn't the coordinators but the players who blew assignements or caved when the pressure got too high for them. Maybe, maybe not.

Bombers ran 8 pass plays, 5 QB runs, and 6 RB runs in the first quarter. It was 4-3-3 in the 2nd (and a kneel down), 7-1-3 in the 3rd (and a FG), and 5-3-3 in the 4th (and a FG miss), so aside from the lack of QB runs in the 3rd, the percentage of type of play call seemed fairly consistent. To be fair, I have not re-watched the video to see how the running plays were designed to see if the style of run (up the gut, sweep, pitch, etc.) changed, but as for the passes, this is what I can say:

I looked at each pass from the point of catch (where the ball was thrown/caught relative to the line of scrimmage), the YAC yardage, and the TOTAL yards worked for (in 6 instances the pass was caught behind the line of scrimmage so the actual gain was less than the total yards worked for)

 

1st quarter:

-4 POC, 10 YAC, 14 YWF (10 yard catch)

-5 POC, 3 YAC, 8 YWF (3 yard catch)

11 POC, 1 YAC, 12 YWF (12 yard catch)

11 POC, 0 YAC, 11 YWF (11 yard catch)

5 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (5 yard incomplete pass)

2 POC, 10 YAC, 12 YWF (12 yard catch)

7 POC, 0 YAC, 7 YWF (7 yard catch)

13 POC, 0 YAC, 13 YWF (13 yard TD catch)

 

2nd quarter:

-2 POC, 11 YAC, 13 YWF (11 yard catch)

7 POC, 2 YAC, 9 YWF (9 yard catch)

35 POC, 39 YAC, 74 YWF (74 yard catch)

10 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (10 yard pass intercepted)

 

3rd quarter:

-4 POC, 6 YAC, 10 YWF (6 yard catch)

6 POC, 4 YAC, 10 YWF (10 yard catch)

(-) POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (pass incomplete out of bounds)

15 POC, 4 YAC, 19 YWF (19 yard catch)

8 POC, 6 YAC, 14 YWF (14 yard catch)

-2 POC, 0 YAC, 2 YWF (0 yard catch)

-6 POC, 6 YAC, 12 YWF (6 yard catch)

 

4th quarter:

8 POC, 7 YAC, 15 YWF (15 yard catch)

8 POC, 0 YAC, 7 YWF (8 yard catch)

6 POC, 4 YAC, 10 YWF (10 yard catch)

4 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (4 yard catch)

13 POC, 0 YAC, 0 YWF (pass interference called)

 

So a quick glance at the numbers does not suggest that our game plan changed significantly in terms of run/pass play selection frequency (and how often do we hear "why get conservative and play kill the clock with the run? Throw it!" when the run gets stuffed, and then "why throw it when the run has been going so well? Chew up yards on the ground and kill the clock, don't overthink things!" when we try not to play conservative run - people will play both sides of the argument so long as it suits their "LaPo sucks" agenda at the time in question) or pass game startegy. It certainly suggests that the short pass and check down is used a lot and that we don't stretch the defence, save for Adams bomb to Harris. Funny that Nichols gets roasted for that style of "game management" but nary a peep about strong-armed Streveler not throwing further downfield than 15 yards once in this game. And hey, this short pass game plan worked gangbusters in the first half when we rolled up the points. Also (as a pre-emptive strike for those who will argue we need to anticipate the Montreal halftime adjustment and NOT stick with what was working because they will catch on), the last time we were rolling with the short pass and then shook things up against BC by inserting Streveler for Nichols, we had a quick turnover and lost the lead by NOT staying the course, so damned if you do, damned if you don't.

So is it the coaches "changing things" that cause our offence to bog down, or the players losing focus, or blown assignments? I won't make a definitive statement, but you can likely guess from this post that I am not about to crucify the coaches alone for this loss. Make what you will of the numbers, if anyone can use these stats to show me how the game plan suddenly flipped from ultra aggressive to ultra conservative based on these numbers, please feel free to break it down for me. Just back it up with what is actually happening, not just what you feel is happening to match the narrative you have already created in your head to justify your bias.

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 20196 yr by TrueBlue4ever

31 minutes ago, Deiter Fan said:

There's a difference between fired up and over confident

Does anyone ever say..."Gee, I wish Willy didn't get so fired up after a sack. I wish he would just keep an even keel and got on with the job"?

Drew??  He got sacked a lot!  

