Offensive strategy and play-calling - East Final

[ArgoRavi]

With all the talk about scoring being down and offences not what they used to be, I think there is one thing that we need to consider. Looking at QB stats from the 80's and 90's, the QB's threw a lot more INT's back then. Turnovers also result in more scoring. The game has changed so much since then with ball control style passing being the norm. Pretty well every starting QB threw 20+ INT's back then. As I have mentioned before, Tom Clements threw 30 in 1987 and was voted leagues MOP. IMO, this is mostly the result of less aggressive bend but don't break style of defence we now see. Don't allow the big play, and QB's only go deep now if they see cover 1 or cover 0 which are both rare in today's game. Teams just don't want to take risks on O anymore.

Completion percentages are also much higher today than they used to be because of the low-risk offences.

[AngeloV]

Completion percentages are also much higher today than they used to be because of the low-risk offences.

Yes they are. And believe it or not, contrary to the myth that there are more 2 and outs today than there were back then, it's just not true. You see a lot more possessions where a team gets a couple of first downs today and then stalls before the punt. As I researched the 1990 Argos that averaged nearly 40 points per game punted on average 6.8 times per game that season. This years Argos only punted 6.1 times per game. Bigger plays, less punts, and more turnovers in those days.

[OV Argo]

GC game offensive notes:

Pretty close game in terms of yardage and time of possession.

Bombers had 32 pass plays to 20 run plays

Ticats had 34 pass plays to 15 run plays

Collaros spread the ball around to all his receivers (all of the starting 5 pack guys caught at least 3 passes)

Ticats had only 4 of their 5 pack catch passes (and no attempt to go back to H-back Kalinic after he had the big 25 yard gainer in the East Semi against the Argos)


So, once again - the offence that shows more balance, diversity and ground game, wins in the CFL.

[paulwoods13]

Yes they are. And believe it or not, contrary to the myth that there are more 2 and outs today than there were back then, it's just not true. You see a lot more possessions where a team gets a couple of first downs today and then stalls before the punt. As I researched the 1990 Argos that averaged nearly 40 points per game punted on average 6.8 times per game that season. This years Argos only punted 6.1 times per game. Bigger plays, less punts, and more turnovers in those days.

It would be interesting to compare the number of punts to the number of offensive snaps in 1990 and 2021. Unquestionably, 6.1 punts per game today is a higher percentage of the number of offensive plays than 6.8 was then; the question is, how much higher?

[paulwoods13]

Bombers had 32 pass plays to 20 run plays

Ticats had 34 pass plays to 15 run plays

Actually, Ticats ran the ball 21 times, not 15. So it was:

Wpg 32 passes = 240 yards, and 20 runs = 79 yards
Ham 34 passes = 209 yards, and 21 runs = 106 yards

Hamilton arguably had better balance, and definitely ran the ball better.

The key stat to me (which would have been shocking if it wasn't right in line with the trend of several seasons) is that there were just 111 plays (66 passes, 41 runs and four sacks) in an entire game plus two OT possessions. In the 1991 Grey Cup, there were 126 offensive plays: 85 passes, 34 rushes and seven sacks. Fifteen extra offensive plays, which amounts to almost 14% more game action.

[OV Argo]

Actually, Ticats ran the ball 21 times, not 15. So it was:

Wpg 32 passes = 240 yards, and 20 runs = 79 yards
Ham 34 passes = 209 yards, and 21 runs = 106 yards

Hamilton arguably had better balance, and definitely ran the ball better.

The key stat to me (which would have been shocking if it wasn't right in line with the trend of several seasons) is that there were just 111 plays (66 passes, 41 runs and four sacks) in an entire game plus two OT possessions. In the 1991 Grey Cup, there were 126 offensive plays: 85 passes, 34 rushes and seven sacks. Fifteen extra offensive plays, which amounts to almost 14% more game action.

