October 6, 2015: Ottawa RedBlacks vs. Toronto Argonauts

[paulwoods13]

I know the team is playing the ratio game, but the signing of National punter Alix is questionable.
He was inconsistent at best with the RB, that's why they released him.
Palardy did a decent job on his punting and from memory had good hang time and there were no shanks.

I agree with all of that, but IMO an import kicker is a luxury that works only if he does all three jobs. By dressing Alix we can get both Hazelton and Spencer into the lineup. I'm good with that, but sure hope Alix punts close to as well as MPalardy did last week.

[argotom]

I agree with all of that, but IMO an import kicker is a luxury that works only if he does all three jobs. By dressing Alix we can get both Hazelton and Spencer into the lineup. I'm good with that, but sure hope Alix punts close to as well as MPalardy did last week.

Yes it's a gamble, I do see the reason to have Hazleton back and Spencer played well so he could not sit.

[jerrym]

Yes it's a gamble, I do see the reason to have Hazleton back and Spencer played well so he could not sit.

Spencer not only played very well at receiver, but also at returner, giving him a two for one value in terms of adding him to the lineup.

Steele is pumped to be back and will be highly motivated to have a good game after such a long layoff.

Curtis Steele has waited for so long for this moment, that he’s pining to get hit early and often when he finally makes his return to the lineup Tuesday night in Ottawa.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/10/04...eturn-to-argos

Unfortunately, I'll have to PVR the game because of work, but I might be able to catch a bit of the middle of the game during a break.

[Mookie Fan]

I agree with all of that, but IMO an import kicker is a luxury that works only if he does all three jobs. By dressing Alix we can get both Hazelton and Spencer into the lineup. I'm good with that, but sure hope Alix punts close to as well as MPalardy did last week.

So we had an import kicker last week who didn't do all three jobs, and we had one of our best games of the year. However, by your reasoning, that can't work? It just did.

You have also suggested that having two kickers (Waters and Pfeffer) on the active roster is a defeatist strategy, and now we're forced to use two kickers on the game day roster.

Also, (and I'm not the first person to say this), there would be other ways to get both Spencer and Hazelton into the lineup. We don't need to dress two internationals at RB. If Whitaker is the starter, Anthony Coombs and Brendan Gillanders could both be given the odd carry. I don't think Coombs is durable enough to be the full-time starter at RB, but he wouldn't have to be. With respect to Gillanders, he could also help out at RB and give the team a good change-of-pace at that position, as he has a different style and is bigger than our other RBs.

I'm not assuming this, but Gillanders could potentially be a more effective ball carrier than any RB on the Argonaut roster. When I watch Gillanders play, he looks very strong and he has a motor. His style of play suggests he could very likely be an effective ball carrier, not just blocker and receiver out-of-the-backfield. I like that Milanovich has involved him in the passing game a tiny bit, but he needs to touch the ball more often.

Milanovich said of Gillanders that he "isn't really a FB, and he isn't really a RB", and suggested they were trying to find more ways to get him involved. Why not use him at RB? Milanovich always seems to favour small international RBs. There is no law that states "all RBs who line up in the CFL must be internationals and must be small and very elusive type RBs." Gillanders is 5'11, 211 lbs. That's a tiny bit smaller than Anthony Woodson, who is a RB. If the team couldn't or wouldn't sign Jerome Messam and/or Anthony Woodson, use Coombs and Gillanders, along with Whitaker.

I realize the budget has been an issue this year, but you really have to hand it to Milanovich. He made yet another backwards decision by letting Michael Palardy go. I don't know almost anything about the new punter the team has signed, but if consistency has been an issue with his punting, why take the huge risk of letting Michael Palardy go? He showed great distance, hang-time, accuracy and consistency. Having a great punter is much more important than dressing one more international receiver or a second international RB.

I like that we are dressing Spencer (who can also return kicks) and Hazelton, but I think that Curtis Steele is less important to the team than Michael Palardy. The running game has been a disaster this year, and I don't see how dressing someone in Steele who has always been just okay will really improve things much. Ball security has been a bit of an issue with Curtis Steele, and other than his big game that he started versus BC at home in 2013, Steele has been average. He isn't very durable, and is elusive but isn't the kind of RB who can consistently grind out the tough yards when needed. Neither is Whitaker.

No starting RB on this team got a TD until game 11. As far as productive games from RBs go, we've gotten one big game from Whitaker in week 1, one pretty big game from Kackert in his first game back and one decent game from Whitaker last week. That's it. Both Kackert and Whitaker are near the end of their careers, Josey didn't show anything in the regular season and Steele hasn't played all year and is just okay. We have depth, but none of our RBs have been consistently effective with a limited number of touches. Also, to be fair, none have been given a chance to prove they can be better with a heavier workload. In the 3 effective games by our RBs, each time the RB had at least or close to 15 touches I believe, if you combine their number of carries and receptions. However, that often-effective strategy has rarely been employed.

