Last game - offensive play selection stats

[OV Argo]

Sorry bout this - but here we go again

Argos offence: 38 pass attempts by Ricky Ray; and 8 only run plays to one single RB (Kackert)

Esks offence: 26 combined pass plays (Jyles & Joseph); along with 24 run calls to 2 RBs (Charles & Boyd both got the rock some); plus Joseph had some effective runs at QB.

Result: guess which team won? Surely the CFL is a pass oriented league and you just can't have balance on offence or , gasp, more run calls than pass plays ???

Let me guess - this was some weird anomaly and the Esks only ran more because they had a huge lead and wanted to grind it out and run out the clock late in the game.

:ohno:

[1argoholic]

Is Milanovich over his head? The has much to due with him and we're back to white bread play calling. I need multigrain.haha

I don't get how hard it can be to shuffle the deck and give different looks. Let's see Johnson run it. Can we not toss in the odd bit of trickery. If you think I'm bitching now just wait if we lose the next three or four.

We need to win on Monday!!!

[AngeloV]

As always OV, you seem to bring this up when it's convenient. Most teams that build up a big lead will run the ball a lot after they have built that lead. You can't look at the end of the game stats line to determine that a balanced run/pas ratio is the reason for victory. It would be a lot more beneficial to see a game log, showing what the ratio was while building a lead, than to look at the end of game stats.

[1argoholic]

We sucked, They didn't, we lost. My game day synopisis.

[crmsntide]

I don't think it is so much the pass/ run ratio as it is the milk white vanilla play calling when we need to get some yards. To end the 1st half when we need to push the ball down the field, we run two down and outs for a total of 5 yards, whew scary stuff! At the end of the 4th, about 1:20 or so on the clock, 3rd down and about 5 and we air it out, why not kick the damn field goal, we have to score twice anyway, or at least get the first down and maintain possession so we have a chance to score. OOOOOhhhh no lets throw it down field into triple coverage.

[Mulder]

At the end of the 4th, about 1:20 or so on the clock, 3rd down and about 5 and we air it out, why not kick the damn field goal, we have to score twice anyway, or at least get the first down and maintain possession so we have a chance to score. OOOOOhhhh no lets throw it down field into triple coverage.

This has been brought up alot. You kick the FG, Edmonton takes it on their 35 with 1:20 left. Killing at the very least 40-50 seconds in the process, and that's IF they don't get a first down. At this point, Edmonton's offense was running at will vs us if I remember. Sure we 'did' make the stop after the turnover on downs. I don't agree with throwing it into coverage like that either. Should have gone for a shorter play. But they were not working either.

[AngeloV]

I don't think it is so much the pass/ run ratio as it is the milk white vanilla play calling when we need to get some yards. To end the 1st half when we need to push the ball down the field, we run two down and outs for a total of 5 yards, whew scary stuff! At the end of the 4th, about 1:20 or so on the clock, 3rd down and about 5 and we air it out, why not kick the damn field goal, we have to score twice anyway, or at least get the first down and maintain possession so we have a chance to score. OOOOOhhhh no lets throw it down field into triple coverage.

I had no problem with airing it out on that play. Edmonton was playing zone all game and taking away the deep option. On a 3rd and 5, you might catch them coming up to take away the first down. At that point in the game, needing a TD and FG, it was a chance they had to take. As Mulder and others have said, you kick the FG with 1:20 left, Edmonton starts on the 35, kills at least 50 seconds (assuming they don't get a first down) and punts. Going for the TD first is a must in that situation. Had there been an additional minute on the clock, then I agree, the FG would have been the way to go.

[argotom]

I don't know, however didn't Milanovich come here with a awesome resume?
A former QB, Offensive Co-ordinator under arguably one of the best offensive minds in the game, any league.
Is it me or do our schemes appears horrid at best.
Dink and dunks, the vast majority of the passes being underneath the swing or check off variety and lack of downward horizontal attack.
People talk about the west coast offense, hell we will be lucky to see anything close to a multi dimensional with the run trying to set up the pass and vice versa.
Now with the count detailed by OV, that's pathetic.
I had a better plan of attack when I was a QB in high school years ago.
If Scott has to many things on his plate, hand off the duties to Jason Maas, who surely can sit down with Ricky to come up with a better scheme.

