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

22 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

No Grey Cups during that time

If I'm not mistaken he is now the 2nd longest serving coach in Bomber history and all we have to show for it is a .500 W/L record and one play-off win out of 4 tries.

Not slagging him but facts are facts.

Edited September 25, 20196 yr by Deiter Fan

12 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

 

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. 

We went through this before.......against the ole Edmonton dynasty

Hmm... trying to think of a team that has it's offensive and defensive philosophies and sticks to it no matter what.  Oh yeah, it's the Stampeders under Hufnagel.

He has been there long enough to know what types of players fit with his system and which do not. 

You should hear the Calgary fans complain when their team loses.  It sounds just like this group here.  

You might be surprised the way many there talk about BLM.  It doesn't sound anything like how other fan bases talk about him.

12 hours ago, Deiter Fan said:

If I'm not mistaken he is now the 2nd longest serving coach in Bomber history and all we have to show for it is a .500 W/L record and one play-off win out of 4 tries.

Not slagging him but facts are facts.

I've been watching this one as well. He has passed Dave Ritchie and trails Cal Murphy and Bud Grant. Some of the totals include playoff games. 

Don't see much talk about it but I believe both Walters and O'Shea's contracts are up or at least have not been announced as having been extended to my knowledge.

Giving O'Shea another 3 years could mean he passes Grant before winning a Grey Cup.  That has to qualify as having been given a chance. 

11 minutes ago, Carlos Harper said:

I've been watching this one as well. He has passed Dave Ritchie and trails Cal Murphy and Bud Grant. Some of the totals include playoff games. 

Don't see much talk about it but I believe both Walters and O'Shea's contracts are up or at least have not been announced as having been extended to my knowledge.

Giving O'Shea another 3 years could mean he passes Grant before winning a Grey Cup.  That has to qualify as having been given a chance. 

Walters contract is set up to expire a year after MOS......I believe MOS is up after this year, and then Walters after 2020. They won't look at anything until after this season has concluded. 

I believe it has been said many times before but to repeat you play to win not play to not lose there is a huge difference. It doesn't mean you have to run up the score but you do have to play call to move the ball and retain possession. Should you score a TD per quarter or a field goal here or there is different than kicking a 3 point field goal with less than a minute remaining up by 20. There is a difference and I have a hard time believing professional football players cannot grasp the difference between being level headed yet fired up and level headed and relaxing. Momentum as has been stated so often in this forum and on TV is a big thing in sports....it can carry you to victory when victory seems lost or losing momentum can lead to defeat when victory seemed secure. Surely MOS and LaPo and Hall understand that so why then do they lay back, become predictable. As has been said here almost appears they outthink themselves. Will we win in November, that remains to be seem but unless the coaches change their approach our momentum is lost I fear.

 

28 minutes ago, Carlos Harper said:

I've been watching this one as well. He has passed Dave Ritchie and trails Cal Murphy and Bud Grant. Some of the totals include playoff games. 

Don't see much talk about it but I believe both Walters and O'Shea's contracts are up or at least have not been announced as having been extended to my knowledge.

Giving O'Shea another 3 years could mean he passes Grant before winning a Grey Cup.  That has to qualify as having been given a chance. 

Yes. I didn't include Murphy because his stints were broken up but yes, technically the 3rd longest serving coach if we add Murphy's together.

In his defence he was raw as a HC when given the job and has, admittedly, gotten better over his tenure...but there appears to be a hurdle here that he is having difficulty clearing and this year especially it can't be blamed on talent...and I'm not sure talent can be blamed for the last couple of years.  A coach's job is to get the most out his players.

We've had consistency in the coaching positions and the QB spot so we can't blame it all on turnover in important areas.

If he doesn't get us to the Cup this year given all the pieces he's been provided at what point do we begin to discuss the possibility that the issue is his coaching philosophies?

1 hour ago, Deiter Fan said:

Yes. I didn't include Murphy because his stints were broken up but yes, technically the 3rd longest serving coach if we add Murphy's together.

