1 collaros. Didn’t play well enough to win 

2 hall idiotic blitz calls that cost us the game 

3 mos roster management. No extra cover db, terrible punter, not pulling Zach, Jackson, playing biggie, no dl rotation, not starting Eli at c. Onside punt too lmao. 
 

dishonourable mention to buck for calling about 1/3 of a good game. Houston’s poor tackling too. 
 

Brady lawler Demski holm Eli gauthier Jackson Cole wj and grant played well. Gauthier especially. Biggie and kyrie were not in our top 3 best lbers tnite. Points to roadhouse for gutting out a tough one. 

45 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Watch it again. The db has his back to the sideline while Demski is running by him. Put it to the sideline and demski is either getting in or getting close and Prukop is getting in.

No I think jbr is right, db read collaros the whole way and went where the ball was going. He looks to demski the db goes there. Either option there was a chance for a score IMO, just needed better placement on the ball. I know some people say Lawler could have caught it... but then simplest thing is to put the ball to the back of the endzone and avoid the coverage all together. 

 

Should of dumped it to Demski or thrown the ball into the back corner.   It was under thrown. 

27 minutes ago, blue85gold said:

Are we talking about the same play? I was talking the INT in the endzone. He couldn't even get back to the ball because the throw was short of where it needed to be.

Not a perfect throw by any means, but the DB leaped for it and he didn't. The throw itself was easily in Lawler's catch radius. 9 times out of 10 - 8 & 89 make that a TD.

35 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Not a perfect throw by any means, but the DB leaped for it and he didn't. The throw itself was easily in Lawler's catch radius. 9 times out of 10 - 8 & 89 make that a TD.

Agree if the throw was a jump ball, Lawler would win it. No chance to leap backward through the DB to high point that ball.  Also agree that play should be a TD 9 times out of 10. Just not with that throw.

If he leads Demski and throws to the cone....only Demski gets it and its an easy score....or down at around the one....missed opportunity

I know what cost us these last two Grey cups.
 

Those god damned hockey jersey alternates. Just the fact that they exist. Messing with the uniforms was bad juju. 

Well I had a great time at the grey cup. I’ll be in detox for the next week.
 

Gotta say (sorry in advance to any Hamiltonians) but what a **** hole. Felt like Detroit. What a weird spot for a stadium. 

I don’t have much else to say that hasn’t already been said.  As a past coach one thing I can’t get out of my head is…

Dressing Schoen and Bighill was beyond stupid. Makes player safety look like a joke. Any player wants to play for their teammates and bring home the cup - heck, back in the day I’d have played no matter what shape I was in. It takes a responsible staff to say no and think of their future….. They’re obviously not going to play to their full potential, and then if they go down, they just used a whole roster spot.

DB made a great play on a slightly underthrown ball. Should have been thrown to Demksi IMO. 

23 hours ago, blue85gold said:

Agree if the throw was a jump ball, Lawler would win it. No chance to leap backward through the DB to high point that ball.  Also agree that play should be a TD 9 times out of 10. Just not with that throw.

It was mostly a very good play by the DB.  

On 2023-11-20 at 8:25 PM, 17to85 said:

No I think jbr is right, db read collaros the whole way and went where the ball was going. He looks to demski the db goes there. Either option there was a chance for a score IMO, just needed better placement on the ball. I know some people say Lawler could have caught it... but then simplest thing is to put the ball to the back of the endzone and avoid the coverage all together. 

I was not a big fan of passing the ball to anyone. Wanted to see Brady ball right there.

On 2023-11-20 at 9:34 PM, Booch said:

If he leads Demski and throws to the cone....only Demski gets it and its an easy score....or down at around the one....missed opportunity

It was a poor read, no doubt about. It was also a piss poor play call imo.

11 hours ago, Mark H. said:

It was mostly a very good play by the DB.  

It was a superb play by the db, unfortunately put in the wrong location by ZC.

I think it was all covered. Zach should have either taken off or thrown it away and they kick the fg. 
Terrible play call at any rate. Running the ball would have made the most sense. 

From what I've read, it appears to me that O'Shea's plan was to dress and play Bighill only sparingly because of his injury. Am I right or wrong in that interprtation? Let's say I'm right, could O'Shea have then rostered Bighill as a "nationalized" American (still could have got plenty of snaps), dropped one of the marginal Canadians and dressed another American, say a DB like Rose?

25 minutes ago, Slimy Sculpin said:

From what I've read, it appears to me that O'Shea's plan was to dress and play Bighill only sparingly because of his injury. Am I right or wrong in that interprtation? Let's say I'm right, could O'Shea have then rostered Bighill as a "nationalized" American (still could have got plenty of snaps), dropped one of the marginal Canadians and dressed another American, say a DB like Rose?

I think you're incorrect but it could be that I'm incorrect in my interpretation of that rule.

My understanding is that a Nationalized import can replace a Canadian for a number of plays. OTOH, it doesn't mean you can add an additional import to the roster as you suggest. Number of imports is a fixed number.

For an import to come on one would have to come off. 

Jackson off. Rose in. 

Pretty simple 

Edited November 22, 20232 yr by Goalie

29 minutes ago, Blue In BC said:

I think you're incorrect but it could be that I'm incorrect in my interpretation of that rule.

My understanding is that a Nationalized import can replace a Canadian for a number of plays. OTOH, it doesn't mean you can add an additional import to the roster as you suggest. Number of imports is a fixed number.

From the CFL website:

"Each team may have a maximum of 45 players (min. 44), including three quarterbacks, at least one global player, 21 national players including one nationalized American. Teams can dress a maximum of 19 Americans not including quarterbacks and the nationalized American."