I'm talking actual offensive design; so i take the QB runs out because a good 80% of them were designed as pass plays but end up being counted as runs in the stats. You can also remove QB sack lost yardage because it was a designed pass play that ends up being counted as run yardage.

How did Hamilton run the ball better or have more balance then ??? The Bombers banged their star RB more in the ground game and spread the ball around to all 5 receivers in the 5 pack, and the result was a win.


And this theme is repeated in all 4 of the play-off games leading up to the GC: the offences that leaned towards more balance in run play design compared to pass plays, as a percentage of their offensive "thinking", won all the games.

[paulwoods13]

Since the offence is trying to gain yards on every play other than a kneel-down, 21 carries for 106 yards (5-yard average gain) is clearly more effective than 20 carries for 79 yards (4-yard average gain). 32/20 is just about the same as 34/21 so I withdraw the suggestion Ham arguably had better balance.

If you're gonna cherry pick stats to suit your argument, OV, there's little point discussing this further. I guess we can stop saying Tracy Ham, Damon Allen and Kerry Joseph had 1,000-yard rushing seasons because some of those yards were accumulated on plays intended to be passes?

[Will]

Completion percentages are also much higher today than they used to be because of the low-risk offences.

The 1987 Argonauts threw 18 interceptions as a team which was fewest in the league, in 2021 they'd be 7th or 8th in that category. The Elks threw 20 interceptions this year (highest in the league), by contrast both the '86 Alouettes and '86 Rough Riders threw 42 interceptions respectively.

[AngeloV]

The 1987 Argonauts threw 18 interceptions as a team which was fewest in the league, in 2021 they'd be 7th or 8th in that category. The Elks threw 20 interceptions this year (highest in the league), by contrast both the '86 Alouettes and '86 Rough Riders threw 42 interceptions respectively.

Make no mistake, turnovers do contribute to higher scores. some times mistake filled games are the most exciting. Watching some of the games from the 70's on YouTube, it wasn't uncommon for a QB to throw 3 or 4 picks in a game.

[OV Argo]

Make no mistake, turnovers do contribute to higher scores. some times mistake filled games are the most exciting. Watching some of the games from the 70's on YouTube, it wasn't uncommon for a QB to throw 3 or 4 picks in a game.

Yep - more deep passing, taking more chances in older CFL passing days as opposed to today's bland, predictable, safe passing game; often QBs threw as many or more picks than they did TDs in those days. HCs and OCs still get to call the plays though (mid you, great vet QBs like Jackson or Flutie had lots of say in what plays to run).

Which is one reason why, IMO, Russ Jackson stands as about the best CFL QB of all-time; in the days when there were as many or more picks than TD passes - Russ' career totals were 185 TDs to 124 INTs; and in his GC winning finale season of 69 - in 14 reg. season games, he threw for 3641 yards with 33 TDs to 12 INTs. ! And on top of that he was a real run threat QB as well.

[ArgoRavi]

Yep - more deep passing, taking more chances in older CFL passing days as opposed to today's bland, predictable, safe passing game; often QBs threw as many or more picks than they did TDs in those days. HCs and OCs still get to call the plays though (mid you, great vet QBs like Jackson or Flutie had lots of say in what plays to run).

Which is one reason why, IMO, Russ Jackson stands as about the best CFL QB of all-time; in the days when there were as many or more picks than TD passes - Russ' career totals were 185 TDs to 124 INTs; and in his GC winning finale season of 69 - in 14 reg. season games, he threw for 3641 yards with 33 TDs to 12 INTs. ! And on top of that he was a real run threat QB as well.

I have re-watched some games from the 1970s and there's no way that they were as entertaining as the games we see today, even with the faults that today's game has. Offences in the 1970s were quite conservative - much more than today.

[OV Argo]

I have re-watched some games from the 1970s and there's no way that they were as entertaining as the games we see today, even with the faults that today's game has. Offences in the 1970s were quite conservative - much more than today.

