Seemed very rough today. Even on what Lirim hit they seemed to bounce first then get set.. Could this explain his poor kicking? Did it change from last season?

Just recalling the one pat or fg he hit when it had to get placed after bobble and then saw the frosty pic post where the laces were in on the 52 harder ( not 58 like people keep claiming it was lol)

Seemed very rough today. Even on what Lirim hit they seemed to bounce first then get set.. Could this explain his poor kicking? Did it change from last season?

Just recalling the one pat or fg he hit when it had to get placed after bobble and then saw the frosty pic post where the laces were in on the 52 harder ( not 58 like people keep claiming it was lol)

 

Brohm.

Seemed very rough today. Even on what Lirim hit they seemed to bounce first then get set.. Could this explain his poor kicking? Did it change from last season?

Just recalling the one pat or fg he hit when it had to get placed after bobble and then saw the frosty pic post where the laces were in on the 52 harder ( not 58 like people keep claiming it was lol)

 

Brohm.

What's up with his holds lately then. My word they have looked brutal. Are the snaps not up to par? I just can't figure out how a guy goes from record breakingly good to subpar in less then a year..

Well prior to tonight Lirim was perfect on his fgs I thought they said. The converts they sat might be tougher because the ball is placed in the middle of the field and not on the hash marks like the fgs. I think its as simple as Lirim had a really bad game

Well prior to tonight Lirim was perfect on his fgs I thought they said. The converts they sat might be tougher because the ball is placed in the middle of the field and not on the hash marks like the fgs. I think its as simple as Lirim had a really bad game

Really?  That's the excuse?  Lirim can practise converts from the middle of the field all week long.  It shouldn't take him until the 5th game to get it right.  Should be able to adjust in preseason.  IIRC...He's missed the most converts of any kicker this year, so the rest have been able to kick from the middle of the field.

That's what somebody said one game. One of the tsn guys b4 u go flaming a coach.

If one of the TSN guys said it, it must be true.    Face it, It's an excuse and a pretty lame one at that.  Just practise it until it become second nature.  In the meantime, go for 2 point conversions all the time and hope to go over 50% and you'll get more points anyway.

Ya. Can't disagree with going for 2

Ya. Can't disagree with going for 2

 

Ya. Can't disagree with going for 2

 

Which brings up another point, why was Brohm on short yardage tonight?  I didn't even catch sight of Marve on the sidelines.

Ya. Can't disagree with going for 2

Ya. Can't disagree with going for 2

Which brings up another point, why was Brohm on short yardage tonight? I didn't even catch sight of Marve on the sidelines.

I saw him there. Dunno but he did a good job of it

Scrimmaging the ball from the 3 yard line for a two point conversion should be a gimme, shouldn't it?

Scrimmaging the ball from the 3 yard line for a two point conversion should be a gimme, shouldn't it?

 

Odds of success are probably less than 50% I would think.

 

Scrimmaging the ball from the 3 yard line for a two point conversion should be a gimme, shouldn't it?

 

Odds of success are probably less than 50% I would think.

 

Why do you think that?

 

Scrimmaging the ball from the 3 yard line for a two point conversion should be a gimme, shouldn't it?

 

Odds of success are probably less than 50% I would think.

 

On TSN they said the 2 point conversion was running around I believe 77 percent. Teams are hesitant to go for two but I think once we start seeing more success with the two point conversion and 1 point converts missed. (hello Winnipeg) we'll start to see a shift in mind set when it comes to going for two.

 

 

Scrimmaging the ball from the 3 yard line for a two point conversion should be a gimme, shouldn't it?

 

Odds of success are probably less than 50% I would think.

 

On TSN they said the 2 point conversion was running around I believe 77 percent. Teams are hesitant to go for two but I think once we start seeing more success with the two point conversion and 1 point converts missed. (hello Winnipeg) we'll start to see a shift in mind set when it comes to going for two.

 

 

Surprised no team has gone for the idea of trying for the 2 every time.

