Lawless article today:  http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/bombers/attention-oshea-fire-etcheverry-282801931.html

I always get the most laughs when Lawless spouts opinion as fact. Highly enjoyable. No mention whatsoever about the offense taking a major nosedive as Will got hurt worse and worse. No mention of the DL falling off with injury as well. Not everything has to be so black and white. There's a lot of room with shades of grey here....

I find it hilarious that people can say "MB gets a pass due to injury.." But Etch doesn't get that same love.. Newman, wild, Sears, Thomas, Vega, Anderson and I'm sure I'm missing a few also were hurt for extended periods of time... In a "complex" defense like etchs, don't you think this plays a factor? I also think a dominant Dline is key for etchs success.. As soon as they tailed off, it was a rough go... Id give etch another season to prove himself again as long as Walters is capable of finding the starters Etch wants in his lineup..

on the other long etch thread the other day, someone did an actual breakdown of a few close games, where it was made obvious that the defence more than did it's job, and offence failed miserably.

you know, some actual facts and numbers.

got the ball back repeatedly, and offence went three and out, or int, in several close games.

guess a few people missed that. or ignored it causes it didn't conform with their beliefs. so they Just keep saying it "etch must go, Etch must go"

furthermore, everyone knows that defences get tired if they stay on the field. Our defence was on the field a lot this year. cause the offence was pitiful. hence can't stop run in fourth quarter, for example.

Prediction: etch will be back.

Yea it's funny how the fire etch mob glosses over stuff like that huh? It's weird, our defense even depleted and getting ran over, kept us in a lot of games..

Lawless hit the nail right on the head this time. MB at least had an excuse with all the injuries and declining QB play he got. What was Etch's? Sweet FA.

wild hurt for a couple games, Anderson lost for the season, vega playing injury all year...can you think of a defence that would be successful with as poor a defensive line as the Bombers had this year?

Even before those guys got hurt we couldn't stop the run. That's the thing for me... Even with our personnel at 100% for the games we had them it made no difference. The other thing to consider is every team has injuries. You can't continually use that as an excuse for under performance. If the defense is sound. If every gap is covered from A-D then it should work. We need the right personnel in place. Every time we needed the defense late in games to seal the win for us, they failed. As the game went on, our run defense couldn't get the job done. They were worn out. I saw us out physicalled, if that is even a word... Pushed back 5 yards everytime. Our O struggled, yes. But there were games when it was up to Etch's defense to get the ball back for the O by stopping the other teams running backs & they never did. For me, the first change that needs to be made is who's running the defense & that is Etcheverry.

and all those rushing yards led to exactly 1 loss in that Early going. So who cares about rushing yards allowed of it doesn't result in losses? Some of you are just so dead set I your ways and any scheme or design that goes against what you believe HAS to be wrong. Etch wasn't the problem.....

But it did result in losses. We could never get the ball back or stop the other teams run games later in the season in the late fourth quarter to seal the deal. That can't be ignored. The defense was terrible.

First 6 games when etch had his starters in.. Were we getting ran on like it was going out of style? Honestly, I don't know but I think that when our D-line and LBs started to drop like flies, our run defense went down...

I hear ya SPuDS but we can't use injuries as an excuse anymore as other teams have to deal with key personnel losses. The system itself wasn't sound. Etch has sold out on the run to protect against the pass rather than have a defense that can play well vs  both. I absolutely detest Chris  Jones but look at what he's done to that Esk defense. It's one motha of a tough defense. 

A aggressive defence like Etch's was going to give up some big plays, maybe game changing plays. The key to success is forcing some big defensive plays, maybe in a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio. Pressure defences can't give up as many as they make. I'm not sure the schemes were the problem; I am pretty sure it was the lack of execution of those schemes, whatever the cause.

 

I cringed every time I saw a seven man blitz and it was like we were rushing three people. That happened way too often.

 

So in evaluating Etchevery we have to answer the question why didn't his schemes work?

 

Was it personnel or was it design?

So does that mean Lawless thinks Marcel should stay?

 

I doubt it.  I bet he's saving that rant for next week.

 

 

 

 

 

Lawless hit the nail right on the head this time. MB at least had an excuse with all the injuries and declining QB play he got. What was Etch's? Sweet FA.

wild hurt for a couple games, Anderson lost for the season, vega playing injury all year...can you think of a defence that would be successful with as poor a defensive line as the Bombers had this year?

