Ricky Ray time

[Argo57]

There are still plenty of NFL teams that load-up on strong ground games. And Canadian football at the CIS level often features teams that will pound the run game - wayyyy more than they pass some game - and win with that offence. And of course there are plenty of single game CFL anomalies where a team starts with some ground game, and it works and they stick with it and WIN. People who want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that a real ground game is not possible in the CFL now - make me laugh - and nothing wrong with that.

My point being you have to mix in the run game effectively to take the heat off of the QB's something Toronto hasn't been able to do effectively since 2012-13.
The Argonauts failure to do so may be as much of an indictment of the O-Line skill set as our RB talent.
NFL 4 down football allows teams the option to think run first, IMO that philosophy wouldn't work in the CFL.

[OV Argo]

Perhaps the same reason that teams in the 1960s and '70s routinely ran the ball on second-and-long.

???

Which teams "routinely" ran the ball on 2nd and long in the 60s & 70s ?

The difference then - with diverse offensive sets and varied play-calling - was that teams had some faith enough in very good RBs and realized that at times you could gain 7 or 8 yards (or break big gainers) on 2nd downs plays Those offences of course also passed on 2nd and longs and quite successfully often. There was diversity in play-calling and formations, plus a tight end or fullback might get the ball to gain yardage.

Now - with standard same-look CFL gob offences - they have next to no faith in a ground game to gain more than 2 or 3 yards on a 2nd down, and instead defer to pass only thinking. The number of times I see incompletions or 3 yard hook routes on 2nd and 5 situations in the CFL now is laughable & embarrassing IMO.

When it's same old group-think offensive coaches only hired in the CFL now - you are going to see only the same standard look & thinking offences.

With the evolution of offensive football and all the different looks , sets and play-calls that are known as possible - a smart offensive coaching staff might have the brains & guts to deploy all sorts of those looks / plays. Standard 5 pack/QB in shot-gun ... PLUS - load up on ground drives (sweeps, counters, traps, pound a big back up the middle, etc).;, go to 6 pack receiver set,; QB under C some times;, use a fullback or tight end some - to fool the defence or keep them guessing / off-balance.

But nope - those things just out of the question to some I guess The standard CFL offence way now is the only way and you're living in the past if you might like to see something a bit different ???. Again - if some like seeing every team in a 9 team league run the same basic look offence with predictable play-calling - that's just swell.

[Wobbler]

This was a perfectly good Ricky Ray thread at one point. Ugh.

OV, stop complaining. I don't grind the same axes you do, but I share your interest in strategic experimentation and variety. It's fun!

How would you bring those things (in the form a run-first offense, balanced offense, or *whatever*) to the CFL? What rules would you change, who would you petition, etc. etc. Please don't respond that "It can't be done because of all the GOB 'thinkers' employed to 'manage' and 'coach' in this 'league'", because then I'll point out that your complaints are a massive waste of everyone's time...

[OV Argo]

This was a perfectly good Ricky Ray thread at one point. Ugh.

OV, stop complaining. I don't grind the same axes you do, but I share your interest in strategic experimentation and variety. It's fun!

How would you bring those things (in the form a run-first offense, balanced offense, or *whatever*) to the CFL? What rules would you change, who would you petition, etc. etc. Please don't respond that "It can't be done because of all the GOB 'thinkers' employed to 'manage' and 'coach' in this 'league'", because then I'll point out that your complaints are a massive waste of everyone's time...

When a poster comes on here and tells us that CFL football now is enlightened because they realize that mostly pass offence is the only way to go and running the football (3 yards & a cloud of dust cliche) is some sort of silly anachronism - oh really, which football gawd decided this? - then sorry, I'm going to respond (complain if that's what you want to call it).

There are no rule changes needed - and what I've said often - to affect real change there, a CFL team (owner or GM) would have to hire some different thinking offensive football coaches; rather than just hiring / recycling from the same old clique of group-thinkers who only know/deploy standard look offence. Might take some real maverick type owner/GM to do this. I don't expect it to happen anytime soon, but you never know. Meanwhile - I'm still a big CFL fan - watch almost every game in a season. I'd like to see more variety from offences in the CFL, but I still love the game & league - with the offence they now use. And if I really want to see more variety from football offences, there are other leagues to watch (CIS or NFL).

[Wobbler]

I was asking how you would try to bring these ideas to the CFL, OV. We fans can't control what some owner might hypothetically do, but the league (and specific owners) could be petitioned regarding specific rules. What's the plan?

