GDT - Toronto Argonauts @ Winnipeg Blue Bombers

[GCn20]

Just now, Goalie said:

I tend to agree cuz ppl ***** when they don’t go for it and kick the fg always. I mean it’s kinda lose lose all the time. 

We could easily have played very conservatively as well, and maybe should have, but if you are going to go out and continue through and play then you see what the defence gives you and play from there.

[Booch]

1 minute ago, Goalie said:

I tend to agree cuz ppl ***** when they don’t go for it and kick the fg always. I mean it’s kinda lose lose all the time. 

but also have to consider circumstance...down and distance...position...I agree....we have to be more ballsy (said it many times myself) but also do it at appropriate/opportune times....that really was neither....and going up 2 scores guaranteed with time left on clock...was the better move in that particular game....opening quarter?.....sure....Hogan is out of his league right now, and then vilifying a player on top of it...bad look...especially when Osh's Mantra is to not criticize a player even when warranted...tho he also never owns up to making a wrong call either...so this incident isnt really that shocking and may be indicative that things all around are not as tight as they were, or as some like to believe, and maybe some frustrations are bubbling out

[GCn20]

6 minutes ago, Booch said:

well the choose receiver too for that call may have also been an issue...still though with leagues best RB would it not been better to take 2 runs at it and depending how close u were on 3rd down gamble?.....or just kick the 3 and nake it a 2 score game?....

All throughout a game a defence will present looks that can be exploited...that being said they also are playing the game too and can make a play...and the DB there made a solid play....and had a size mismatch to boot...

Not going to argue with that, but at that point of the game if we choose to be aggressive I am ok with it too. It turned out badly, but could have been the nail in the coffin making it garbage time if it works. I am OK with the play call at that time of the game, but the QB need to launch it thru the back of the end zone if the guy is not wide open all by himself. That's where i have the problem with the play. Try it out on 1st down, if the play is not there fine. We didn't need yardage so have a look at salting it away. Streveler needed to have more cognizance of the situation and the OC needs to make him more aware of the in game situational result he is looking for. The problem I have is not with the play call, it is with the players lack of situational awareness and overall execution. If Strev drops back sees that his man is not open and launches it into the 3rd row, we are hailing him as savvy and Hogan as smart for taking a look at maybe salting it away.

Edited 5 hours ago by GCn20

[Bigblue204]

4 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Every play call in the world is wrong if it doesn't work out? Nope. Hogan's right, the defence presented us with pass being the right call. Execution was the problem not play call.

Can't blame the play call for poor execution. 

100% you can.

Play calls should absolutely take match ups into consideration so the execution is more likely than not. Our shortest WR going for what should have been a back of the endzone catch against a corner who had what 4 or 5 inches on him is a bad match up. The execution was also poor. 

Hindsight is what it is...but in that situation even if you ignore the clock and the score...to also ignore the way your QB has been playing as well as the previous turnovers (vs CGY) in the redzone it just makes the call even worse. 

[Blue28]

6 minutes ago, Booch said:

well the choose receiver too for that call may have also been an issue...still though with leagues best RB would it not been better to take 2 runs at it and depending how close u were on 3rd down gamble?.....or just kick the 3 and nake it a 2 score game?....

All throughout a game a defence will present looks that can be exploited...that being said they also are playing the game too and can make a play...and the DB there made a solid play....and had a size mismatch to boot...

 

1 minute ago, Booch said:

but also have to consider circumstance...down and distance...position...I agree....we have to be more ballsy (said it many times myself) but also do it at appropriate/opportune times....that really was neither....and going up 2 scores guaranteed with time left on clock...was the better move in that particular game....opening quarter?.....sure....Hogan is out of his league right now, and then vilifying a player on top of it...bad look...especially when Osh's Mantra is to not criticize a player even when warranted...tho he also never owns up to making a wrong call either...so this incident isnt really that shocking and may be indicative that things all around are not as tight as they were, or as some like to believe, and maybe some frustrations are bubbling out

Timing of the play was the issue. With three minutes left - the Bombers could have run 2 running plays and then kicked a FG, going up 9 points with then 2 minutes left. Much better situation. If the Bombers scored a TD, they would have been up 13 points...which is STILL a 2 score game.... there was little difference in either scenario... ultimately - it was a terrible coaching decision - followed up by a bad read and poor execution. 