[OV Argo]

As always OV, you seem to bring this up when it's convenient. Most teams that build up a big lead will run the ball a lot after they have built that lead. You can't look at the end of the game stats line to determine that a balanced run/pas ratio is the reason for victory. It would be a lot more beneficial to see a game log, showing what the ratio was while building a lead, than to look at the end of game stats.


The Esks had a big lead in that game?

And I didn't say a balanced offence or plenty of run game was "the reason for victory", nor any sort of guarantee of a good or productive CFL offence. I was just pointing out another (fairly rare) example of a fairly balanced CFL offence with plenty of ground game on display ... that did happen to lead to another win for the offence that tried it.

When you see an example of a CFL team/offence trying a balanced attack with as much, or close to as much run as pass, AND it fails / results in a loss ... please come on here and present all the stats, on field evidence or anectdotes you wish to provide. Won't prove much, just like my post doesn't; just a bit of on field evidence to go by.

[Gill The Thrill]

Sorry bout this - but here we go again

Argos offence: 38 pass attempts by Ricky Ray; and 8 only run plays to one single RB (Kackert)

Esks offence: 26 combined pass plays (Jyles & Joseph); along with 24 run calls to 2 RBs (Charles & Boyd both got the rock some); plus Joseph had some effective runs at QB.

Result: guess which team won? Surely the CFL is a pass oriented league and you just can't have balance on offence or , gasp, more run calls than pass plays ???

Let me guess - this was some weird anomaly and the Esks only ran more because they had a huge lead and wanted to grind it out and run out the clock late in the game.

:ohno:Keep bringing it up, it's true.....especially with an offensive line that they have, they should be spreading it out and running more. Kackert has proven he can elude tacklers and quickly get into gear. A run/pass mixture also makes it easier on the offensive line as it keeps the defence guessing whether they should blitz or drop back into zone. It's as if the coaching staff don't want to confuse the opposition by throwing in an extra back sometimes and in mixing up the plays....Sure they fell behind, but they got right back into the game and it was 19-17 at one point. It's as if they become stupid right after that and let their guard down.

[Rich]

I don't know, however didn't Milanovich come here with a awesome resume?
A former QB, Offensive Co-ordinator under arguably one of the best offensive minds in the game, any league.
Is it me or do our schemes appears horrid at best.
Dink and dunks, the vast majority of the passes being underneath the swing or check off variety and lack of downward horizontal attack.
People talk about the west coast offense, hell we will be lucky to see anything close to a multi dimensional with the run trying to set up the pass and vice versa.
Now with the count detailed by OV, that's pathetic.
I had a better plan of attack when I was a QB in high school years ago.
If Scott has to many things on his plate, hand off the duties to Jason Maas, who surely can sit down with Ricky to come up with a better scheme.

We didn't see the creativity on offence that we saw in the Calgary game. I'm surprised they didn't try the sweep with Owens carrying the ball. Where is the draw play and the screen to counteract pressure packages? Where is this great aerial circus we've been promised?

I will give Milanovich the benefit of the doubt in that he is clearly being let down by this group of receivers. Maybe Rambo and Mann will help the coach come closer to achieving his system. But as it stands right now, this offence has been a mighty big disappointment to me.

And, while we're on the topic of CFL good-ole-boy groupthink, I found it fascinating that the one time this season the Argo tailback takes a handoff from a QB under centre, as opposed to shotgun, he rattles off one of the team's longest runs from scrimmage so far. It seems like simple physics that a back taking the handoff from a running start will likely do better than the back who gets the ball while standing still beside the QB in the shotgun. Yet neither Coach M nor any of his counterparts will likely run any non-short-yardage plays with the QB under centre all season long. Just more of the same-old same-old offensive schemes in the good ol CFL.

