Free Agency Countdown

[Area 51]

Exactly, our defence was the first in the league in 2010 but last year we had key injuries in our linebackers in 2011 and a couple of defensive linemen suffered foot and ankle injuries which hindered their play.

First in the league for what? Fewest points allowed in 2010, but that's a very shortsighted measurement of how great a defence is. Look at the underlying stats and get the full story...

2010 Toronto faced the most pass attempts but allowed the second highest completion rate against and had the fewest sacks. How do you interpret those numbers? To me it shows a soft and passive defence that doesn't make any plays and allows the opposing offence to dictate the flow. Fewest points allowed, but the rest of the defensive stats don't support that being sustainable. It was a complete anomolay.

2011 Toronto once again faced the most pass attempts, allowed the highest completion rate and had the second fewest sacks. Not surprisingly, Toronto went from fewest points allowed to most points allowed. Same problems as 2010. If "injuries" was the explanation for 2011, how do you explain the struggles in 2010?

I would never define a great defence by the number of points allowed. My idea of a "great defence" is one that is agressive and intimidating to the point that once they get a smell of blood it becomes a feeding frenzy. Winnipeg had that in 2011. You could sense the fear opposing QBs had going up against the Bomber defence.

Winnipeg faced the fewest pass attempts but had the most INTs and the most sacks and the lowest completion percentage allowed. That's an agressive defence that makes plays.

Last year's defence was embarassing. The offence was just as bad, but they brought in a new QB and a new OC. So what needs to change on defence....new scheme? New players? Or do you think standing pat will somehow produce a different result?

[Mulder]

First in the league for what? Fewest points allowed in 2010, but that's a very shortsighted measurement of how great a defence is. Look at the underlying stats and get the full story...

Wait..What? Isn't it the goal of the defence to to allow the least points? I honestly think it's one of the least shortsighted measurement. Infact, it's the end result of all the other defensive stats combined. The 2010 Argo's didn't lead in any other category.

2010 Toronto faced the most pass attempts but allowed the second highest completion rate against and had the fewest sacks. How do you interpret those numbers? To me it shows a soft and passive defence that doesn't make any plays and allows the opposing offence to dictate the flow. Fewest points allowed, but the rest of the defensive stats don't support that being sustainable. It was a complete anomolay.

That Quarterback in Montreal is partly how I see those numbers. We played Montreal 4 times in 2010. Average gain per pass against? Best 2nd in the league. We both know how Calvillo likes to his 5-8 yard passing gains.

You can also ask Winnipeg how leading the lead in sacks in 2010 worked for them.

2011 Toronto once again faced the most pass attempts, allowed the highest completion rate and had the second fewest sacks. Not surprisingly, Toronto went from fewest points allowed to most points allowed. Same problems as 2010. If "injuries" was the explanation for 2011, how do you explain the struggles in 2010?

Wasn't there some injuries on the defence as well? We stole games in 2010. We owned the ball over a minute and a half more as well. Special teams put us in good field placement more often. Giving the defence more time to stop before scoring.

Winnipeg held on to the ball over 2 minutes more in 2011 than 2010, Riders less 2 minutes. in 2011 than 2010. Is that any coincidence of the final results because of that?

I would never define a great defence by the number of points allowed. My idea of a "great defence" is one that is agressive and intimidating to the point that once they get a smell of blood it becomes a feeding frenzy. Winnipeg had that in 2011. You could sense the fear opposing QBs had going up against the Bomber defence.

Winnipeg faced the fewest pass attempts but had the most INTs and the most sacks and the lowest completion percentage allowed. That's an agressive defence that makes plays.

What was different between the 2010 Blue Bomber team and the 2011 Blue Bomber team?

Last year's defence was embarassing. The offence was just as bad, but they brought in a new QB and a new OC. So what needs to change on defence....new scheme? New players? Or do you think standing pat will somehow produce a different result?

I thought the last 4 games last season the defence started looking better, but that won't change how bad they were earlier in the season either. We were picked apart. An offence that moves the ball would help out a lot. How many times did we go 2 and out? Or did we kick the ball and it was still on our side of half when the other team took over?