 

 

Scrimmaging the ball from the 3 yard line for a two point conversion should be a gimme, shouldn't it?

 

Odds of success are probably less than 50% I would think.

 

Why do you think that?

 

 

No stats just a WAG.

Wonder if teams will end up having a convert kicker/punter and a field goal kicker or something like that...  seems tricky to bounce between the two

According to Liram, the ball can be positioned anywhere between the hashmarks on convert attempts. No excuse to be missing so many early in the year, but I'm sure he'll turn things around. Hope so anyway......

It is obvious that Winnipeg should be going for two points every time a TD is scored.

MOS said the decision to go for 2 is situational. But MOS is wrong.

Going for the 2-pointer every time, even at 50% success rate, is a better risk than kicking from the 32 with an unreliable kicker.

When the CFL changed the rule to allow for the 2-pointer from the 3 yard line, it was expected the 2-pointer would be successful 50% of the time.

If you get 2 points 50% of the time that equals getting one point 100% of the time - which is much better risk-reward ratio than we are currently getting with LH missing kicks and losing games for us.

 

http://www.cfl.ca/article/statsgeek-changing-the-rules

It is obvious that Winnipeg should be going for two points every time a TD is scored.

MOS said the decision to go for 2 is situational. But MOS is wrong.

Going for the 2-pointer every time, even at 50% success rate, is a better risk than kicking from the 32 with an unreliable kicker.

When the CFL changed to rule to allow for the 2-pointer from the 3 yard line, it was expected the 2-pointer would be successful 50% of the time.

If you get 2 points 50% of the time that equals getting one point 100% of the time - which is much better risk-reward ratio than we are currently getting with LH missing kicks and losing games for us.

 

http://www.cfl.ca/article/statsgeek-changing-the-rules

 

By the time O'Shea latches onto this theory Lirim will have corrected the flaw and it won't be pursued.  When they hired O'Shea  the thing I thought he had going for him was that he was creative and daring from his work on ST's in TO.  In his time with Wpg. I have seen little evidence of those traits.

It is obvious that Winnipeg should be going for two points every time a TD is scored.

MOS said the decision to go for 2 is situational. But MOS is wrong.

Going for the 2-pointer every time, even at 50% success rate, is a better risk than kicking from the 32 with an unreliable kicker.

When the CFL changed the rule to allow for the 2-pointer from the 3 yard line, it was expected the 2-pointer would be successful 50% of the time.

If you get 2 points 50% of the time that equals getting one point 100% of the time - which is much better risk-reward ratio than we are currently getting with LH missing kicks and losing games for us.

 

http://www.cfl.ca/article/statsgeek-changing-the-rules

No, your wrong colonel sanders!

 

 

Scrimmaging the ball from the 3 yard line for a two point conversion should be a gimme, shouldn't it?

 

Odds of success are probably less than 50% I would think.

 

On TSN they said the 2 point conversion was running around I believe 77 percent. Teams are hesitant to go for two but I think once we start seeing more success with the two point conversion and 1 point converts missed. (hello Winnipeg) we'll start to see a shift in mind set when it comes to going for two.

 

When more teams start doing it that % will probably go down. 77% doesn't seem like a sustainable rate.

 

 

 

Scrimmaging the ball from the 3 yard line for a two point conversion should be a gimme, shouldn't it?

 

Odds of success are probably less than 50% I would think.

 

On TSN they said the 2 point conversion was running around I believe 77 percent. Teams are hesitant to go for two but I think once we start seeing more success with the two point conversion and 1 point converts missed. (hello Winnipeg) we'll start to see a shift in mind set when it comes to going for two.

 

When more teams start doing it that % will probably go down. 77% doesn't seem like a sustainable rate.

 

 

Actually, I think what they said during the game was that 1pt attempts were being coverted at a rate of 78% .. 

 

Through four weeks the stats are as follows:

 

1 point attempts: 48 / 60 for an 80% conversion rate.

2 point attempts: 15/22 for a 68.2% conversion rate.