I think there are examples of the pitfalls of both approaches. Hard to imagine a team has the same mental intensity up by 24 as they do in a one score game, so that is but one factor. And we have seen the Bombers "take their foot off the gas" a lot in the second half of games this year, and in the majority of cases it has not burned them. I think O'Shea was trying to convey the message "don't assume we are going to keep rolling and destroy them, don't think about padding your stats, just keep the focus on how we got the lead and play smart disciplined football" more so than "don't rub it in". Maybe it got lost in the translation and the players took it to mean "coast" rather than "don't play cocky and think it will be just as easy the second half". I can't say, I'm not in that locker room or in the players' or coach's head.

So playing soft can burn you as we saw, but also playing aggressive and running it up can backfire. Two examples I can think of are:

Bombers vs. Ticats a few years back. Back-to-back games, first one in Winnipeg. Bombers up by 14 points with the game wrapped up. Bombers take a knee to kill the clock then decide to kick a field goal on the final play of the game. The justification was "in the season series, point differential may make a difference, so we should try and secure as many points as possible", which in theory was right, but because the teams played 3 games that year against each other, only if one game ended in a tie would the point differential come into play, and the optics looked bad having already taken a knee in victory formation before the kick. Well, the Ticats played up the "disrespect" angle all week and came out guns blazing and blew the doors off of us the next week (think it was 28-0 in the second quarter or something along that line). Many commentators said that the 3 extra points we added in the first game were probably worth at least 7 against us the next time out. So that was an example where piling on and "swagger" and "bravado" came back to bite us.

The second example was the Falcons-Patriots Super Bowl. Birds up 28-3, and had been running at will all game, but kept up the aggressive air attack in an attempt to pile up the points rather than kill the clock with long time consuming run drives. Well, we know what happened. Interception leads to touchdown, more throws lead to less time taken off the clock on offence, and the Patriots gain momentum and claw back to win in OT.

31 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

So playing soft can burn you as we saw, but also playing aggressive and running it up can backfire.

While I don't necessarily disagree the only thing that matters is how has playing soft (for lack of a better term) been working for this particular regime over the last few seasons?

When even MOS is second guessing his attitude one has to wonder if perhaps it hasn't been having the desired effect.

You play to win the game. Plop in the 2nd half of games play calls to not lose it.  You can maintain winning seasons doing that, but you dont win championships that way. Thats how you get run out of town by the same team for a 3rd time. 

I’d like to see us take more chances on offence

because,

playing safe, hasn’t really worked out for us.

2 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

I’d like to see us take more chances on offence

because,

playing safe, hasn’t really worked out for us.

We stretch the field soo well side line to side line and through the running gaps throwing down field and at the seams would be huge. 

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

You play to win the game. Plop in the 2nd half of games play calls to not lose it.  You can maintain winning seasons doing that, but you dont win championships that way. Thats how you get run out of town by the same team for a 3rd time. 

Whatever team hires him this offseason as HC is going to live to regret it. He's all sizzle and no steak.

11 minutes ago, Dr Zaius said:

Whatever team hires him this offseason as HC is going to live to regret it. He's all sizzle and no steak.

I can see him frequently repeating a similar level of success to here, contender and play off team level offense. But over all the years he has been here he hasnt taken or even hinted at taking the next step forward to be able to play call for a championship team. 

If he was the OC and buck or some one else called the plays his offense could get it done.Its his adjustments, frequently out thinking himself and no one else, and passivity with a lead that hold him back. He got it done as a WR coach, but has been run out of every city hes been in. 

Honestly, I think the combination of LaPolice as OC and Hall as DC is a lousy one. Neither seem to complement one another as far as balance goes. We either see a super aggressive approach or a meek, conservative one. I don't get it.

And I'm starting to wonder if that combination will result in yet another missed opportunity come November.

33 minutes ago, Dr Zaius said:

Whatever team hires him this offseason as HC is going to live to regret it. He's all sizzle and no steak.

I'm not sure anyone, other than maybe Ottawa, will be looking for a HC for next year.  SK, TOR & BC have new coaches, if EDM makes the playoffs, Maas may be okay and get a pass with the Harris injury.

Redblacks can have him.... can't imagine what that would look like with their QB situation.

11 minutes ago, trueBlue83 said:

I'm not sure anyone, other than maybe Ottawa, will be looking for a HC for next year.  SK, TOR & BC have new coaches, if EDM makes the playoffs, Maas may be okay and get a pass with the Harris injury.