In his defence he was raw as a HC when given the job and has, admittedly, gotten better over his tenure...but there appears to be a hurdle here that he is having difficulty clearing and this year especially it can't be blamed on talent...and I'm not sure talent can be blamed for the last couple of years.  A coach's job is to get the most out his players.

We've had consistency in the coaching positions and the QB spot so we can't blame it all on turnover in important areas.

If he doesn't get us to the Cup this year given all the pieces he's been provided at what point do we begin to discuss the possibility that the issue is his coaching philosophies?

Not only was he raw as an HC when he got the job... the team was a dumpster fire due to bad mgmt and a revolving door of coaches and GM's.  Walters and O'shea decided to try and build a consistent championship contender, which means not pulling a Taman and trading away all your draft picks on aging vets.

That combination was going to end up in ALOT of losses for their first couple of years (combined with the fact we really didn't have a QB until we acquired Nichols)

1 hour ago, Deiter Fan said:

Yes. I didn't include Murphy because his stints were broken up but yes, technically the 3rd longest serving coach if we add Murphy's together.

In his defence he was raw as a HC when given the job and has, admittedly, gotten better over his tenure...but there appears to be a hurdle here that he is having difficulty clearing and this year especially it can't be blamed on talent...and I'm not sure talent can be blamed for the last couple of years.  A coach's job is to get the most out his players.

We've had consistency in the coaching positions and the QB spot so we can't blame it all on turnover in important areas.

If he doesn't get us to the Cup this year given all the pieces he's been provided at what point do we begin to discuss the possibility that the issue is his coaching philosophies?

I'm not sure you can. A failed coaching philosophy wouldn't produce the amount of wins he has. His loss total isn't much better, but that has a lot to do with what he had to build to get the team to this point. His last three years have been just shy of great.
People can point to playoff losses. I'm one of them. That's all that matters and it is inflated in WPG due to the drought. But in a one game winner takes all format. The best teams aren't always going to win. That's exactly the reason why the drought is still going on. So while I don't like one and done post seasons, I would need to see a lot more losses during the regular season to be ready to move on from MOS.

21 hours 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. 

I can't see Lapolice in Mtrl... he's looking for a head coaching role and winning Coach of the Year is probably going to mean Khari gets to lose the "interim" in his title.  MTRL will be hiring an OC replacement, not a Head coach.

2 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

I would need to see a lot more losses during the regular season to be ready to move on from MOS.

Fair enough.

Just to be clear to all members here I'm not advocating that we do...or not do...something. To be honest while I've followed this team since the 70s it's never been a hobby for me like it has for some of the more learned members here. My comments in many instances are not coming from a place of deep knowledge of the intricacies of the game but rather from the point of an interested/invested observer.

I may be a student of the human condition/tendencies and feel I can speak confidently about that aspect but not the complicated ins and outs of the game...so please don't take my comments as dismissive or arrogant. They are certainly not intended that way.

Edited September 25, 20196 yr by Deiter Fan

3 hours ago, Deiter Fan said:

Fair enough.

Just to be clear to all members here I'm not advocating that we do...or not do...something. To be honest while I've followed this team since the 70s it's never been a hobby for me like it has for some of the more learned members here. My comments in many instances are not coming from a place of deep knowledge of the intricacies of the game but rather from the point of an interested/invested observer.

I may be a student of the human condition/tendencies and feel I can speak confidently about that aspect but not the complicated ins and outs of the game...so please don't take my comments as dismissive or arrogant. They are certainly not intended that way.

Ultimately MOS will move on or be shown the door. Timetable unknown. The adage coaches are hired to be fired rings true in most cases.

I don't think it's time to talk about letting O'Shea go. The team can still easily go on to win the whole thing.

We won't see another let down like the last one. I doubt that it bugs anyone as much as it does O'Shea.

my thinking is it's going to be pedal to the metal from now on.

3 hours ago, Deiter Fan said:

Fair enough.