Have to disagree on that one old buddy - big-time.

CFL offences used to feature fullbacks, tight ends, a 2 RB attack often, plus lots of deep passing = way more diversity on offence. That is all gone now for today's standard, same look offences that all teams in the league deploy. Boring, IMO.

[AngeloV]

I have re-watched some games from the 1970s and there's no way that they were as entertaining as the games we see today, even with the faults that today's game has. Offences in the 1970s were quite conservative - much more than today.

I agree. But they definitely seemed more exciting on the surface. A packed stadium always makes a game look better.

[AngeloV]

Have to disagree on that one old buddy - big-time.

CFL offences used to feature fullbacks, tight ends, a 2 RB attack often, plus lots of deep passing = way more diversity on offence. That is all gone now for today's standard, same look offences that all teams in the league deploy. Boring, IMO.

Diversity certainly didn't result in more offence. The 70's were a pretty low scoring decade, and overall offensive yards per game were lower than they are today. It wasn't until the 80's when most teams went away from a traditional TE that scoring boomed.

[paulwoods13]

The 1970s were a field-position game, essentially. Very similar to the NFL -- heavy run emphasis -- but with more punting. As AV suggests, it was the dawn of the twin-slot approach in the early 1980s, and heavier use of pre-snap motion, that ignited two decades of wildly entertaining football.

[paulwoods13]

HCs and OCs still get to call the plays though (mid you, great vet QBs like Jackson or Flutie had lots of say in what plays to run).

Presumably you meant to say that HC/OC "got" to call the plays back then. As far as I know, that was the rare exception, not the norm. Coaches sometimes shuttled in players from the sidelines with specific calls, but mostly QBs called their own plays. Flutie called all of his own plays for at least his last seven years in the CFL. So did Jackson, and so did Dunigan and Foggie (at least during their two years in Toronto).

[argolio]

Scoring going down this year could be an anomaly. Offences need reps to maintain timing, and a year off plus a limited pre-season meant fewer reps. I hope the league doesn't make any major change based on the weirdness of Covid.

[SkalbaniasGhost]

Scoring going down this year could be an anomaly. Offences need reps to maintain timing, and a year off plus a limited pre-season meant fewer reps. I hope the league doesn't make any major change based on the weirdness of Covid.

The CBA negotiation might lead to a transition from a 18 game to 20 game regular season.The exhibition games would be replaced with an organized scrimmage.
This change would not go into effect until 2023

[OV Argo]

Presumably you meant to say that HC/OC "got" to call the plays back then. As far as I know, that was the rare exception, not the norm. Coaches sometimes shuttled in players from the sidelines with specific calls, but mostly QBs called their own plays. Flutie called all of his own plays for at least his last seven years in the CFL. So did Jackson, and so did Dunigan and Foggie (at least during their two years in Toronto).

Nope. I meant still, as in always (and they could have over-ruled Flutie or Jackson); so they now have decided that every CFL teams runs the same basic offence; rather than mining the entire spectrum of offensive plays and formations learned from the history of the game, they have chosen one basic style of play and one basic formation as the trend/only way. And when the defences know that, it makes their task simpler and easier.

[paulwoods13]

Nope. I meant still, as in always (and they could have over-ruled Flutie or Jackson); so they now have decided that every CFL teams runs the same basic offence; rather than mining the entire spectrum of offensive plays and formations learned from the history of the game, they have chosen one basic style of play and one basic formation as the trend/only way. And when the defences know that, it makes their task simpler and easier.

None of your point about same basic offence is wrong, unfortunately. But it is wrong, IMO, to suggest that coaches have always controlled play calling. Sure, coaches create the offensive philosophy, but Flutie, Jackson and most QBs before the mid-1990s (maybe later) called their own plays. A certain (possibly definitive?) account of the 1991 Argo season noted that the head coach actually had to threaten to pull his starting QB just to ensure a single play the coach wanted was called.