[Mookie Fan]

My point being you have to mix in the run game effectively to take the heat off of the QB's something Toronto hasn't been able to do effectively since 2012-13.
The Argonauts failure to do so may be as much of an indictment of the O-Line skill set as our RB talent.
NFL 4 down football allows teams the option to think run first, IMO that philosophy wouldn't work in the CFL.

I think Toronto did have a bit of success running the ball in the second half of 2014, especially with Steve Slaton. Toronto would run the ball a bit, but often too predictably, and not enough. They would rarely run twice in a row, or following a long pass. If it didn't work right away in terms of yardage gained, Toronto gave up on it. If its started working and even continued to work, they would still give up on it eventually, often pretty quickly. I'm not sure if Slaton didn't get more carries because he wasn't healthy enough to endure a heavier workload, but he and the other backs needed to be given the ball more. The lack of a consistent ground game cost the Argos at least 3-4 wins in 2014, as I have stated before, and is the biggest reason they missed the playoffs that year.

2012 was obviously a better year for the running game than 2014. In 2013, injuries to all 3 RBs hurt Toronto a lot, especially come playoff time. 2015 was the worst year for the ground game of the last 4 in my opinion.

[Double Dare]

This was a perfectly good Ricky Ray thread at one point. Ugh.

Ha, ha. Who is Ricky Ray?

[Golden Fleece]

http://www.cfl.ca/2016/03/23/landry-...ing-pain-free/

Great news !

This was a perfectly good Ricky Ray thread at one point. Ugh.

Right, let's get the thread back on track. The article is worth a read, and goes into some good detail. The best takeaway for me is that we should see the return of the deep ball in 2016. Trevor Harris would take some shots earlier in the season, but watching Ray's last two regular season performances at home, it really looked like his arm wasn't ready for medium and deep throws, hence the over reliance on the short passing game that could drive any fan crazy if it means more FGs than TDs. Also, it will prevent defences from creeping up to take away the short throws, which incidentally limits the run game as well.

[paulwoods13]

Just a pet peeve of mine - CFL all-star teams should name just one tailback and 3 slotbacks = the standard set that all teams deploy a huge percentage of the time; if they wanted to, they could recognize an H-back as an all-star, but it's such a part-time position now, not sure it would merit that.

Agreed.

[paulwoods13]

Which teams "routinely" ran the ball on 2nd and long in the 60s & 70s ?

All of them. Watch any game from the 1960s (there are a number of them archived, mostly Grey Cups or playoff games) and you will regularly see two-and-outs with both plays being handoffs. Teams featured the ground game then (as you know) and played for field position as much as for scoring.

[doubleblue]

Ha, ha. Who is Ricky Ray?

The ground game and fullbacks got in the equation because the thinking is that would help keep Ricky Ray healthy for part of the season anyway. With the new concussion protocol one hard hit and your QB could be out while he gets his noggin checked. What's a 15 yard penalty if you can knock Ricky Ray out of the game. A big back who can block beside being able to run and catch would not be impossible to find. Someone like Dupuis but with more speed. They've got this guy Copeland listed at 5'11 260 signed to play DT, but he was a FB in College. Saw some clips of him carrying in the ball and swinging out for a pass and yac yards. Tough guy to bring down. I played with and against guys like that and believe me it is not fun going one on one with them when they get up a head of steam. Much easier to bring down a 6'3 guy.
But getting back to the main question. Can he block? I dunno. Maybe Milanovich and Brady will give us a chance to find out in TC.

[OV Argo]

All of them. Watch any game from the 1960s (there are a number of them archived, mostly Grey Cups or playoff games) and you will regularly see two-and-outs with both plays being handoffs. Teams featured the ground game then (as you know) and played for field position as much as for scoring.

I disagree with your term routinely there. Sure they ran the ball on 2nd and medium or long some, but they also passed plenty in those situations. And while film of old games like that is fun to watch, I was watching those games back when they happened.

If anything the term routinely would be more apt to describe what CFL offences do today on 2nd down and anything more than 2 yards to go = they pass, with next to no thought of using a run to make the first down. In sharp contrast to the 2nd down play-calling in the 60s & 70s you were referring to, where both run & pass options were looked at.

[OV Argo]

I was asking how you would try to bring these ideas to the CFL, OV. We fans can't control what some owner might hypothetically do, but the league (and specific owners) could be petitioned regarding specific rules. What's the plan?

You seriously believe the fans could start some sort of petition to affect change in the CFL?

You mean like that on-line petition I saw a number of years ago (signed by quite a few football fans) urging the CFL to give Canadian QBs a real shot to play ?

