We played a much improved brand of football today against the Larks. Offense, Defense, and STs all stepped up to give us a much needed win. We eliminated a lot of the negatives from our game today. I think we wanted it more than our opponent and it showed. I think Lapo had a much improved game plan. I think our roster management was better. I think the QB play was better. The play of our secondary was better. We kept the penalties down and we are the least penalized team in the league. For us to have a chance of winning a championship we need to keep this going and we need to keep improving because there is definitely room for improvement. We still are not playing up to our potential.

One area I believe we need to improve if we are going to challenge the best teams in our league is the play between our QB and the receivers. 

It seems to me that if a QB throws a pass to a receiver that has one-on-one coverage, in other words, it's just a receiver and an isolated defensive back, then of those 2 players the receiver has a huge advantage and should come down with the ball the majority of the time. The receiver knows the route he is running and he knows where the ball is being thrown and it is much easier for him to see the ball being thrown and it's trajectory. The DB is at a disadvantage because he does not know the route and his vision of the football isn't as good as he often has to look back over his shoulder. My point is, the odds must be better than 50-50 that if anyone is going to catch that ball it should be the receiver.

During the 20 point comeback by the Argos, MBT threw numerous 50-50 balls and the Argo receivers came down with the majority of them. During the Montreal comeback from 24 points down the Montreal receivers came down with the majority of the 50-50 balls too. Here is what I don't understand. What is it about the way our offense works that if we throw a 50-50 ball it seems to yield an inordinate number of INTs? Why is it that with our receivers we rarely come down with a 50-50 ball? I've seen this with both Nichols and Streveler and I find it perplexing. A QB like Mike Reiley has had a very successful career throwing the 50-50 ball to his receivers. Why does this stategy seldom seem to work in our favour? It seems like every 50-50 ball we throw either gets knocked down or intercepted. Is there something about the way these passes are being thrown? Do the DBs somehow know exactly where these balls are being thrown? Or is there something that our receivers are doing or not doing that yields INTs?

I think if we can solve this riddle it'll enhance our chances of winning going down the stretch. 

Of course, I could be completely out to lunch about this 50-50 ball thing but I don't think so.

These aren't all 50-50 balls but a lot are. Check it out ...

 

2 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Well, I see Streveler's style as "if I have to throw, then I'll make the first read and then run" versus Nichols, who would go through his progressions. LaPo did adjust for Streveler in my mind, and it did work to an extent against Edmonton (although Willie Jefferson almost single-handedly won that game) and more so in the Banjo Bowl and in Montreal (4 TDs in the first 4 drives). The trouble is that it is easier to game plan against a runner at the QB position (I won't call him a running QB because he relies more on his running than passing, rather than using his legs as a weapon when the pass breaks down). You just get the MLB to spy the QB no matter what. Hamilton and Saskatchewan in the last 2 games both did that. So maybe Streveler needs to learn a different style as a QB, one that, you know, involves being able to throw more effectively, make better reads, and trust his progressions. Because other teams figured out how to defeat his run game. LaPo clearly had to make adjustments, and did so. Streveler will have to as well.

That's a given.  It's also what gives Big Chris a big potential upside.....as his passing game gets better he can run less....but when he does see that running opportunity he will totally exploit it for major yardage and even more first downs. 

4 hours ago, 17to85 said:

So how do we explain the slump Nichols had last season where he was throwing INTs all over the field?

It's not about which QB is playing, it's about an offensive coordinator who doesn't always put his players in the best position to succeed. The game plan against Montreal was good, the one against Saskatchewan was awful.

I don't think that it's a coincidence that the best game plans have happened the games Whitehead has been out. Not that I think Whitehead is a poor player, but I think the problem is how Lapo uses him (to a lesser extent with Demski too). Lapo gets cute with these players rather than using them like receivers. That's his biggest flaw. That and being passive to a fault. When he has to keep it simple it's fine. 

Nichols' slump last year in my mind was a mental thing, especially in the Banjo Bowl where he threw awful picks because he was forcing things, not because of the play call. The game in Montreal was going gangbusters for the offence until Streveler threw that late pick and momentum shifted with the Als' TD. Of course, not all his fault at all as the secondary couldn't cover to save their lives, but it was a factor.

Same against Hamilton. The defence put us behind the 8 ball for sure, but that Streveler pick when we could have gotten within a TD was all on him, not the play call.

The game in Saskatchewan, we managed to out-produce Sask. in offence, and blame LaPo all you want but you are kidding yourself if you think that and not Streveler's 3 turnovers in the red zone were the reason we lost.