Just to be clear to all members here I'm not advocating that we do...or not do...something. To be honest while I've followed this team since the 70s it's never been a hobby for me like it has for some of the more learned members here. My comments in many instances are not coming from a place of deep knowledge of the intricacies of the game but rather from the point of an interested/invested observer.

I may be a student of the human condition/tendencies and feel I can speak confidently about that aspect but not the complicated ins and outs of the game...so please don't take my comments as dismissive or arrogant. They are certainly not intended that way.

What posts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:-)

34 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Ultimately MOS will move on or be shown the door. Timetable unknown. The adage coaches are hired to be fired rings true in most cases.

My thoughts/feelings on this entire situation are constantly evolving. I can't deny that our regular season records have been pretty good since he took over (the first 2 years not withstanding) so he obviously has skills as a coach...and it's probably accurate that he is likely to stay as long as that remains the case.

The fact is we really have little insight into how much influence he has on play calling on either side of the ball...how he runs the locker room (except for the tid-bit he let slip during the call in show this week which, frankly, surprised and concerned me a bit)...or any other number of things that may influence our performance.

In reality we simply have to take what we get and hope that at some point they make it to the show and come home with the Cup because god knows we have no control over it. That is probably what frustrates us the most.

Edited September 26, 20196 yr by Deiter Fan

I feel like it wasn't that long ago we were talking about giving MOS a lifetime contract around here.... 

Sanchez explains why Man 2 is a dumb play in the redzone. Our DBs didn't jam anyone, just let them cruise on by. Bad call + bad execution = gimme go ahead TD

https://www.cfl.ca/2019/09/25/chez-sez-analyzing-bombers-coverage-on-final-play-vs-montreal/

9 hours ago, Noeller said:

I feel like it wasn't that long ago we were talking about giving MOS a lifetime contract around here.... 

The coordinators are a bigger problem.....

10 minutes ago, do or die said:

The coordinators are a bigger problem.....

Right now I'd say our secondary is consistently our biggest problem.

23 minutes ago, do or die said:

The coordinators are a bigger problem.....

No matter if the coordinators are at fault- the person who hired and has kept them is equally responsible.

17 minutes ago, Tracker said:

No matter if the coordinators are at fault- the person who hired and has kept them is equally responsible.

Yup, if this continues

The secondary has looked like world beaters at times this season...but then there's times, like the final drive in Sask and in Montreal, where they look like they couldn't stop the Rifles from marching on them. Not sure what that means exactly...

15 hours ago, Deiter Fan said:

My thoughts/feelings on this entire situation are constantly evolving. I can't deny that our regular season records have been pretty good since he took over (the first 2 years not withstanding) so he obviously has skills as a coach...and it's probably accurate that he is likely to stay as long as that remains the case.

The fact is we really have little insight into how much influence he has on play calling on either side of the ball...how he runs the locker room (except for the tid-bit he let slip during the call in show this week which, frankly, surprised and concerned me a bit)...or any other number of things that may influence our performance.

In reality we simply have to take what we get and hope that at some point they make it to the show and come home with the Cup because god knows we have no control over it. That is probably what frustrates us the most.

What was said? I missed it.

13 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

What was said? I missed it.

Paraphrasing...

The guys came in at half-time all fired up over the lead talking about how they were going to run it up in the second half and I told them to calm down and re-focus...which is what good coaches are supposed to do, right? Maybe that was the wrong thing to do. Maybe I should have let them feed off their bravado.

Players feed off momentum and he wanted them to forget about all the momentum they built up in the first half and go out as if it was zero-zero.

Edited September 26, 20196 yr by Deiter Fan

6 minutes ago, Deiter Fan said:

Paraphrasing...

The guys came in at half-time all fired up over the lead talking about how they were going to run it up in the second half and I told them to calm down and re-focus...which is what good coaches are supposed to do, right? Maybe that was the wrong thing to do. Maybe I should have let them feed off their bravado.

Players feed off momentum and he wanted them to forget about all the momentum they built up in the first half and go out as if it was zero-zero.

That's not what he said.