[Area 51]

Wait..What? Isn't it the goal of the defence to to allow the least points? I honestly think it's one of the least shortsighted measurement. Infact, it's the end result of all the other defensive stats combined. The 2010 Argo's didn't lead in any other category.

"...didn't lead in any other category." That's my point - - the underlying stats didn't support it. Might have looked good on paper to see the fewest points allowed, but the rest of the defensive numbers were a mess. It was an abberation that was not sustainable and caught up with them the next year. You've heard of statistical regerssion?

That Quarterback in Montreal is partly how I see those numbers. We played Montreal 4 times in 2010. Average gain per pass against? Best 2nd in the league. We both know how Calvillo likes to his 5-8 yard passing gains.

Once again, you're missing the full story. Played Montreal 4 times, but Calvillo only played in 3 of them. Remember the last game of 2010? Montreal scrub QBs didn't even break 150yds passing. So that explanation doesn't hold water.

You can also ask Winnipeg how leading the lead in sacks in 2010 worked for them.

Try looking beyond the obvious numbers. A 4-14 season is terrible, but nine of those loses were by 4 or fewer points. Winnipeg's brutal 2010 record was just as deceiving as Toronto's "league leading" defence allowing the fewest points. Winnipeg defence was also near the top of several other categories in 2010.

What was different between the 2010 Blue Bomber team and the 2011 Blue Bomber team?

Going from a good defence to a great defence? Having Tim Burke take over as DC and DB coach was a big part of it. Adjusted the scheme and you see the results - - Winnipeg didn't just sack the QB, they became a fearsome defence. Didn't have the all-important "fewest points allowed" but they did lead the league in several defensive categories.

I thought the last 4 games last season the defence started looking better, but that won't change how bad they were earlier in the season either. We were picked apart.

Fortunately, I don't think Chris Jones is going to come in and decide to just leave everything unchanged. The defensive scheme was pathetic and I'm sure he'll scrap it for soemthing much more aggressive. It'd be great to bring everybody back and win with the same guys, but the reality is there's too many weak links to stand pat for another year of continuity.

[Mulder]

"...didn't lead in any other category." That's my point - - the underlying stats didn't support it. Might have looked good on paper to see the fewest points allowed, but the rest of the defensive numbers were a mess. It was an abberation that was not sustainable and caught up with them the next year. You've heard of statistical regerssion?

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I also called it odd. It doesn't change the fact the goal is still the same. Allow less points than your opposition. The Argos did that in 2010.

Once again, you're missing the full story. Played Montreal 4 times, but Calvillo only played in 3 of them. Remember the last game of 2010? Montreal scrub QBs didn't even break 150yds passing. So that explanation doesn't hold water.

I think you've missed the full story on this one. Montreal completed 68.7% of their passes against us (which was still higher than our stat) Calvillo completed 76.3% of his passes vs us. (97 of 129) . And yes, I remember that last game in 2010. Hamilton completed 69.2 as well.

Try looking beyond the obvious numbers. A 4-14 season is terrible, but nine of those loses were by 4 or fewer points. Winnipeg's brutal 2010 record was just as deceiving as Toronto's "league leading" defence allowing the fewest points. Winnipeg defence was also near the top of several other categories in 2010.

I'm confused, your telling us to look beyond the numbers while at the same time shoving other numbers to the forfront? The end result is 9 times Winnipeg couldn't hold onto their lead or come back, and wasn't good enough, lost.

Going from a good defence to a great defence? Having Tim Burke take over as DC and DB coach was a big part of it. Adjusted the scheme and you see the results - - Winnipeg didn't just sack the QB, they became a fearsome defence. Didn't have the all-important "fewest points allowed" but they did lead the league in several defensive categories.

Because stumbling into the playoffs (1-3) Almost 0-4. Is a sign of a great defence. You seem so high about Winnipeg last season makes me think your actually a bomber fan. Either that or you got caught up in swaggerville. I dunno.

Wasn't it you I disagreed with last year? You predicted a good season for Sask ? Durant an elite qb? I predicted a flop? #justsaying

Fortunately, I don't think Chris Jones is going to come in and decide to just leave everything unchanged. The defensive scheme was pathetic and I'm sure he'll scrap it for soemthing much more aggressive. It'd be great to bring everybody back and win with the same guys, but the reality is there's too many weak links to stand pat for another year of continuity.