The way I interpret this is that, as an example, Bighill, an American, could have been designated as the nationalized American and be included in the group of 21 nationals (one national would have to be dropped). Since the 19 Americans no longer includes Bighill's spot another can then be rostered. A caveat is that this nationalized American can only play 23 plays.

39 minutes ago, Slimy Sculpin said:

From the CFL website:

"Each team may have a maximum of 45 players (min. 44), including three quarterbacks, at least one global player, 21 national players including one nationalized American. Teams can dress a maximum of 19 Americans not including quarterbacks and the nationalized American."

The way I interpret this is that, as an example, Bighill, an American, could have been designated as the nationalized American and be included in the group of 21 nationals (one national would have to be dropped). Since the 19 Americans no longer includes Bighill's spot another can then be rostered. A caveat is that this nationalized American can only play 23 plays.

That doesn't sound like a correct interpretation either. Excluding QB's there are 16 imports starting or on the roster even if a team decides to start more Canadians. Then there are 4 DI's. That's 20 imports + the QB's. not 19 + QB's.  The statement indicates ( to me ) that the nationalized import would be the # 20, just with a different category name. There was an allowance for one nationalized on each side of the ball. In the end 20 is 20 whether 2 are nationalized of just classified as imports.

Kind of smoke and mirrors. The only advantage is that the nationalized could replace a Canadian for a number of plays. IE: Bighill could have come in on a 34 defence with Thomas / Lawson going out for that play or plays.

The larger statement is that we didn't once use that approach in 2023. So I see that as more info that another import can't be added. It's a fixed number and it should be.  A few times or a few game in 2023 a 3rd Global could replace an import ratio wise as a trade off. Globals are effectively another form of DI.  Rarely does any team have a 3rd global better than a starting or DI import.

2 hours ago, Slimy Sculpin said:

From what I've read, it appears to me that O'Shea's plan was to dress and play Bighill only sparingly because of his injury. Am I right or wrong in that interprtation? Let's say I'm right, could O'Shea have then rostered Bighill as a "nationalized" American (still could have got plenty of snaps), dropped one of the marginal Canadians and dressed another American, say a DB like Rose?

This is what Bighill said and it just proves even further that he shouldn't have played at all.

Moving him in and out isn't a benefit to the team. It just creates more confusion.

46 minutes ago, Blue In BC said:

That doesn't sound like a correct interpretation either. Excluding QB's there are 16 imports starting or on the roster even if a team decides to start more Canadians. Then there are 4 DI's. That's 20 imports + the QB's. not 19 + QB's.  The statement indicates ( to me ) that the nationalized import would be the # 20, just with a different category name. There was an allowance for one nationalized on each side of the ball. In the end 20 is 20 whether 2 are nationalized of just classified as imports.

Kind of smoke and mirrors. The only advantage is that the nationalized could replace a Canadian for a number of plays. IE: Bighill could have come in on a 34 defence with Thomas / Lawson going out for that play or plays.

The larger statement is that we didn't once use that approach in 2023. So I see that as more info that another import can't be added. It's a fixed number and it should be.  A few times or a few game in 2023 a 3rd Global could replace an import ratio wise as a trade off. Globals are effectively another form of DI.  Rarely does any team have a 3rd global better than a starting or DI import.

Bighill could have subbed in for Gauthier, perfect scenario.

5 hours ago, JohnnyAbonny said:

I think it was all covered. Zach should have either taken off or thrown it away and they kick the fg. 
Terrible play call at any rate. Running the ball would have made the most sense. 

O'Shea talked about how they didnt want their offence to be predictable and thats why they threw the ball.

I agree though, in the last game of the season have Zach run with it.

2 hours ago, Jesse said:

This is what Bighill said and it just proves even further that he shouldn't have played at all.

Moving him in and out isn't a benefit to the team. It just creates more confusion.

exactly....that was a dumb idea to use him situationally....and this excuse that came out now that he was covering up for a miscommunication...well thats fine and plausible...that being said if it was Cole or Clements in his spot, they would have had the ability to cover and break that up...even with a 100 percent Biggie they are faster and more agile....just further confirmation that it was a stupid decision all around

 

1 hour ago, WinnipegGordo said:

O'Shea talked about how they didnt want their offence to be predictable and thats why they threw the ball.

I agree though, in the last game of the season have Zach run with it.

IF zc didnt try and force it, and actually threw the ball to lead Demski to the cone on the goaline, it was either a score....tackled at the one...or an incomplete pass...no way a db was gonna pick that...he forced a throw and we got burned...

On 2023-11-19 at 8:16 PM, do or die said:

1.  ZC
Olivera did his job....but the passing game just not good enough.   Becoming an alarming trend in Playoffs/Cups

 

How much did injuries play in the lack of a passing game? I'd say a lot. Now, blame MOS for not bringing in any wide receivers to be ready to go when needed. That's on him. BOO & Ambles never played. Why? Instead, we had Schoen who couldn't jump, cut or pull away on his routes & an injured Nic Demski. They really weren't difference makers but Osh played them anyway. I blame him for our passing woes as he's the HC. The final decisions on personnel are all his. 

I'm sorry but our roster for the Grey Cup was a clusterfuck. 

2 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I'm sorry but our roster for the Grey Cup was a clusterfuck. 

Exactly ....handing yourself a handicap by playing 2 injured players made NO sense ....and was nonsense

17 minutes ago, Stickem said:

Exactly ....handing yourself a handicap by playing 2 injured players made NO sense ....and was nonsense

well....8...Biggie and Schoen for sure...But Bailey and Demski were far far from being effective and able to run all the plays...we hand-cuffed our selves big time...Then factor in the uselesness of Jackson....Omitting Rose off the roster....Bennett who hardly saw field..Thomas...Thats 8 of your 46 who were handicapping us...Thats messed up anyway u slice and dice it

Edited November 27, 20232 yr by Booch