gbill2004 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 If you have some DL who can get pressure without needing to send 3 or 4 extra blitzers your team is better off. With Anderson injured and Vega playing hurt all year and having a crappy season and Peach being not so great to start with it really put this defense in a bad spot. It is critical that they upgrade the defensive line or it won't matter who is calling the defense. Agreed. Peach can stay but he should be playing a much smaller role than he did this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 If you have some DL who can get pressure without needing to send 3 or 4 extra blitzers your team is better off. With Anderson injured and Vega playing hurt all year and having a crappy season and Peach being not so great to start with it really put this defense in a bad spot. It is critical that they upgrade the defensive line or it won't matter who is calling the defense. Agreed. Peach can stay but he should be playing a much smaller role than he did this year. If Peach is the first guy off the bench as depth I got no problems with that, as an every day starter though? No dice. You can do much better. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 If you have some DL who can get pressure without needing to send 3 or 4 extra blitzers your team is better off. With Anderson injured and Vega playing hurt all year and having a crappy season and Peach being not so great to start with it really put this defense in a bad spot. It is critical that they upgrade the defensive line or it won't matter who is calling the defense. Upgrade, get bigger, meaner, tougher & more physical. Not only make for a better pass rush but a better run stopping D. It'll never happen under Etch so he has to go. Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 If you have some DL who can get pressure without needing to send 3 or 4 extra blitzers your team is better off. With Anderson injured and Vega playing hurt all year and having a crappy season and Peach being not so great to start with it really put this defense in a bad spot. It is critical that they upgrade the defensive line or it won't matter who is calling the defense. Upgrade, get bigger, meaner, tougher & more physical. Not only make for a better pass rush but a better run stopping D. It'll never happen under Etch so he has to go. Sunday. You're twisting everything to fit your narrative of firing Etch. Bigger, smaller, tougher, meaner I don't give a **** about any of that, I just want better players. Vega was terrible this year for whatever reason, Peach was himself, which is a plugger, Anderson was good but got hurt, Turner was pretty decent... we need better ends at the very least and that will make the D better. Etch or no Etch this defensive line wasn't good enough to have a good defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 If you have some DL who can get pressure without needing to send 3 or 4 extra blitzers your team is better off. With Anderson injured and Vega playing hurt all year and having a crappy season and Peach being not so great to start with it really put this defense in a bad spot. It is critical that they upgrade the defensive line or it won't matter who is calling the defense. Upgrade, get bigger, meaner, tougher & more physical. Not only make for a better pass rush but a better run stopping D. It'll never happen under Etch so he has to go. Sunday. You're twisting everything to fit your narrative of firing Etch. Bigger, smaller, tougher, meaner I don't give a **** about any of that, I just want better players. Vega was terrible this year for whatever reason, Peach was himself, which is a plugger, Anderson was good but got hurt, Turner was pretty decent... we need better ends at the very least and that will make the D better. Etch or no Etch this defensive line wasn't good enough to have a good defense. So, thinking a bigger & more physical DL isn't part of improvement? Why do you think we can't stop the run or don't get a pass rush? We're too small. We get pushed back 5 yards when teams run so the second level makes more tackles then our DL does. We get stood straight up when we pass rush as we have no push. We rely on our undersized linebackers to make our plays on the run & the pass & we got killed doing that all season. Don't you think coaching philosophy just as much as personnel has something to do with this? We all knew this would happen going into this season. Tracker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebusrankin Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 I want a new OC and DC. I want a DC that runs a more conventional D, including a bigger DL and a proper MLB. I want an OC that builds around the talent he has and uses things like more max protection and more checkdown routes. TBURGESS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 If you have some DL who can get pressure without needing to send 3 or 4 extra blitzers your team is better off. With Anderson injured and Vega playing hurt all year and having a crappy season and Peach being not so great to start with it really put this defense in a bad spot. It is critical that they upgrade the defensive line or it won't matter who is calling the defense. Upgrade, get bigger, meaner, tougher & more physical. Not only make for a better pass rush but a better run stopping D. It'll never happen under Etch so he has to go. Sunday. You're twisting