And even if you could get some sort of petition going to call for different or varied offence, how could you possibly word it? - no passing allowed on first down ? Force OCs to call certain plays ?

Real change has to come from decision makers, and it's not a democratic matter in football.

[ArgoRavi]

And Canadian football at the CIS level often features teams that will pound the run game - wayyyy more than they pass some game - and win with that offence.

But they are playing against CIS defences. Sorry, but you just can't compare facing very complex CFL defences with bigger and better athletes with CIS ones.

[Wobbler]

You seriously believe the fans could start some sort of petition to affect change in the CFL? Real change has to come from decision makers, and it's not a democratic matter in football.

I agree, OV. So why are you wasting your time (and our time) with mindless complaints?

[OV Argo]

I agree, OV. So why are you wasting your time (and our time) with mindless complaints?

So, you get to decide here what constitutes "mindless complaints" rather than a valid discussion about a football topic? - OK then. Please send the memo to others who have suggested they would like to see the Argos use more run game or more or a balanced offence (doubleblue, Rich and others), and we can maybe agree to never discuss this subject anymore.

[OV Argo]

But they are playing against CIS defences. Sorry, but you just can't compare facing very complex CFL defences with bigger and better athletes with CIS ones.

That is a ludicrous, laughable argument Ravi - the supposed oh so complex CFL defences with better athletes are there against the pass & run. Are you saying the only reason that any college ball team puts up big offensive numbers is because the calibre or play is lower? BTW - there are bigger & better athletes on the O-line blocking in the CFL, no? - or it only works your way? Shouldn't all CFL games be low scoring affairs then with such incredible defences? Maybe the Riders and Argos last GC wins should be taken away for cheating or something since their run game and top notch RBs (Sheets & Kackert) were the big factors on offence? How is your gob thinker supposed to explain those games to you who need their reassurance ? - those RBs couldn't have possibly gained that kinda yardage against the "complex" defences they faced. LOL.

[doubleblue]

I agree with this too. I think they just just make the game day roster 22 Canadians and 22 Americans and QB's should not get their own designation. I would also like to see the number of starting Canadians up to 10, although I know this is very unlikely. Also think they number of Canadian starters should be equally split between O and D. For example, in my scenario, there should be minimum of 5 Canadians on the field for each team at all times.

I have been advocating something like this for a while, (no designation) if we are ever to see Canadian QB's on CFL teams rosters. I know Sinopoli was on Calgary's roster for a while, but they did cut him and fortunately he had the talent to go to receiver.
I don't think we will ever see the CFL go back to 10 starters. One of the big reasons IMO is the number of missed games we see now for concussions. Players are forced to sit out games now with concussion symtoms that in the past they would be allowed to keep playing. Having 10 starters would really tax the Canadian depth.

[AngeloV]

I have been advocating something like this for a while, (no designation) if we are ever to see Canadian QB's on CFL teams rosters. I know Sinopoli was on Calgary's roster for a while, but they did cut him and fortunately he had the talent to go to receiver.
I don't think we will ever see the CFL go back to 10 starters. One of the big reasons IMO is the number of missed games we see now for concussions. Players are forced to sit out games now with concussion symtoms that in the past they would be allowed to keep playing. Having 10 starters would really tax the Canadian depth.

I agree with you here. Perhaps they should start with 8 and mandate 4 on the field at all times, be it O, D, or ST's. Adding the QB position to the designation of import or non import is also big. Some coaches may actually decide that it is in their best interest to dress an import elsewhere rather than dress 3 import QB's. It may be a foot in the door that a Canadian QB needs in order to possibly develop.

[ArgoRavi]

That is a ludicrous, laughable argument Ravi - the supposed oh so complex CFL defences with better athletes are there against the pass & run. Are you saying the only reason that any college ball team puts up big offensive numbers is because the calibre or play is lower? BTW - there are bigger & better athletes on the O-line blocking in the CFL, no? - or it only works your way? Shouldn't all CFL games be low scoring affairs then with such incredible defences? Maybe the Riders and Argos last GC wins should be taken away for cheating or something since their run game and top notch RBs (Sheets & Kackert) were the big factors on offence? How is your gob thinker supposed to explain those games to you who need their reassurance ? - those RBs couldn't have possibly gained that kinda yardage against the "complex" defences they faced. LOL.

AV has alluded to this before but there are huge mismatches in CIS football, especially in the OUA, which makes it easier for some teams to run for 200 or 300 yards per game against other teams. Those mismatches simply don't exist at the professional level.