[Booch]

4 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

We could easily have played very conservatively as well, and maybe should have, but if you are going to go out and continue through and play then you see what the defence gives you and play from there.

Yeah should have been a call that could been changed at line when they saw who/what coverage...or had 2 options...that was a 1 option throw it there regardless of what was seen on field...and the QB gets to wear the horns...If that was Lawler...Schoen....heck even Wheatfall that catch may have been made, ZC has had a lot of success and TD's scored with throws way worse than that but got bailed out...Strev didnt get bailed out...It wasn't that bad a throw really and a bigger...more apt to win 50/50 battle balls  likely makes that catch...our receiver on that play is not that kinda guy

[GCn20]

2 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

100% you can.

Play calls should absolutely take match ups into consideration so the execution is more likely than not. Our shortest WR going for what should have been a back of the endzone catch against a corner who had what 4 or 5 inches on him is a bad match up. The execution was also poor. 

Hindsight is what it is...but in that situation even if you ignore the clock and the score...to also ignore the way your QB has been playing as well as the previous turnovers (vs CGY) in the redzone it just makes the call even worse. 

No you can't. It's a throw that was unecessary, and that is execution. Just because you call a passing play doesn't mean the QB has to put up a 50/50 ball.

[Booch]

3 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

Not going to argue with that, but at that point of the game if we choose to be aggressive I am ok with it too. It turned out badly, but could have been the nail in the coffin making it garbage time if it works. I am OK with the play call at that time of the game, but the QB need to launch it thru the back of the end zone if the guy is not wide open all by himself. That's where i have the problem with the play. Try it out on 1st down, if the play is not there fine. We didn't need yardage so have a look at salting it away. Streveler needed to have more cognizance of the situation and the OC needs to make him more aware of the in game situational result he is looking for. The problem I have is not with the play call, it is with the players lack of situational awareness and overall execution. If Strev drops back sees that his man is not open and launches it into the 3rd row, we are hailing him as savvy and Hogan as smart for taking a look at maybe salting it away.

oh agree...and comes down to position on field and player package...that should have been tossed to opposite side of field and to a mismatch in our advantage...I like a coach with plums....that tho should have been a call at the line that if a certain coverage was shown there was a second option....I dont think we had anything other than take that shot...but who knows....I think Hogan needs to take a backseat right now to Jackson even if they dont officially announce it

[GCn20]

2 minutes ago, Booch said:

Yeah should have been a call that could been changed at line when they saw who/what coverage...or had 2 options...that was a 1 option throw it there regardless of what was seen on field...and the QB gets to wear the horns...If that was Lawler...Schoen....heck even Wheatfall that catch may have been made, ZC has had a lot of success and TD's scored with throws way worse than that but got bailed out...Strev didnt get bailed out...It wasn't that bad a throw really and a bigger...more apt to win 50/50 battle balls  likely makes that catch...our receiver on that play is not that kinda guy

The QB needed to either audible off that play, or throw the ball into the 3rd row or somewhere that only his guy had a remote shot at. A 50/50 was a stupid throw to make in that game situation.

[Booch]

5 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

100% you can.

Play calls should absolutely take match ups into consideration so the execution is more likely than not. Our shortest WR going for what should have been a back of the endzone catch against a corner who had what 4 or 5 inches on him is a bad match up. The execution was also poor. 

Hindsight is what it is...but in that situation even if you ignore the clock and the score...to also ignore the way your QB has been playing as well as the previous turnovers (vs CGY) in the redzone it just makes the call even worse. 

yeah...as what I trying to convey....was wrong side of endzone to throw that pass too....had to basically be a perfect pass, but even then the mismatch may have still sunk it

[GCn20]

Just now, Booch said:

oh agree...and comes down to position on field and player package...that should have been tossed to opposite side of field and to a mismatch in our advantage...I like a coach with plums....that tho should have been a call at the line that if a certain coverage was shown there was a second option....I dont think we had anything other than take that shot...but who knows....I think Hogan needs to take a backseat right now to Jackson even if they dont officially announce it

I do agree the play design wasn't great, but I really believe that in that situation the QB really needs to be cognizant that there can be no interception on that play. 