I think also that posters need to re-consider the "weapons" we have. Whitehead for all his speed has not been getting separation on the DBs on his routes lately, so getting the ball into his hands in space seems like a good option, no? And I don't see Demski as the star wide receiver you do. Same goes for Wolitarsky and Petermann. They are decent, but not game-breakers. Our weapon is clearly Harris, and our offence is designed around him. I too would like to see more balance, but maybe it's personnel driven. After all, there was some panic about our receiving corps before Matthews was signed late, and he turned out to be a bust (and if LaPo is solely to blame for his failure, then why has he been benched in Montreal too?)

As for LaPo keeping it simple, yeah, the game plan is limit turnovers and we win games, Nichols excelled at that. And many here ***** when LaPo "outthinks himself and gets away from the game plan, and those same people ***** and moan when he "runs the predictable plays to Harris" and doesn't mix things up. So I see a lot of whining no matter how the game is called. Yet all his offense has done over the years is put up points and wins games with a non-marquee QB like Durant and Nichols. But that isn't enough excitement for some fans, I suppose. Me, I'll take efficient, boring wins, thank you very much.

Just go out and whip Calgary's a@@,   ok?

That's all I ask, dont care how it's done.😉

30 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Nichols' slump last year in my mind was a mental thing, especially in the Banjo Bowl where he threw awful picks because he was forcing things, not because of the play call. The game in Montreal was going gangbusters for the offence until Streveler threw that late pick and momentum shifted with the Als' TD. Of course, not all his fault at all as the secondary couldn't cover to save their lives, but it was a factor.

Same against Hamilton. The defence put us behind the 8 ball for sure, but that Streveler pick when we could have gotten within a TD was all on him, not the play call.

The game in Saskatchewan, we managed to out-produce Sask. in offence, and blame LaPo all you want but you are kidding yourself if you think that and not Streveler's 3 turnovers in the red zone were the reason we lost.

I think also that posters need to re-consider the "weapons" we have. Whitehead for all his speed has not been getting separation on the DBs on his routes lately, so getting the ball into his hands in space seems like a good option, no? And I don't see Demski as the star wide receiver you do. Same goes for Wolitarsky and Petermann. They are decent, but not game-breakers. Our weapon is clearly Harris, and our offence is designed around him. I too would like to see more balance, but maybe it's personnel driven. After all, there was some panic about our receiving corps before Matthews was signed late, and he turned out to be a bust (and if LaPo is solely to blame for his failure, then why has he been benched in Montreal too?)

As for LaPo keeping it simple, yeah, the game plan is limit turnovers and we win games, Nichols excelled at that. And many here ***** when LaPo "outthinks himself and gets away from the game plan, and those same people ***** and moan when he "runs the predictable plays to Harris" and doesn't mix things up. So I see a lot of whining no matter how the game is called. Yet all his offense has done over the years is put up points and wins games with a non-marquee QB like Durant and Nichols. But that isn't enough excitement for some fans, I suppose. Me, I'll take efficient, boring wins, thank you very much.

See and I don't think it's the play calls exactly, more like teams know exactly what is coming and stop it. Which is why 2 years in a row now this team has gone through a stretch of football at about the same time of year where they've turned the ball over an inordinate number of times. That I put on the offensive coordinator because yes in a vacuum you can look at it and always find a player fault. Anything will work if it's executed perfectly by the players, but you also need to keep a defence guessing to put guys in a position to succeed. 

Lapo is a problem for this team. He doesn't make it easy on the quarterbacks and he relies quite frankly on the offensive line winning their battles one on one and for Harris to drag people for big yardage. The guy is capable of calling a good game and putting a good gameplan together, but I also think that he has next to no in game awareness or ability to ensure that his team keeps the upper hand. 

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

 

I think also that posters need to re-consider the "weapons" we have. Whitehead for all his speed has not been getting separation on the DBs on his routes lately, so getting the ball into his hands in space seems like a good option, no? 

Ummmmm....if whitehead ain't getting open..... then no ?

14 hours ago, NorthernSkunk said:

Ummmmm....if whitehead ain't getting open..... then no ?

What I meant was, since he is not proving to be a deep threat and being able to create separation on his downfield routes despite this supposed speed, then give him those hitch screen passes at the line of scrimmage where he isn't covered, and see what he can do to make people miss once the ball is in his hands.

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

What I meant was, since he is not proving to be a deep threat and being able to create separation on his downfield routes despite this supposed speed, then give him those hitch screen passes at the line of scrimmage where he isn't covered, and see what he can do to make people miss once the ball is in his hands.

when was the last time they tried to go deep to the guy?

4 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

when was the last time they tried to go deep to the guy?

Exactly. Instead of using his speed they throw it to him at a standstill and expect him to treat it like a punt return where he dekes everybody out. 
In the last game, where Streveler was throwing to moving targets, we were much more effective.

