I'm not sure I've ever seen a player get ejected for spitting before.

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Total points or only offensive points?

For just offence, we've traded the lead back and forth with Winnipeg all season. For total points it's us.

1 hour ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Weird. We were told how they played us a few games back, i.e., starting Dukes, putting their high school qb in at a critical point, resting other starters normal cuz you know preseason.

Crock of ****. 

 

Home game. Wanted to be 9-0. Still sat some guys and hid the playbook (until the second half when Coach Mace decided he'd had enough BS and when on kill-mode).

2 hours ago, Jesse said:

Is this an average of starting field position over the course of the game?

Yup. 

1 minute ago, bluto said:

For just offence, we've traded the lead back and forth with Winnipeg all season. For total points it's us.

Home game. Wanted to be 9-0. Still sat some guys and hid the playbook (until the second half when Coach Mace decided he'd had enough BS and when on kill-mode).

I ain't picking up what you're laying down but sure keep selling it cuz some of us ain't buying it.

5 minutes ago, bluto said:

For just offence, we've traded the lead back and forth with Winnipeg all season. For total points it's us.

Home game. Wanted to be 9-0. Still sat some guys and hid the playbook (until the second half when Coach Mace decided he'd had enough BS and when on kill-mode).

Oh and the consistency argument you've been hocking here is out the door, on to the next rationalization.

3 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I ain't picking up what you're laying down but sure keep selling it cuz some of us ain't buying it.

Oh and the consistency argument you've been hocking here is out the door, on to the next rationalization.

If you watched the game, you saw the defence change completely in the 2nd half. They came out, attacked and got 7 Sacks. I guess being behind at half-time at home lit a fire under them.

And if anything, it disproves the common "you just can't turn it on and off" theory that was bandied about.

 

1 minute ago, bluto said:

If you watched the game, you saw the defence change completely in the 2nd half. They came out, attacked and got 7 Sacks. I guess being behind at half-time at home lit a fire under them.

And if anything, it disproves the common "you just can't turn it on and off" theory that was bandied about.

 

You're arguing in circles.

Just now, HardCoreBlue said:

You're arguing in circles.

You're coping.

Just now, bluto said:

You're coping.

With what? lol. Right you think I'm living rent free in your head or I'm triggered or whatever isms you usually think you're creating.

Don't you have a argo home to hang out at?

Hardly hiding anything..there nothing to hide....and what happened in that game was just total Ottawa choking and dieing as game went on...like most of theirs this yr

And wanted to maintain a 9-0 record at home is a crock ..who cares...they say their goofy QB against us as they didn't want him exposed...and neutralized by a legit defence...and hurt his frail lil psychic/ego...plain and simple

And what's with his B.S on sidelines toward his coaches...total disrespect and selfish attitude ...one among several there... previous to that knob tackle Cave...and other crap on sidelines...I smell an upset in the EF 

2 hours ago, bluto said:

Home game. Wanted to be 9-0. Still sat some guys and hid the playbook (until the second half when Coach Mace decided he'd had enough BS and when on kill-mode).

So they sucked on purpose?

Just like how Winnipeg likes to play soft defence in the first half of games to make them interesting in the second half.

Still waiting on someone to call Poulin's about the roach problem here.....

1 hour ago, WinnipegGordo said:

So they sucked on purpose?

Just like how Winnipeg likes to play soft defence in the first half of games to make them interesting in the second half.

Is the distinction between "sucked on purpose" and "not showing our hand" really that difficult?

 

It really is obvious if you watched (or go now and rewatch) last night's game. If you think Toronto's defence in the first half, which was as bland a vanilla Cover setup with nothing being disguised at all, was the same as the second half, football may just not be your game.

1 minute ago, bluto said:

Is the distinction between "sucked on purpose" and "not showing our hand" really that difficult?

 

It really is obvious if you watched (or go now and rewatch) last night's game. If you think Toronto's defence in the first half, which was as bland a vanilla Cover setup with nothing being disguised at all, was the same as the second half, football may just not be your game.

Well why go bland...any pro team this time of yr will have their way with it....run your schemes...nothing is secret now...and to try and all of a sudden show your "actual" Schemes..or philosophy at this time of yr...not knowing if it will be even successful is just idiotic and a recipe to get arse handed to you...Ottawa basically is a bad team...and almost pulled it out...but failed in end like all yr...not that T.O decided to try in last quarter

2 minutes ago, Booch said:

Well why go bland...any pro team this time of yr will have their way with it....run your schemes...nothing is secret now...and to try and all of a sudden show your "actual" Schemes..or philosophy at this time of yr...not knowing if it will be even successful is just idiotic and a recipe to get arse handed to you...Ottawa basically is a bad team...and almost pulled it out...but failed in end like all yr...not that T.O decided to try in last quarter

You keep saying that...

So why did your D go vanilla on us?

Edited October 15, 20232 yr by bluto

8 minutes ago, bluto said:

You keep saying that...