I realize Steele is a great player on special teams, but it is a pretty big risk to play one of your two starting RBs on special teams. Can't another player do that job? Last year he missed time late in the year due to a concussion he sustained playing special teams in Montreal if I recall correctly. That was on the first play of that game. I guess the team feels it's worth the risk, as they are in a tight race.

Milanovich did mention the issue of roster flexibility when dressing an international kicker to do just punting. I just feel he could be a little bit more creative with how he uses his roster.

[paulwoods13]

So we had an import kicker last week who didn't do all three jobs, and we had one of our best games of the year. However, by your reasoning, that can't work? It just did.

You have also suggested that having two kickers (Waters and Pfeffer) on the active roster is a defeatist strategy, and now we're forced to use two kickers on the game day roster.

Also, (and I'm not the first person to say this), there would be other ways to get both Spencer and Hazelton into the lineup. We don't need to dress two internationals at RB. If Whitaker is the starter, Anthony Coombs and Brendan Gillanders could both be given the odd carry. I don't think Coombs is durable enough to be the full-time starter at RB, but he wouldn't have to be. With respect to Gillanders, he could also help out at RB and give the team a good change-of-pace at that position, as he has a different style and is bigger than our other RBs.

I'm not assuming this, but Gillanders could potentially be a more effective ball carrier than any RB on the Argonaut roster. When I watch Gillanders play, he looks very strong and he has a motor. His style of play suggests he could very likely be an effective ball carrier, not just blocker and receiver out-of-the-backfield. I like that Milanovich has involved him in the passing game a tiny bit, but he needs to touch the ball more often.

Milanovich said of Gillanders that he "isn't really a FB, and he isn't really a RB", and suggested they were trying to find more ways to get him involved. Why not use him at RB? Milanovich always seems to favour small international RBs. There is no law that states "all RBs who line up in the CFL must be internationals and must be small and very elusive type RBs." Gillanders is 5'11, 211 lbs. That's a tiny bit smaller than Anthony Woodson, who is a RB. If the team couldn't or wouldn't sign Jerome Messam and/or Anthony Woodson, use Coombs and Gillanders, along with Whitaker.

I realize the budget has been an issue this year, but you really have to hand it to Milanovich. He made yet another backwards decision by letting Michael Palardy go. I don't know almost anything about the new punter the team has signed, but if consistency has been an issue with his punting, why take the huge risk of letting Michael Palardy go? He showed great distance, hang-time, accuracy and consistency. Having a great punter is much more important than dressing one more international receiver or a second international RB.

I like that we are dressing Spencer (who can also return kicks) and Hazelton, but I think that Curtis Steele is less important to the team than Michael Palardy. The running game has been a disaster this year, and I don't see how dressing someone in Steele who has always been just okay will really improve things much. Ball security has been a bit of an issue with Curtis Steele, and other than his big game that he started versus BC at home in 2013, Steele has been average. He isn't very durable, and is elusive but isn't the kind of RB who can consistently grind out the tough yards when needed. Neither is Whitaker.

No starting RB on this team got a TD until game 11. As far as productive games from RBs go, we've gotten one big game from Whitaker in week 1, one pretty big game from Kackert in his first game back and one decent game from Whitaker last week. That's it. Both Kackert and Whitaker are near the end of their careers, Josey didn't show anything in the regular season and Steele hasn't played all year and is just okay. We have depth, but none of our RBs have been consistently effective with a limited number of touches. Also, to be fair, none have been given a chance to prove they can be better with a heavier workload. In the 3 effective games by our RBs, each time the RB had at least or close to 15 touches I believe, if you combine their number of carries and receptions. However, that often-effective strategy has rarely been employed.

I realize Steele is a great player on special teams, but it is a pretty big risk to play one of your two starting RBs on special teams. Can't another player do that job? Last year he missed time late in the year due to a concussion he sustained playing special teams in Montreal if I recall correctly. That was on the first play of that game. I guess the team feels it's worth the risk, as they are in a tight race.

Milanovich did mention the issue of roster flexibility when dressing an international kicker to do just punting. I just feel he could be a little bit more creative with how he uses his roster.

It worked fine last week, but it required sitting either Hazelton or Spencer or Kackert. I've seen enough from the first two to want then both in the lineup, and I firmly believe we need two capable RBs on the game roster. I'd like to have M Palardy punting again this week (altho as with any player I'm hesitant to anoint him as a star based on a single game) but I think what we get from keeping Spencer in the lineup outweighs the potential dropoff in punting. If it turns out I'm wrong I will be the first to admit it.

