Blake Sims

[OV Argo]

Actually despite the fact that most of the formations today are similar, it is much more complicated than it used to be. Offences used to run a play as designed back then Whether it was the initial play call or an audible, the final play call was run the way it was designed. Today, their are more options after the snap then there used to be, and QB's and receivers both have to make the same sight adjustments in play. For that reason, it is way more complicated to be a QB today.

You are entitled to your opinion of course and not to argue over semantics, but today's CFL offences are wayyyyyyy simpler than some of the past = less complex;o); unless you happen to interpret same old offensive look (QB always in shot-gun, standard 5 pack with the running start waggle by the slots, and one basic, simple run play (that search draw sort of hand-off), and very little vertical, deep passing game) as run by every single team in a 9 team league as "complicated", then ok, yeah, whatever. Might be more "complicated" to be a QB however.

[OV Argo]

I recall reading an article a couple of years ago in which Bob O'Billovich was interviewed after he watched a replay of the 1972 Grey Cup between Saskatchewan and Hamilton. He was remarking and laughing about how simple the offences were back then and this is a guy who played and coached in the league in the 1960s and 1970s.

Some of us were and have been able to watch decades of CFL game action on our own, with our own eyes, and are able to draw our own conclusions about what we've seen on a football field; if you however need some experts (former players or media types) or league or team shills to tell you what's what, then hey, that's OK too - to each his own opinion.

[paulwoods13]

How is QBs under centre on every play more creative or complicated than QBs in shotgun every play? Take a look at these two games:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kucl...201F470FCD95F7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQnL...643A39827332DB

There are definitely more rushing plays than we typically see nowadays, but most of them are behind lines consisting of anywhere from six to eight men. (And even with that, many runs go for just three to four yards). There's little offensive motion and no sense whatsoever on any passing play (other than screen passes) that the QB is looking anywhere other than the primary receiver, who is running a pre-planned route.

I actually agree with OV in wanting to see more diversity in offence, but I can't buy the idea that offences were more complicated 40 years ago. They were different, sure, but easier to execute than today's IMO.

[AngeloV]

You are entitled to your opinion of course and not to argue over semantics, but today's CFL offences are wayyyyyyy simpler than some of the past = less complex;o); unless you happen to interpret same old offensive look (QB always in shot-gun, standard 5 pack with the running start waggle by the slots, and one basic, simple run play (that search draw sort of hand-off), and very little vertical, deep passing game) as run by every single team in a 9 team league as "complicated", then ok, yeah, whatever. Might be more "complicated" to be a QB however.

And you don't think the different looks on defense has anything to do with what you perceive to be same old, same old offence? In the 70's and 80's pretty well every defense used the same base look. On offence you pretty well new what you were going to see across the line of scrimmage. Not so much today.

[jerrym]

He reminds me of Kerry Joseph and Tracy Ham with all the advantages and disadvantages that that entails.

[OV Argo]

How is QBs under centre on every play more creative or complicated than QBs in shotgun every play? Take a look at these two games:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kucl...201F470FCD95F7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQnL...643A39827332DB

There are definitely more rushing plays than we typically see nowadays, but most of them are behind lines consisting of anywhere from six to eight men. (And even with that, many runs go for just three to four yards). There's little offensive motion and no sense whatsoever on any passing play (other than screen passes) that the QB is looking anywhere other than the primary receiver, who is running a pre-planned route.

I actually agree with OV in wanting to see more diversity in offence, but I can't buy the idea that offences were more complicated 40 years ago. They were different, sure, but easier to execute than today's IMO.

The thing is, the QB doesn't have to be either under C or in shot-gun EVERY play - teams could easily mix both looks now that they have learned how to do both - but they don't in favor to today's simple same old, standard CFL offensive look; and yep, there were wayyyyyy more run plays in the past, with often 2 RBs or a big fullback used; unlike today's simpleton one basic run play; and offences of the past featured a position called a tight end (still a huge part of NFL offences) = again more diversity with a big body receiver who could run patterns or block for the run game; and O-lineman had to be able to run all kinds of different run block moves - traps, sweeps, counters, draws; as opposed to today just back on their heels all the time.

I get that some of you take anything critical said about today's CFL or the Argos as some sort of insult and you want to jump in to defend the league or team. If you really believe today's CFL offences are more "complicated" and that makes you fell better about the league or the Argos, that's OK by me, and we're entitled to our own opinions there.

[paulwoods13]

I get that some of you take anything critical said about today's CFL or the Argos as some sort of insult and you want to jump in to defend the league or team. If you really believe today's CFL offences are more "complicated" and that makes you fell better about the league or the Argos, that's OK by me, and we're entitled to our own opinions there.

OV, why is it that just about every discussion you enter ends up with you being the one hurling insults? Believe it or not, it's possible to disagree with you -- or hell, even to partially agree with you -- for reasons other than an aversion to any negative words about "today's CFL." Most of those you have repeatedly tarred with this brush have expressed lots of critical opinions about the CFL, yet get labelled (indirectly but the intention seems crystal clear) as simpletons, wannabes, good ole boys, etc. I'm glad you're on the board but this behaviour is getting old (again).

[ArgoZ]

Just some things to consider;

Flutie was in the shotgun almost every play. A lot of his teams "runs" we're basically shovel passes. He was a CFL genius, but an offense really doesn't get much simpler. Whatever works, you don't need to impress the armchair QB's on forums.

Most pro playbooks do not differ much from what you see on Madden,,,, seriously. I think we are over thinking things here.

The TE has disappeared due to a variety of reasons that has evolved our game. Player availability, NFL salaries, grass roots and rules, all have contributed.

How can we fairly compare 50's, 60's, even 70's offenses to today? The athletes are not the same, in so many ways.