6 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Exactly. Instead of using his speed they throw it to him at a standstill and expect him to treat it like a punt return where he dekes everybody out. 
In the last game, where Streveler was throwing to moving targets, we were much more effective.

I was discussing the state of the Bombers the other day and I flat out asked why we stopped pushing the ball deep as often. When was the last time they tried to send Adams downfield in a one on one matchup? Why don't they try letting Whitehead just run under a ball? The only deep shots I can really remember are to Demski and when Harris caught a pass from Adams. The deep ball might be the weakest part of Strevelers passing game, but come on, you gotta take some shots anyway to keep the D from camping on your short game. 

Saving the best deep shots for the playoffs.  Lapo is a wizard like that.

36 minutes ago, NorthernSkunk said:

Saving the best deep shots for the playoffs.  Lapo is a wizard like that.

and the ****** might be thinking that way. Fits his MO. 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

 When was the last time they tried to send Adams downfield in a one on one matchup?

Saturday afternoon when it was picked off in the endzone.

Edited October 16, 20196 yr by sweep the leg

1 minute ago, sweep the leg said:

Saturday night when it was picked off in the endzone.

On an underthrow. The one completed deep ball was also an underthrow. So was the second INT in Sask. At least in the Hamilton game Streveler's 2 deep attempts to open receivers were overthrows. It's nice to say push it deep, but we also have to execute the plays with either open receivers or on-target throws. And who knows how many drop back plays have a deep target as one of the options, but the QB opted not to take the shot? The OC can be responsible for many things, but running through progressions and taking the deep shot is not all on LaPo unless the play call is "throw it to this one guy no matter what because there is no secondary option". Now I don't have the playbook , so I don't know if that is the case in which case it is all his fault, but neither does anyone else who is certain that Streveler is not responsible because it has to be the play call and nothing else.

17 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

On an underthrow. The one completed deep ball was also an underthrow. So was the second INT in Sask. At least in the Hamilton game Streveler's 2 deep attempts to open receivers were overthrows. It's nice to say push it deep, but we also have to execute the plays with either open receivers or on-target throws. And who knows how many drop back plays have a deep target as one of the options, but the QB opted not to take the shot? The OC can be responsible for many things, but running through progressions and taking the deep shot is not all on LaPo unless the play call is "throw it to this one guy no matter what because there is no secondary option". Now I don't have the playbook , so I don't know if that is the case in which case it is all his fault, but neither does anyone else who is certain that Streveler is not responsible because it has to be the play call and nothing else.

When Matty wasn't completing long throws it was the recievers fault.... is that not still possible as well ?

Just now, NorthernSkunk said:

When Matty wasn't completing long throws it was the recievers fault.... is that not still possible as well ?

Yep. That first INT on the deep toss to Adams was an underthrow, but I put responsibility on Adams for not adjusting to or fighting for the ball. And I liked the decision to push for the end zone late in the half, it just wasn't executed well, and I can live with a physical mistake once in a while. It's the mental error of throwing into triple coverage or not looking off the DB and telegraphing the throw that needs to be corrected. But again. that is not the coordinator putting the QB in a position to fail, it's just a lack of execution on a certain play.

2 hours ago, sweep the leg said:

Saturday afternoon when it was picked off in the endzone.

That was in the redzone, I know people like to use 20 or 25 yard throws as deep but I'm talking about something not into the endzone here.

Bomber d regresses as soon as Hall takes the reigns.

9 minutes ago, captaincanuck12 said:

Bomber d regresses as soon as Hall takes the reigns.

Nope... Finally played a competent offense. Sask is garbage and Mtl was bad last week. 

On 2019-10-15 at 3:46 PM, TrueBlue4ever said:

Well, I see Streveler's style as "if I have to throw, then I'll make the first read and then run" versus Nichols, who would go through his progressions. LaPo did adjust for Streveler in my mind, and it did work to an extent against Edmonton (although Willie Jefferson almost single-handedly won that game) and more so in the Banjo Bowl and in Montreal (4 TDs in the first 4 drives). The trouble is that it is easier to game plan against a runner at the QB position (I won't call him a running QB because he relies more on his running than passing, rather than using his legs as a weapon when the pass breaks down). You just get the MLB to spy the QB no matter what. Hamilton and Saskatchewan in the last 2 games both did that. So maybe Streveler needs to learn a different style as a QB, one that, you know, involves being able to throw more effectively, make better reads, and trust his progressions. Because other teams figured out how to defeat his run game. LaPo clearly had to make adjustments, and did so. Streveler will have to as well.

What? Nichols went through his progressions? Is that why he always checked down to Harris? 

26 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Nope... Finally played a competent offense. Sask is garbage and Mtl was bad last week. 

So in other words still not good enough and the result is as we should have expected 😢