We are forced to use two kickers on the active roster because none of the healthy kickers we have can do all three jobs. That was not the case when Waters was healthy -- there was no reason to dress Pfeffer. We could have kept him on the 46 but it would have been at the expense of someone else we wouldn't want to lose. We've been over this before and obviously we disagree on how the roster should have been managed.

I totally disagree with the notion that Gillanders could be our backup RB. I like the guy a lot on ST and as a tight end and release-valve receiver, but I've seen nothing that makes me believe he's a viable RB. Our opponents would ignore the threat of the run, and our passing game would suffer as a result.

As for Steele, I think you may be understating his value. He was a demon on kick coverage the past two years, when he also played a lot of RB. Kackert also played ST last week. If we're afraid of injuring a backup RB by having him cover kicks, we may as well not play the game. Even with a relatively huge 44-man roster, good players -- including a lot of starters -- need to play special teams. Steele is a more-than-adequate guy to spell Whitaker in the backfield -- he blocks well, can catch and can make tacklers miss.

I think the Argos D showed a little better the last 2 games with Black starting there. My concern with Issaac is his coverage skills. When a team sends 3 receivers to the wide side, it takes away his blitz look (unless Gabriel takes the 3rd receiver or they stay in zone) and makes them vulnerable. I said it at the time and I'll say it again, I think the Argos made a mistake in cutting Matt Ware.

Black's first game at LB was rough but he was very sound last week.

[paulwoods13]

It worked fine last week, but it required sitting either Hazelton or Spencer or Kackert. I've seen enough from the first two to want then both in the lineup, and I firmly believe we need two capable RBs on the game roster. I'd like to have M Palardy punting again this week (altho as with any player I'm hesitant to anoint him as a star based on a single game) but I think what we get from keeping Spencer in the lineup outweighs the potential dropoff in punting. If it turns out I'm wrong I will be the first to admit it.

We are forced to use two kickers on the active roster because none of the healthy kickers we have can do all three jobs. That was not the case when Waters was healthy -- there was no reason to dress Pfeffer. We could have kept him on the 46 but it would have been at the expense of someone else we wouldn't want to lose. We've been over this before and obviously we disagree on how the roster should have been managed.

As for Steele, I think you may be understating his value. He was a demon on kick coverage the past two years, when he also played a lot of RB. Kackert also played ST last week. If we're afraid of injuring a backup RB by having him cover kicks, we may as well not play the game. Even with a relatively huge 44-man roster, good players -- including a lot of starters -- need to play special teams. Steele is a more-than-adequate guy to spell Whitaker in the backfield -- he blocks well, can catch and can make tacklers miss.

Black's first game at LB was rough but he was very sound last week.

Following up on this. IMO Alix was a mild dropoff from M Palardy on punts, but was OK in that dept. Huge dropoff on kickoffs, tho.

Spencer didn't have a huge impact on the game but I still think having him dressed gives us our best possible lineup on offence.

I wonder if Steele got hurt again. After an early kick return I didn't see him again and at one point we had Owusu-Ansah returning kickoffs.

[OV Argo]

So we had an import kicker last week who didn't do all three jobs, and we had one of our best games of the year. However, by your reasoning, that can't work? It just did.

You have also suggested that having two kickers (Waters and Pfeffer) on the active roster is a defeatist strategy, and now we're forced to use two kickers on the game day roster.

Also, (and I'm not the first person to say this), there would be other ways to get both Spencer and Hazelton into the lineup. We don't need to dress two internationals at RB. If Whitaker is the starter, Anthony Coombs and Brendan Gillanders could both be given the odd carry. I don't think Coombs is durable enough to be the full-time starter at RB, but he wouldn't have to be. With respect to Gillanders, he could also help out at RB and give the team a good change-of-pace at that position, as he has a different style and is bigger than our other RBs.

I'm not assuming this, but Gillanders could potentially be a more effective ball carrier than any RB on the Argonaut roster. When I watch Gillanders play, he looks very strong and he has a motor. His style of play suggests he could very likely be an effective ball carrier, not just blocker and receiver out-of-the-backfield. I like that Milanovich has involved him in the passing game a tiny bit, but he needs to touch the ball more often.

Milanovich said of Gillanders that he "isn't really a FB, and he isn't really a RB", and suggested they were trying to find more ways to get him involved. Why not use him at RB? Milanovich always seems to favour small international RBs. There is no law that states "all RBs who line up in the CFL must be internationals and must be small and very elusive type RBs." Gillanders is 5'11, 211 lbs. That's a tiny bit smaller than Anthony Woodson, who is a RB. If the team couldn't or wouldn't sign Jerome Messam and/or Anthony Woodson, use Coombs and Gillanders, along with Whitaker.