everything to fit your narrative of firing Etch. Bigger, smaller, tougher, meaner I don't give a **** about any of that, I just want better players. Vega was terrible this year for whatever reason, Peach was himself, which is a plugger, Anderson was good but got hurt, Turner was pretty decent... we need better ends at the very least and that will make the D better. Etch or no Etch this defensive line wasn't good enough to have a good defense. So, thinking a bigger & more physical DL isn't part of improvement? Why do you think we can't stop the run or don't get a pass rush? We're too small. We get pushed back 5 yards when teams run so the second level makes more tackles then our DL does. We get stood straight up when we pass rush as we have no push. We rely on our undersized linebackers to make our plays on the run & the pass & we got killed doing that all season. Don't you think coaching philosophy just as much as personnel has something to do with this? We all knew this would happen going into this season. While size and strength are not absolute determinants of line play effectiveness, they're pretty close to it. I, for one, am sick and tired of watching the Bombers unable to stop a short-yardage plunge with any consistency. Too man times have opposing O-linemen come completely free to bury our linebackers and let the RB behind them scamper for first downs and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 If you have some DL who can get pressure without needing to send 3 or 4 extra blitzers your team is better off. With Anderson injured and Vega playing hurt all year and having a crappy season and Peach being not so great to start with it really put this defense in a bad spot. It is critical that they upgrade the defensive line or it won't matter who is calling the defense. Upgrade, get bigger, meaner, tougher & more physical. Not only make for a better pass rush but a better run stopping D. It'll never happen under Etch so he has to go. Sunday. You're twisting everything to fit your narrative of firing Etch. Bigger, smaller, tougher, meaner I don't give a **** about any of that, I just want better players. Vega was terrible this year for whatever reason, Peach was himself, which is a plugger, Anderson was good but got hurt, Turner was pretty decent... we need better ends at the very least and that will make the D better. Etch or no Etch this defensive line wasn't good enough to have a good defense. So, thinking a bigger & more physical DL isn't part of improvement? Why do you think we can't stop the run or don't get a pass rush? We're too small. We get pushed back 5 yards when teams run so the second level makes more tackles then our DL does. We get stood straight up when we pass rush as we have no push. We rely on our undersized linebackers to make our plays on the run & the pass & we got killed doing that all season. Don't you think coaching philosophy just as much as personnel has something to do with this? We all knew this would happen going into this season. you say it's because we're too small beause of Etchevary, I say it's because they're flat out not good enough and Walters needs to get better players in here for next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
do or die Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Frankly, you build consistent winners with sound schemes and players who can properly execute them - not with shell games, juggling acts, voodoo, hocus-pocus, and constant gimmickry Which is why, moving forward - I want Etch out of here, so we can actually recruit guys who will fit in. Rich 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmokinBlue Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Yup, defense was the biggest let down of our team this year by a LARGE MARGIN, mainly because O'shea came into this year preaching that he wanted to have dominant defense and special teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Yup, defense was the biggest let down of our team this year by a LARGE MARGIN, umm no.. defense was the biggest surprise this year. Special teams was more consistently bad and the way the offense fell off a cliff was much more alarming than anything the defense did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
do or die Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 We gave up 214 yds rushing, last night on a field not meant for passing....even with Cornish going out early. We only won this one, because the Stamps confused the football, with a Ebola container...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 We gave up 214 yds rushing, last night on a field not meant for passing....even with Cornish going out early. We only won this one, because the Stamps confused the football, with a Ebola container...... and yet still only gave up 13 points. I understand that people want a different system but the rushing yards given up haven't translated into a lot of points on the score board most nights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 We gave up 214 yds rushing, last night on a field not meant for passing....even with Cornish going out early. We only won this one, because the Stamps confused the football, with a Ebola container...... and yet still only gave up 13 points. I understand that people want a different system but the rushing yards given up haven't translated into a lot of points on the score board most nights. Aren't we last in points allowed this