Even before those guys got hurt we couldn't stop the run. That's the thing for me... Even with our personnel at 100% for the games we had them it made no difference. The other thing to consider is every team has injuries. You can't continually use that as an excuse for under performance. If the defense is sound. If every gap is covered from A-D then it should work. We need the right personnel in place. Every time we needed the defense late in games to seal the win for us, they failed. As the game went on, our run defense couldn't get the job done. They were worn out. I saw us out physicalled, if that is even a word... Pushed back 5 yards everytime. Our O struggled, yes. But there were games when it was up to Etch's defense to get the ball back for the O by stopping the other teams running backs & they never did. For me, the first change that needs to be made is who's running the defense & that is Etcheverry.

and all those rushing yards led to exactly 1 loss in that Early going. So who cares about rushing yards allowed of it doesn't result in losses? Some of you are just so dead set I your ways and any scheme or design that goes against what you believe HAS to be wrong. Etch wasn't the problem.....

But it did result in losses. We could never get the ball back or stop the other teams run games later in the season in the late fourth quarter to seal the deal. That can't be ignored. The defense was terrible.

First 6 games when etch had his starters in.. Were we getting ran on like it was going out of style? Honestly, I don't know but I think that when our D-line and LBs started to drop like flies, our run defense went down...

 

 

As did the pass rush, even the blitzes were ineffective after Labour Day.

I hate using an Appeal to Authority to justify my argument, but when the TSN crew (not Rod Black; the guys who actually coached and/or played like Dunigan, Milt, etc). continually point out that the scheme needs to change perhaps there's some legitimacy there. 

 

I'm sure if Etch had the Cadillac of players, all veterans, lining up at every spot his D would work. But this is a young, 1st year team and his SCHEME was not successful in that context. 

 

Got to agree with this sentiment.  Re-watched a few games specifically to see why Kuale was relatively ineffective as a MLB stopping the run.  I concluded that for the most part he started plays in a bad lateral position and had to fight his way back through D-linemen to get to the running lanes instead of coming down hill to fill a gap as with most defencive schemes.  It was ludicrous to continually have Kuale starting plays up on the line of scrimmage threatening blitz when the only QB he could probably ever catch would be Willy.  

So who are you blaming ? Etch or Kuale for doing as he was instructed based in the design of the defense..

As much as I don't like Etch's defense, I think Marcel's offense is worse.  If I had to get rid of one over the other, it would be Marcel.

So who are you blaming ? Etch or Kuale for doing as he was instructed based in the design of the defense..

 

Etch.  Kuale put in good effort but he rarely got his hands on the RB and he's not mobile enough to chase down a RB like Solly can.

Bring some of those defensively linemen back that played in that last game. Our defensively line was a let down for me this year. Vega and Turner were pretty invisible

I have no issue with the lawless article.  He's a journalist who's paid to provide his opinion.    However, I don't understand why MB would be given a pass?   I think in most games his offence was more pathetic than our defence.   I'm not as anti Etch as some of you are and would be willing to keep him around if he'd agree to make some changes to his defensive schemes to better stop the run and apply more pressure up front.   However, I cant see that happening.    

 

Now MB is the weaker link I believe and deserves the same scrutiny.        

Even though I'm in agreement that Etch should go, that GL is still an embarrassment to the word "Journalist". Sorry but his titles really suck and he needs to learn how to actually write some grammatically coherent articles. What he needs to learn is that it may be okay to talk colorfully on the radio, but when you put out articles, this kind of stuff is high schoolish.

He doesn't choose his headlines. His editor does.

Also please point out his grammar errors.

 I absolutely detest Chris  Jones but look at what he's done to that Esk defense. It's one motha of a tough defense. 

well there's no Peaches playing on that defensive line either... seriously the CFL isn't complicated. good DL play = good defense, poor DL play = bad defense. Swap DLs with Edmonton and Winnipeg I guarantee that Chris Jones D isn't so fearsome. 

 

 

 

 

Lawless hit the nail right on the head this time. MB at least had an excuse with all the injuries and declining QB play he got. What was Etch's? Sweet FA.

wild hurt for a couple games, Anderson lost for the season, vega playing injury all year...can you think of a defence that would be successful with as poor a defensive line as the Bombers had this year?