Redblacks can have him.... can't imagine what that would look like with their QB situation.

I could see montreal snatching him up.  With his past experience with khari, they now have an opening at OC, and both of them called plays in that stint as well. Could be a good marriage tbh, khari is aggressive down field and could compensate for Plops passivity. 

Shoulda just let Saskatchewan have him in the offseason.

11 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

I could see montreal snatching him up.  With his past experience with khari, they now have an opening at OC, and both of them called plays in that stint as well. Could be a good marriage tbh, khari is aggressive down field and could compensate for Plops passivity. 

Lapo is not the right coordinator for Adams... I think he'd work really well with Trevor Harris

5 minutes ago, Floyd said:

Lapo is not the right coordinator for Adams... I think he'd work really well with Trevor Harris

Is this the way it is with all co-ordinators? They only have one way/style of doing things and they aren't able to adjust to make the most of the players they have?

 

9 minutes ago, Deiter Fan said:

Is this the way it is with all coordinators? They only have one way/style of doing things and they aren't able to adjust to make the most of the players they have?

 

Only the dumb ones.

3 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Only the dumb ones.

Yeah that's kinda what I suspected

18 minutes ago, Deiter Fan said:

Is this the way it is with all co-ordinators? They only have one way/style of doing things and they aren't able to adjust to make the most of the players they have?

 

Not all, but there are lots of coaches that know how to coach one way and never change. 

10 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Not all, but there are lots of coaches that know how to coach one way and never change. 

I can see that. There are some boxers that are only able to fight one way and have successful careers...but being able to adjust your style based on your opponents proclivities tends to offer the best opportunity for success.

You need to keep your foot on the opposition's next all game if you can ala Matthews or Belichick.

Lapolice does less with more better than anyone.  It's actually remarkable how consistent his offense has been in stalling for entire quarters and halves over almost half a decade, like can score 3-4 TD's in little more than a quarter then in the same game not get a first down for a quarter.

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Not all, but there are lots of coaches that know how to coach one way and never 

Yup Lapo and Babcock are similar that way. Both are really good coaches but it feels they can get real stubborn at times in not adjusting their system when needed, sometimes to the peril of their respective teams. Lapo comes across as thinking he is the smartest guy in the room when it comes to his craft which sometimes isn't true. 

1 hour ago, rebusrankin said:

You need to keep your foot on the opposition's next all game if you can ala Matthews or Belichick.

A few years ago the Patriots went into Minneapolis to play the Vikings. That season, (don't remember the year) The Patriots had been run heavy, so the Vikings radio guys were saying all week the team had to figure out how to stop the Patriots running game.

Of course the Patriots threw the ball a bazillion times, and demolished the Vikings.😂

Belichicked.

 

Edited September 25, 20196 yr by Mark F

just watching the end of the replay of Saturday's game on TSN.... don't know why I'm putting myself through this, but needed to see again just what went wrong.

A few observations.... from 6+ mins left in, Bomber secondary is lining up 8-10 yards off the line and just giving them everything underneath, and more, because they're backing off as the receivers come to them.  Awful.

The last Bomber offensive play, you can tell wasn't a designed Run-Pass option, it was a designed Streveler run. You can see Darvin slowly jogs 5 yards and gets into run blocking position.  Maybe they get the first if they give it to Whitehead on the sweep.... but at that critical of a point, you can't be running a gimmick play.

Last Montreal drive, the fluke catch by Wieneke, when they slow it down and show the side angle, you can tell that the ball isn't in either of his hands... hence, has to be touching the ground.  How that isn't the indication it wasn't a catch is just brutal.  They rushed that review for sure.

The TD play with 11 seconds to go, looks like the Left Tackle moves before the ball is snapped.  No procedure call.

This whole 4th quarter was just a joke.  And now I wish never to speak of this game again!

You are a sadomasochist.... 

9 hours ago, Deiter Fan said:

While I don't necessarily disagree the only thing that matters is how has playing soft (for lack of a better term) been working for this particular regime over the last few seasons?

When even MOS is second guessing his attitude one has to wonder if perhaps it hasn't been having the desired effect.

 

8 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

I’d like to see us take more chances on offence

because,

playing safe, hasn’t really worked out for us.

According to O’Shea, we are 41-4 under him when winning the turnover battle. Playing safe (as opposed to playing soft) seems to have worked pretty well under him. No Grey Cups during that time might have something to do with the juggernaut called the Stamps as much as it does with lack of aggressiveness.