Mobile QB's, 5 reciever sets, 40+ throws a game. All things we see in the NFL today were used for many years in the CFL. So is the CFL old and boring or revolutionary and exciting?

I'm almost 40 and barely know my 80's football, how old are you guys? LOL.

[Wobbler]

Hate to break it to the "experts" on this forum, but most pro playbooks do not differ much from what you see on Madden,,,, seriously.

How many pro playbooks have you read? It sounds like you have a lot to teach us.

[ArgoZ]

How many pro playbooks have you read? It sounds like you have a lot to teach us.

Ya, that sounded condescending, so I changed it. I'm no teacher, LOL. I saw a program on Madden once, on how close the actual playbooks were for the real team counterparts. They used a lot of former coaches for input. It was interesting and believable.

[Mookie Fan]

What I've noticed with the Argo offence over the last 3 years is that there aren't that many formations used. There are different formations used, of course, but the offensive backfield tends to be pretty well the same, most of the time. You do see receivers used differently at times, with bunch formations and the like, but that's about it. The Argos usually use at most 1 RB in the backfield. We almost never see any 2 RB sets, and no 1 RB + 1 FB or 2 RBs + 1 FB formations.

The Argos have 3 Canadian 3 FBs, 2 of them are quite big, and they are rarely used for almost anything. I don't watch film, so I'm not sure, but I assume they play some special teams. Occasionally Robinson and Dupuis are used as receivers. Not out of the backfield, but off the line. I'm not sure about how Gillanders is used. He is used even less frequently though, I believe. Dupuis and Robinson do occasionally run block, but not usually as lead blockers I don't think. They're usually on the line when they do that.

None of the 3 FBs are used as ball carriers. I can't remember them getting 1 carry, even in short yardage. They may have, but practically never.

[ArgoRavi]

Didn't Gary Etcheverry try to use an offence which resembled those used in the 1960s when he coached the University of Ottawa a few years back and wasn't it a complete disaster? It is really difficult to imagine that every other sport and technology has advanced with time except for the CFL. I just don't buy that.

[OV Argo]

OV, why is it that just about every discussion you enter ends up with you being the one hurling insults? Believe it or not, it's possible to disagree with you -- or hell, even to partially agree with you -- for reasons other than an aversion to any negative words about "today's CFL." Most of those you have repeatedly tarred with this brush have expressed lots of critical opinions about the CFL, yet get labelled (indirectly but the intention seems crystal clear) as simpletons, wannabes, good ole boys, etc. I'm glad you're on the board but this behaviour is getting old (again).

I may think a lot of the current CFL decision makers come across as simpletons, wannabes and same ole good ole boys, but I don't label any posters here as such with "insults" that you seem to see; you OTOH seem to often think of anybody disagreeing with CFL standard party line as some sort of heretic who doesn't know much about football and how dare they disagree with the "experts" running CFL teams. Defender of the faith are we? - that's OK - but your "behaviour" there is typical and rampant on a lot of CFL fan forums - I accept that / am used to hearing it.

[OV Argo]

[QUOTE=ArgoRavi;61506]Didn't Gary Etcheverry try to use an offence which resembled those used in the 1960s when he coached the University of Ottawa a few years back and wasn't it a complete disaster? It is really difficult to imagine that every other sport and technology has advanced with time except for the CFL. I just don't buy that.[/QUOTE


Didn't Bart Andrus, Joe Mack, Gary Crowton, Joe Paopao, that clueless, zero experience in Canadian football coach the Als hired to replace Trestman, and a whole bunch of other same old types, get the chance to run CFL teams and offences over the past number of years ? Everything "advances" with time does it ? ;o)

[D-Gap-Willie]

Didn't Gary Etcheverry try to use an offence which resembled those used in the 1960s when he coached the University of Ottawa a few years back and wasn't it a complete disaster? It is really difficult to imagine that every other sport and technology has advanced with time except for the CFL. I just don't buy that.

Please -- oh please, don't try to use Etcheverry, the energy coach, as the poster boy for offences from 50 years ago. His 'experiment' as UofO head coach lasted all of 5 games. His offence, which I think he called "double wing " really didn't resemble anything from the 60's, 70's or even the 80's. It was a passing offence. Mind you, I only saw film of one game. In that one film, at least, it was very obvious that the offence did not understand the scheme, although there were many open receivers. A much bigger issue was that the defence was simply awful -- an Etcheverry trademark. It's simple and easy to blame the offensive scheme, but that is not what I saw.

[KCargosfan]

Mike Leach's quarterbacks at Texas Tech, and now Washington State, call(ed) their own plays. Pretty refreshing. At one point Leach said something like, "They're the ones on the field and see what's going on, so they know what adjustments to make."

[paulwoods13]

I may think a lot of the current CFL decision makers come across as simpletons, wannabes and same ole good ole boys, but I don't label any posters here as such with "insults" that you seem to see; you OTOH seem to often think of anybody disagreeing with CFL standard party line as some sort of heretic who doesn't know much about football and how dare they disagree with the "experts" running CFL teams. Defender of the faith are we? - that's OK - but your "behaviour" there is typical and rampant on a lot of CFL fan forums - I accept that / am used to hearing it.

Here we go again.

[Will]

Well the Blake Sims era lasted long.

[Wobbler]

Or, to put that another way:

#Argos have released Alabama QB Blake Sims. He did not look good at all in camp. #CFL

— Mike Hogan (@tsnmikehogan) June 7, 2015

[Wobbler]

It's nice to see some movement in our QB evaluation. According to Hogan, Kilgore has passed Gale on the depth chart. Who knows why; hopefully Kilgore has shown improvement, but maybe Gale has regressed. It'll be really interesting to find out how they do on Tuesday.

Perhaps Ray's injury is indeed a minor blessing in disguise.