Even before those guys got hurt we couldn't stop the run. That's the thing for me... Even with our personnel at 100% for the games we had them it made no difference. The other thing to consider is every team has injuries. You can't continually use that as an excuse for under performance. If the defense is sound. If every gap is covered from A-D then it should work. We need the right personnel in place. Every time we needed the defense late in games to seal the win for us, they failed. As the game went on, our run defense couldn't get the job done. They were worn out. I saw us out physicalled, if that is even a word... Pushed back 5 yards everytime. Our O struggled, yes. But there were games when it was up to Etch's defense to get the ball back for the O by stopping the other teams running backs & they never did. For me, the first change that needs to be made is who's running the defense & that is Etcheverry.

and all those rushing yards led to exactly 1 loss in that Early going. So who cares about rushing yards allowed of it doesn't result in losses? Some of you are just so dead set I your ways and any scheme or design that goes against what you believe HAS to be wrong. Etch wasn't the problem.....

 

But it did result in losses. We could never get the ball back or stop the other teams run games later in the season in the late fourth quarter to seal the deal. That can't be ignored. The defense was terrible. 

 

 

In a nut shell.

we stopped sask late in the game TWICE one game and still lost, why? because our O just sucked so bad. 

we stopped sask late in the game TWICE one game and still lost, why? because our O just sucked so bad. 

and against BC at home the defense gave the team chance after chance after chance but the offense failed to capitalize. Against Hamilton at home the defense kept them in the entire game and the offense pissed the chance to win away at the end of the game. The D did more to keep the team in games in the back half of the season than the offense did and that's just a fact. 

Our Defense was last or second last in:

 

Rushing yards against

Avg Rushing yards against per game

# of rushes against

Gain / rush

Plays from scrimmage

Net offense against

Net yards / game

Ints

QB sacks

 

None of those are hallmarks of a average defense, let alone a good one.

 

We were 3rd last in Time Of Possession on offence.  We had to defend for 38 seconds a game more than Hamilton and 1:35 more than Calgary.  Neither of those teams use TOP as an excuse for their defenses.

Our Defense was last or second last in:

 

Rushing yards against

Avg Rushing yards against per game

# of rushes against

Gain / rush

Plays from scrimmage

Net offense against

Net yards / game

Ints

QB sacks

 

None of those are hallmarks of a average defense, let alone a good one.

 

We were 3rd last in Time Of Possession on offence.  We had to defend for 38 seconds a game more than Hamilton and 1:35 more than Calgary.  Neither of those teams use TOP as an excuse for their defenses.

A lot of those stats CAN be attributed to the offense forcing them on the field longer though. Look no one is claiming it was a perfect defense, but some of the talent issues didn't help them but by far the biggest problem was the fact that they were left on the field too many times by an inept offense. When you run a bend but don't break defense you need the offense to spell them off time to time. In the last half of the season they utterly failed to do that. 

The offense wasn't any good, but the defense couldn't get itself off the field either and that was a big problem.

we stopped sask late in the game TWICE one game and still lost, why? because our O just sucked so bad. 

Well **** happens. 

Nice stats there TB.

It's lucky that none of those stats were caused by, oh let's say, giving the ball back to the opposing team, or anything like that, through turnovers or lack of offensive production.

 

But let's not mention that the Bombers were 2nd best in pass yards allowed or pass yards per game allowed or 100 receiving yards per game because they wouldn't back your argument.

 

Many, many factors resulted in our losses…not just because the rushing yards against the defence were high.

Nice stats there TB.

It's lucky that none of those stats were caused by, oh let's say, giving the ball back to the opposing team, or anything like that, through turnovers or lack of offensive production.

 

But let's not mention that the Bombers were 2nd best in pass yards allowed or pass yards per game allowed or 100 receiving yards per game because they wouldn't back your argument.

 

Many, many factors resulted in our losses…not just because the rushing yards against the defence were high.

None of those stats have anything to do with giving the ball away or lack of offensive production or having the defense on the field for 1:35 more than Calgary.  They have to do with the other teams running the ball down our throats and our defense having no way to stop them.

 

We were 2nd best against the pass partly because other teams didn't have to pass to beat us.

 

No one's suggesting that there was only one factor that caused our losses.  I'm just saying that the defense's play is part of the reason we lost and lost and lost....

The offense wasn't any good, but the defense couldn't get itself off the field either and that was a big problem.

Lies. They stopped teams plenty only to have the offense send them right back on the field.