Yes last year was bad, I'm sure Chris Jones is going to make some changes. I also don't believe you can overhaul an entire defence and expect success.

[Area 51]

I'm confused, your telling us to look beyond the numbers while at the same time shoving other numbers to the forfront? The end result is 9 times Winnipeg couldn't hold onto their lead or come back, and wasn't good enough, lost.

Let me try to clarify again - - look beyond the obvious numbers, ie. Win/Loss record, points allowed, when you're evaluating performance. You could look at a game that was 31- 24 and say wow, that was a close one! But if the winner dominated for 59 minutes and the loser managed two TDs in the final minute, would you still try to say it was a tight game?

Win/Loss record aside, most stats in 2010 pointed to Winnipeg having a much better team than their record indicted. So knowing that they're close to being a good team, it didn't make sense to blow things up. And aside from "points allowed" in 2010, most of the other stats indicated Toronto was much worse than on defence than it might first appear to someone unwilling/unable to look past the obvious. So naturally Toronto decided to stand pat. How did that decision work out?

Because stumbling into the playoffs (1-3) Almost 0-4. Is a sign of a great defence. You seem so high about Winnipeg last season makes me think your actually a bomber fan. Either that or you got caught up in swaggerville. I dunno.

I loved Winnipeg's defensive approach last year. That was my ideal of what a great defense should be. The identity of a team almost always comes from it's defence. They were agressive, knocked people out, made big plays and most importantly they intimated the opposition. You get a defence that does that and the team will have success regardless of how the offence performs.

Wasn't it you I disagreed with last year? You predicted a good season for Sask ? Durant an elite qb? I predicted a flop? #justsaying

That's entirely possible, since much of what I post here is met with disagreement from posters as well as players. I'm sure you're familiar with my comments on Byron Parker that got national media coverage and ended up getting me banned from further posts.

I definitely consider Durant one of the top QBs in the league. Riders were a complete mess last year just like Toronto, but in three years as a starter Durant has two Grey Cup appearances. If not for a teammate that couldn't count, he'd have a ring. You can't name a tougher QB. And most importantly, he's not afraid to be aggressive and take a chance on making a play.

\

Out of curiosity, how many new starters do you all believe the Argos will have on defence? How many new starters on defence should they have? I don't think that Jones will completely clean house on defence but I suspect that we will see at least four new starters along with a more aggressive scheme.

Earlier this off season I projected they needed to immediately replace two starters on defence and should look to upgrade seven others.

http://www.argofans.com/showthread.p...-Cards-DEFENCE

Probably not realistic to expect the new staff to turn over 3/4 of the defence, but anywhere from four to six new starters would not surprise me at all. Anything less than two new starters and I'd say it's going to be more of the same struggles on D.

[argolio]

Win/Loss record aside, most stats in 2010 pointed to Winnipeg having a much better team than their record indicted. So knowing that they're close to being a good team, it didn't make sense to blow things up. And aside from "points allowed" in 2010, most of the other stats indicated Toronto was much worse than on defence than it might first appear to someone unwilling/unable to look past the obvious. So naturally Toronto decided to stand pat. How did that decision work out?

In hindsight obviously not that well, but I see no huge shame in opting to go with mostly the same team and coaches that took the team from 3-15 to 9-9 and a playoff win. Different story if no drastic changes were made after this past season.

I loved Winnipeg's defensive approach last year. That was my ideal of what a great defense should be. The identity of a team almost always comes from it's defence. They were agressive, knocked people out, made big plays and most importantly they intimated the opposition. You get a defence that does that and the team will have success regardless of how the offence performs.

Fair enough, but that was different than our defensive approach during our 2003-07 success. We were aggressive and intimidating at times, but also passive and reactive at other times, often for long stretches of a game. At its best, that defense adjusted well at the half or on the fly. And despite not having a great offense most of those years, we were pretty consistent winners.

Winnipeg's D was interesting to watch but B.C. impressed me more -- starting Khalif Mitchell at tackle in August, going to the 4-3 full-time, and winning all but one of their remaining games. Give me winnerville over swaggerville.