1 minute ago, Booch said:

yeah...as what I trying to convey....was wrong side of endzone to throw that pass too....had to basically be a perfect pass, but even then the mismatch may have still sunk it

If you don't get the matchup you desire on that play you take the incompletion. A QB has to have that situational awareness, and the OC needs to remind him as well. I have no issue with the play call. Take a look see if you can get a guy lost in coverage, but if you dont the fans should be getting a souvenir. An interception on a 50/50 ball is on the QB. That is a throw that should never have happened.

[Booch]

2 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

The QB needed to either audible off that play, or throw the ball into the 3rd row or somewhere that only his guy had a remote shot at. A 50/50 was a stupid throw to make in that game situation.

the right receiver likely could have made that...and who knows if he had the liberty there to call an audible....they may have said this is what we want.....hard to say....But Perfect high point throw there....or high backside toss...Sterns isnt the guy for that kind of play....so the playcall design right from get go was destined to fail regardless...I put that all on Hogan

[GCn20]

2 minutes ago, Booch said:

the right receiver likely could have made that...and who knows if he had the liberty there to call an audible....they may have said this is what we want.....hard to say....But Perfect high point throw there....or high backside toss...Sterns isnt the guy for that kind of play....so the play call design right from get go was destined to fail regardless...I put that all on Hogan

If it isn't automatic then you launch it into the 3rd row. I am no fan of any play call asking a 5'8 receiver to climb the ladder either, and I can't imagine that they are particularly successful with it in practice either. I am assuming that Hogan saw something in the D alignment he wanted to go after and it wasn't there. In that case the QB has to be aware and not throw that ball. There is only one really bad outcome on that play and it is interception. Completion or incompletion are the desired outcomes of that play. 

Edited 5 hours ago by GCn20

[Booch]

3 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I do agree the play design wasn't great, but I really believe that in that situation the QB really needs to be cognizant that there can be no interception on that play. 

If you don't get the matchup you desire on that play you take the incompletion. A QB has to have that situational awareness, and the OC needs to remind him as well. I have no issue with the play call. Take a look see if you can get a guy lost in coverage, but if you dont the fans should be getting a souvenir. An interception on a 50/50 ball is on the QB. That is a throw that should never have happened.

oh agree....both our QB's need tom do a better job of that...the last 2 seasons ZC has prob been worse....so is that coaching?...I would lean more to that as I don't think both our QB' have become that dumb...and I guess if we wanna spin it in a positive at least they trying to get a score hahahaah

[Bigblue204]

11 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

No you can't. It's a throw that was unecessary, and that is execution. Just because you call a passing play doesn't mean the QB has to put up a 50/50 ball.

exactly. Hogan needs to recognize that pre snap as well. The play should never have been called because it was a completely unnecessary call. At best you score and give them the ball back with plenty of time to pull off a come back. At worst...well.

[GCn20]

5 minutes ago, Booch said:

oh agree....both our QB's need tom do a better job of that...the last 2 seasons ZC has prob been worse....so is that coaching?...I would lean more to that as I don't think both our QB' have become that dumb...and I guess if we wanna spin it in a positive at least they trying to get a score hahahaah

I really think we need to peel back the green light we have given our QBs to go after it. That is 100% coaching. Collaros didn't suddenly become an interception machine. We had Lapolice and we would play safely to a fault, Buck went entirely too far the other direction, and now Hogan seems to be saying Buck hold my beer when it comes to allowing QBs carte blanche.

2 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

exactly. Hogan needs to recognize that pre snap as well. The play should never have been called because it was a completely unnecessary call. At best you score and give them the ball back with plenty of time to pull off a come back. At worst...well.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the play call to have a look and see if you can iso a receiver as long as the QB plays with situational awareness. Hogan can't possibly know that pre-snap. That is up to Strev to read.

Edited 5 hours ago by GCn20

[ShyGuy]

Who knows who is really to blame but they really need to figure out what is going on in the red zone.

Streveler the only QB in the league with multiple red zone INTs, and with the one that Collaros has the Bombers have 50% of all red zone picks thrown this year. On a team where the offense seems to sputter more often than not, you absolutely need to have those points. Even if you just get field goals there, you are going from third last in the league for PPG, to 3rd best.

[GCn20]

9 minutes ago, ShyGuy said:

Who knows who is really to blame but they really need to figure out what is going on in the red zone.