So why did your D go vanilla on us?

no clue why some teams seem to do that....we are what we are tho...if we change anything for push, it will be personnel in the scheme

11 minutes ago, bluto said:

You keep saying that...

So why did your D go vanilla on us?

 

1 minute ago, Booch said:

no clue why some teams seem to do that....we are what we are tho...if we change anything for push, it will be personnel in the scheme

Because tipping how you would play against us gives us hints how to beat you.

 

Football has changed. It's all about tape, tendencies and pre-snap reads. I'm a bit of a dinosaur myself, but I've come to recognize that this is how it's done now. Best practices, to borrow corporate jargon.

Showing your whole hand is just dumb. Hall isn't dumb. So he sat his defence back in plain Jane mode and didn't go after young Mr.Dukes.

Just now, bluto said:

 

Because tipping how you would play against us gives us hints how to beat you.

 

Football has changed. It's all about tape, tendencies and pre-snap reads. I'm a bit of a dinosaur myself, but I've come to recognize that this is how it's done now. Best practices, to borrow corporate jargon.

Showing your whole hand is just dumb. Hall isn't dumb. So he sat his defence back in plain Jane mode and didn't go after young Mr.Dukes.

yeah cant argue.....but Hall seems to have been doing this all yr for some reason...is it a plan...see how what they think a team will do against a certain scheme...then if need be...adapt it to what they have also practiced?...Kinda seems like our MO this yr

I have noticed at some practices I am at later in the yr that stuff we did on both sides of the ball in heavy rotation didn't...or barely saw the light of day in the game....everyones base philosophy is pretty much known now....and most run a similar thing...it's the diff nuances which will be interesting, and key....

This board will be a better place when the Argos lose in the East final.

5 hours ago, bluto said:

if anything, it disproves the common "you just can't turn it on and off" theory that was bandied about

Do it against someone who isn't Ottawa and then brag.

9 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Do it against someone who isn't Ottawa and then brag.

Fair enough.

 

Likely won't see it on the road in Sask or Ottawa... But you never know. The chance to potentially be 16-2 is still alive. They may end up lining up vanilla and switching to mocha almond fudge if they're in tough.

The Argos were certainly dealt an amazing hand schedule-wise.  There's 3 contending teams in the league including them.  They had two games in that bracket, home vs BC, here late September when it already didn't matter for them.  Didn't play great in Alberta but hardly had to play the West.

Guess luckily for them they won't have leave the (extended) GTA once they get out of Sask.

21 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Ch-ch-ch-changes. Just gonna have to be a different one. Time may change me. But I can't trace time... Do you really think the same players will be coming back next year? There'll be ch-ch-ch-changes. 

The only constant in life is change.

6 hours ago, bluto said:

So why did your D go vanilla on us?

Literally every game my buddies and I make a joke about seeing Ritchie Hall ordering ice cream before the game, went with the soft vanilla..... It's what he does, it's what he has always done. 

7 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Literally every game my buddies and I make a joke about seeing Ritchie Hall ordering ice cream before the game, went with the soft vanilla..... It's what he does, it's what he has always done. 

I'll trust your word on this... but it seemed passing odd to me that he only rushed the linemen at Dukes and never sent a blitz at all. 0 sacks then, and 0 sacks if they try that weaksauce again.

32 minutes ago, bluto said:

I'll trust your word on this... but it seemed passing odd to me that he only rushed the linemen at Dukes and never sent a blitz at all. 0 sacks then, and 0 sacks if they try that weaksauce again.

Hall doesn't disguise much anyway, his blitzes are simple. He's a good coordinator no doubt, but he relies on having the right people and the idea is entirely to make the qb throw short and force them to make a lot of plays to score. 

 

After as many years as he has been in the league Ritchie Hall isn't going to surprise anyone with anything new.

Hall has long been about keeping the play infront of the DBs and getting pressure with the DL. Mix in the occasional telegraphed LB or safety blitz. It has worked very well when our DL was consistently disrupting plays and forcing rushed passes. Now, with inconsistent pressure QBs have time to find receivers in the soft spots making it look like pitch and catch at times (far too often really).

I suspect sometimes that the telegraphed blitzes are an attempt to 'establish to pass rush' so to speak, so that when we show blitz but instead are dropping back into coverage the QB is much more likely to spot the blitz and bite, thinking a spot on the field is going to be open? I don't know. Maybe it's just about keeping it simple.

21 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Weird. We were told how they played us a few games back, i.e., starting Dukes, putting their high school qb in at a critical point, resting other starters normal cuz you know preseason.

Crock of ****. 

 

What? People need to get it that they rested Kelly so he wouldn't get hurt against the Bombers/Duke would get some quality reps. That's it. There was no hiding anything. They didn't rest him this weekend because it was a home game and they need butts in seats and to continue winning there. 

I don't get the sour grapes?

It's still **** the argos, it's still 1 and done in the playoffs for them.