season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 We gave up 214 yds rushing, last night on a field not meant for passing....even with Cornish going out early. We only won this one, because the Stamps confused the football, with a Ebola container...... and yet still only gave up 13 points. I understand that people want a different system but the rushing yards given up haven't translated into a lot of points on the score board most nights. We only gave up 13 points because Calgary gave the ball away 6 times, not because rushing yards don't matter. blitzmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Let me re-state the stats. In the last 8 games the Bombers lost the turnover battle. We were on an 8 game losing streak. In this last game we won the turnover battle, despite any sexy rushing stats. I'd say, basically, there is a greater chance to lose the game when you lose the turnover battle, than if you allow more rushing yards. (and I'm not discounting our bad run defence) Jpan85 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Let me re-state the stats. In the last 8 games the Bombers lost the turnover battle. We were on an 8 game losing streak. In this last game we won the turnover battle, despite any sexy rushing stats. I'd say, basically, there is a greater chance to lose the game when you lose the turnover battle, than if you allow more rushing yards. (and I'm not discounting our bad run defence) The first Sask game is a good example too, everyone freaked out about the rushing yards but it was the turnovers that lost them the game. The Turnovers led directly to many times the points all those rushing yards did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigseye Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Willy was tossing picks because of the lack of a running game.......the double standard around here is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPuDS Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Willy was tossing picks because of the lack of a running game.......the double standard around here is amazing. Cuz everything is so black and white, Riiiiiiiight? It all effects each team identically.. no different situations or variables.. The denseness around here is amazing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigseye Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Willy was tossing picks because of the lack of a running game.......the double standard around here is amazing. Cuz everything is so black and white, Riiiiiiiight? It all effects each team identically.. no different situations or variables.. The denseness around here is amazing.. Oh for sure but that isn't the point, the point is that you can't dismiss a weakness, like run stopping, without discussing the ripple effects that it has on all other areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzmore Posted November 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Let me re-state the stats. In the last 8 games the Bombers lost the turnover battle. We were on an 8 game losing streak. In this last game we won the turnover battle, despite any sexy rushing stats. I'd say, basically, there is a greater chance to lose the game when you lose the turnover battle, than if you allow more rushing yards. (and I'm not discounting our bad run defence) The first Sask game is a good example too, everyone freaked out about the rushing yards but it was the turnovers that lost them the game. The Turnovers led directly to many times the points all those rushing yards did. There is a lot more to consider about rushing yards allowed than the overall stat. We have been hurt by being the worst against the run more time on the field for the defence and less time on the field for the offence, which leads to less points scored. More time for the defence translates to a defence which is more tired later in games and cost us at least a couple of games bad tackling and schemes on defence cost us touchdowns against. many times inability to stop the run put us behind, and hurt our own ability to call run plays. It's not so simple to say the run didn't hurt us. matter of fact what I read in the paper today was particulary troubling quote from MOS "We still gave up a bunch of rushing yards but we managed to win," said O’Shea. "And that maybe lends a bit more credence to the idea that rushing yards aren’t all they’re cracked up to be." Of course, it also doesn’t hurt if, while your opponent is rushing for 214 yards, they also turn the ball over six times. How MOS could not realize why we won and that giving up that many rushing yards is a REAL problem, game in and game out is beyond me, and really troubling. Tracker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 O'shea has kind of a point tho, I mean you can run the ball all you want but if you are only kicking fg's or starting at your own 20 or 30.. then big deal.. Calgary ran for 214 yards? That sucks...but they only scored one touchdown all game.. All that running they did, lead to nothing really. Yeah they turned the ball over and that's why they lost... Which kind of proves Mr Dees point that turnovers are way more important than how many yards you gain on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Let me re-state the stats. In the last 8 games the Bombers lost the turnover battle. We were on an 8 game losing streak. In this last game we won the turnover battle, despite any sexy rushing stats. I'd