Streveler the only QB in the league with multiple red zone INTs, and with the one that Collaros has the Bombers have 50% of all red zone picks thrown this year. On a team where the offense seems to sputter more often than not, you absolutely need to have those points. Even if you just get field goals there, you are going from third last in the league for PPG, to 3rd best.

I agree. I have no issue with Hogan's play call in that situation but the play design does not appear to be a particularly good one.  However, that being said we don't have much of a receiving crew to work with. I do think we would be celebrating a Kenny Lawler TD with same play call and him as the primary though. Walters has really bungled our receiving corps. Used to be the league envy, now its a joke.

Edited 5 hours ago by GCn20

[Booch]

3 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I agree. I have no issue with Hogan's play call in that situation but the play design does not appear to be a particularly good one.  However, that being said we don't have much of a receiving crew to work with.

scrap it all...run the veer with Strev hahahaha

Also a good way to make a struggling Oline that much better....But we'd definately need to swap Kolo with Eli to run it

[GCn20]

Just now, Booch said:

scrap it all...run the veer with Strev hahahaha

Also a good way to make a struggling Oline that much better....But we'd definately need to swap Kolo with Eli to run it

I don't think Eli is the answer either. However, I can't see what it would hurt to have a look.

[Booch]

3 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

I don't think Eli is the answer either. However, I can't see what it would hurt to have a look.

Cant know until we give him a couple full games in a row....I think tho we'd see a big difference....who knows tho if we get that chance to see it that....The recent moves on defense were surprising and the out right release of London Bridges was to be honest...almost shocking...so never know

[GCn20]

Just now, Booch said:

Cant know until we give him a couple full games in a row....I think tho we'd see a big difference....who knows tho if we get that chance to see it that....The recent moves on defense were surprising and the out right release of London Bridges was to be honest...almost shocking...so never know

Not shocking at all when it comes to Bridges. I don't think any coach could possibly have faith in him anymore. It was between the ears mistakes that cost him his job, and the kind that no pro should ever make.

[Bigblue204]

31 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the play call to have a look and see if you can iso a receiver as long as the QB plays with situational awareness. Hogan can't possibly know that pre-snap. That is up to Strev to read.

I was speaking of presnap awareness of who that play is going to and how the QBs have played not only through that game but previous ones as well. Hogan knew that was drawn up to go after our shortest WR and that Strev wasn't playing well that game and had previously made poor choices when throwing in the redzone. That should have all added up to, keep it on the ground and lets hope we score that way if not...we still make it a 2 score game with a lot less time on the clock. It was a bad play call with bad execution.  

[GCn20]

25 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I was speaking of presnap awareness of who that play is going to and how the QBs have played not only through that game but previous ones as well. Hogan knew that was drawn up to go after our shortest WR and that Strev wasn't playing well that game and had previously made poor choices when throwing in the redzone. That should have all added up to, keep it on the ground and lets hope we score that way if not...we still make it a 2 score game with a lot less time on the clock. It was a bad play call with bad execution.  

It all depends on what Hogan was seeing in that situation previously. It's not necessarily a bad decision if that formation was seeing different coverage previously. We don't know. At the end of the day a play call was made with Sterns as the primary in that situation. Most times that happens it's because in a similar situation the OC noticed something defensively that led him to believe that the play could be successful. Toronto likely adjusted their defence and Strev did not read the situation well.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with testing whether the defence noticed what you noticed, however, what absolutely has to happen is the QB has to notice. When a 50/50 ball is thrown in that situation I don't blame the OC for running a bad play. QBs always have the option to throw the ball away and in that situation it is coached as the better option than throwing the 50/50. I guarantee you that Hogan did not run that play on the hopes of Sterns coming up with the 50/50, and I can guarantee that he did not coach Strev or Collaros that this is right play. I believe if Collaros is our QB he either throws it away, takes the sack. or goes off his 1st read and tried to make something else happen. This was a poor mental decision on the part of Strev. 

The decision to run a passing play is a good one if the QB goes into it with the situational awareness that a TD would be a bonus but I can't take a risk with anything less than a sure thing. That is the type of discipline our QBs are lacking right now and why we lead the league in turnovers by a whopping margin. We are throwing balls into coverage that have very poor chances of success. That is poor play design, not calling, but more importantly poor decision making by our QBs. There is always a 2nd and 3rd read on every play. 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by GCn20