I realize the budget has been an issue this year, but you really have to hand it to Milanovich. He made yet another backwards decision by letting Michael Palardy go. I don't know almost anything about the new punter the team has signed, but if consistency has been an issue with his punting, why take the huge risk of letting Michael Palardy go? He showed great distance, hang-time, accuracy and consistency. Having a great punter is much more important than dressing one more international receiver or a second international RB.

I like that we are dressing Spencer (who can also return kicks) and Hazelton, but I think that Curtis Steele is less important to the team than Michael Palardy. The running game has been a disaster this year, and I don't see how dressing someone in Steele who has always been just okay will really improve things much. Ball security has been a bit of an issue with Curtis Steele, and other than his big game that he started versus BC at home in 2013, Steele has been average. He isn't very durable, and is elusive but isn't the kind of RB who can consistently grind out the tough yards when needed. Neither is Whitaker.

No starting RB on this team got a TD until game 11. As far as productive games from RBs go, we've gotten one big game from Whitaker in week 1, one pretty big game from Kackert in his first game back and one decent game from Whitaker last week. That's it. Both Kackert and Whitaker are near the end of their careers, Josey didn't show anything in the regular season and Steele hasn't played all year and is just okay. We have depth, but none of our RBs have been consistently effective with a limited number of touches. Also, to be fair, none have been given a chance to prove they can be better with a heavier workload. In the 3 effective games by our RBs, each time the RB had at least or close to 15 touches I believe, if you combine their number of carries and receptions. However, that often-effective strategy has rarely been employed.

I realize Steele is a great player on special teams, but it is a pretty big risk to play one of your two starting RBs on special teams. Can't another player do that job? Last year he missed time late in the year due to a concussion he sustained playing special teams in Montreal if I recall correctly. That was on the first play of that game. I guess the team feels it's worth the risk, as they are in a tight race.




Milanovich did mention the issue of roster flexibility when dressing an international kicker to do just punting. I just feel he could be a little bit more creative with how he uses his roster.

Bang-on dude!

Towards a couple of your points:

a) - the kicking game is ultra important and critical in the CFL - have guys who are very good at both jobs, and unless there is a guy who can do both jobs really well (like Waters last year - as I pointed out before - fairly rare in CFL history to have a dual kicker consistently be top notch at both jobs - usually they falter some at one job, like Waters has at place kicking) = THEN IMO it is very wise to have 2 seperate kickers to handle the kicking game - and I don't care if they are both Canadian or both American (the good ole CFL notion that it is some huge, un-do-able feat to carry import kickers is a laughable cliche, especially with the larger rosters now - you don't need an exta import RB or DB who rarely see the field - instead have some faith in and respect for your Canadian depth guys); or could be one NI and one import - whatever - just have a very good punter and a very good place kicker on the game roster

b) - Gillanders was a very productive back in CIS ball with the GGs and he tested well at the CFL Combine = he is a quite capable tailback and could easily be the main back-up in a game, or, if given a real shot, he might emerge as a guy who can play regular in the offence (bigger, more powerful change of pace back) - he has done a fine job on STs and blocking in the offence and showed he can handle the ball and pick up yardage in the few times they've thrown to him; the only thing stopping him from being used at tailback is his birth certificate and the atttending gob attitudes there = Americans preferred - is what it is but typical CFL gob myopic stupidity - that will stop them from giving lots of playing time to a lot of Canadian players - Gillanders could maybe play a big role both as part-time H-back (splitting time with Dupuis who also is a force there when used), AND some at tailback which is his natural position, in case Scotty didn't know.

[argolio]

Better than great drive considering we had to overcome penalties.

[argolio]

THAT is a facemask??

[argolio]

Nice return of a pretty good punt.

[argolio]

Hoping Hazelton was down....but he wasn't.

And another bad call.

[argolio]

That wasn't illegal contact.

Hawkins can hit, but he can't cover very well.

[Argo57]

That wasn't illegal contact.

Hawkins can hit, but he can't cover very well.

Hawkins looks clueless out there at times.

[argolio]

I laugh at Rod Black.

HA!

[argolio]

Great patience by Harris.

[argolio]

TD for the good guys!

[Argo57]

Love Rod Black commending the Redblacks for making this game happen, why wouldn't they take the additional home date.

[argolio]

Holding on a missed field goal we weren't going to run out wasn't very smart.

[argolio]

Gotta hold 'em to 3.

[jerrym]

Argos get a break when Ottawa takes a holding penalty preventing a gain to inside the five, but immediately give it back to Ottawa.