say, basically, there is a greater chance to lose the game when you lose the turnover battle, than if you allow more rushing yards. (and I'm not discounting our bad run defence) The first Sask game is a good example too, everyone freaked out about the rushing yards but it was the turnovers that lost them the game. The Turnovers led directly to many times the points all those rushing yards did. There is a lot more to consider about rushing yards allowed than the overall stat. We have been hurt by being the worst against the run more time on the field for the defence and less time on the field for the offence, which leads to less points scored. More time for the defence translates to a defence which is more tired later in games and cost us at least a couple of games bad tackling and schemes on defence cost us touchdowns against. many times inability to stop the run put us behind, and hurt our own ability to call run plays. It's not so simple to say the run didn't hurt us. matter of fact what I read in the paper today was particulary troubling quote from MOS "We still gave up a bunch of rushing yards but we managed to win," said O’Shea. "And that maybe lends a bit more credence to the idea that rushing yards aren’t all they’re cracked up to be." Of course, it also doesn’t hurt if, while your opponent is rushing for 214 yards, they also turn the ball over six times. How MOS could not realize why we won and that giving up that many rushing yards is a REAL problem, game in and game out is beyond me, and really troubling. It has become clear that he won't say anything like that publicly...whether he realizes it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blitzmore Posted November 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Let me re-state the stats. In the last 8 games the Bombers lost the turnover battle. We were on an 8 game losing streak. In this last game we won the turnover battle, despite any sexy rushing stats. I'd say, basically, there is a greater chance to lose the game when you lose the turnover battle, than if you allow more rushing yards. (and I'm not discounting our bad run defence) The first Sask game is a good example too, everyone freaked out about the rushing yards but it was the turnovers that lost them the game. The Turnovers led directly to many times the points all those rushing yards did. There is a lot more to consider about rushing yards allowed than the overall stat. We have been hurt by being the worst against the run more time on the field for the defence and less time on the field for the offence, which leads to less points scored. More time for the defence translates to a defence which is more tired later in games and cost us at least a couple of games bad tackling and schemes on defence cost us touchdowns against. many times inability to stop the run put us behind, and hurt our own ability to call run plays. It's not so simple to say the run didn't hurt us. matter of fact what I read in the paper today was particulary troubling quote from MOS "We still gave up a bunch of rushing yards but we managed to win," said O’Shea. "And that maybe lends a bit more credence to the idea that rushing yards aren’t all they’re cracked up to be." Of course, it also doesn’t hurt if, while your opponent is rushing for 214 yards, they also turn the ball over six times. How MOS could not realize why we won and that giving up that many rushing yards is a REAL problem, game in and game out is beyond me, and really troubling. It has become clear that he won't say anything like that publicly...whether he realizes it or not. I sure hope that's the case and that he doesn't really believe that, because if he does, we will likely see more of the same next year. Hopefully saner heads will prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted November 2, 2014 Report Share Posted November 2, 2014 Here from the free press It was the first year with O’Shea as head coach, however, and the Bombers field boss was asked Sunday what lessons he took away from his rookie season as a head coach. "We’ve got a lot of work to do. And there’s lots to learn still. That’s an easy answer," O’Shea said. Asked where his team needs to get better, O’Shea didn’t mince words. "Every phase. We want to win championships, so saying we’re going to fix one thing here, one thing there -- it doesn’t work that way. "We have to get better across the board -- we can’t afford to take penalties, we can’t give up so many turnovers, we can’t give up that number of sacks, we can’t give up those rushing yards, we need to be more effective in the red zone. "It’s everything. We’re trying to improve every facet of the game. What I’ve said to the coaches so far is we’re going to spend this off-season inspecting everything." Asked to assess the performances of his offensive coordinator Marcel Bellefeuille and defensive coordinator Gary Etcheverry, O’Shea was upbeat. "They’ve worked extremely hard. They’ve put their players in positions to be successful. They’ve done a pretty good job." But O’Shea hedged when asked if the two men would be back for the 2015 season, noting he hasn’t even yet had his own performance review from GM Kyle Walters. "When I have that meeting with Kyle, then I’ll be able to go down the line and go from there." http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/bombers/OShea-knows-Bombers-job-under-review-281234101.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now