[OV Argo]

We didn't see the creativity on offence that we saw in the Calgary game. I'm surprised they didn't try the sweep with Owens carrying the ball. Where is the draw play and the screen to counteract pressure packages? Where is this great aerial circus we've been promised?

I will give Milanovich the benefit of the doubt in that he is clearly being let down by this group of receivers. Maybe Rambo and Mann will help the coach come closer to achieving his system. But as it stands right now, this offence has been a mighty big disappointment to me.

And, while we're on the topic of CFL good-ole-boy groupthink, I found it fascinating that the one time this season the Argo tailback takes a handoff from a QB under centre, as opposed to shotgun, he rattles off one of the team's longest runs from scrimmage so far. It seems like simple physics that a back taking the handoff from a running start will likely do better than the back who gets the ball while standing still beside the QB in the shotgun. Yet neither Coach M nor any of his counterparts will likely run any non-short-yardage plays with the QB under centre all season long. Just more of the same-old same-old offensive schemes in the good ol CFL.


Now, now Rich - don't go questioning the offensive "minds" who direct CFL offences - what are you, some sort of football expert to dare question CFL standard offensive operating procedure? ;o)

It's a small 8 team, cliquish league; QBs should always be in shot-gun; one basic run play allowed; no real tight ends or fullbacks needed at all anymore; so what if the odd time anything different is tried (balanced offence, more run than pass) it always seems to produce a win - burn those game tapes and back to same ole / same ole.

[AngeloV]

Honestly, if you guys hate the type of football being played in the CFL these days, just stop watching. I am willing to bet that the majority of people that watch the CFL prefer this type of football to the TE/FB offence that you seem to crave.

[paulwoods13]

Was it more entertaining in the 1960s and 1970s than it was in the 1980s and 1990s? I say No. The '60s and '70s had tight ends and lots of running and much less receiving and throwing than we have now. The passing game then was much less sophisticated and intricate than it is today.

The elimination of the tight end starting in the late 1970s changed Canadian football forever; so did the elimination of the fullback in the late 1980s. One can argue forever that it would be fun to bring these positions, and a run-first mentality, back, but I doubt it will happen and I imagine if it did the CFL would be accused of reverting to boring football by a majority of (but not all) fans.

[1argoholic]

I'd love to see a great run game at times but I do enjoy a nice balanced attack. Hopefully we can develop some sort of offensive attack.

I can get my great run game fix while wactching certain NCAA teams. There's always a few with almost no passing game.

[OV Argo]

Honestly, if you guys hate the type of football being played in the CFL these days, just stop watching. I am willing to bet that the majority of people that watch the CFL prefer this type of football to the TE/FB offence that you seem to crave.

The CFL - love it or leave it ???

And honestly - I guess I'm some sort of masochist or whatever, since if I "hate" something so much yet keep watching it over & over (missed only the odd televised CFL game in decades = watched literally thousands of hours of CFL football since the 60's) ...? - i think it might actually qualify as a huge CFL fan; but i do watch other football too - lots of NFL, CIS and a bit of US college ball.

I think you may have some problems with hearing anything that offends your notion of how the CFL or the Argos should or just has to be? So, if you hate that so much, just stop reading or posting here.

I happen to like lots of variety in the game of football - so sue me; and wish i could see more of it in the CFL, instead of the same old basic look from pretty well every offence in an 8 team league; and i wouldn't want to see every CFL team "revert" to a same look offence that did feature lots of ground game or a tight end and a fullback - that would be same old / potential for boring too. A tight end or a fullback or a 2 back set with lots of run plays might be interesting to see again in the CFL, from at least one single team anyways; but the point is, you ain't gonna see it when the league is run by a limited gang who all subscribe to groupthink (beauty Rich ;o))

[AngeloV]

The CFL - love it or leave it ???

And honestly - I guess I'm some sort of masochist or whatever, since if I "hate" something so much yet keep watching it over & over (missed only the odd televised CFL game in decades = watched literally thousands of hours of CFL football since the 60's) ...? - i think it might actually qualify as a huge CFL fan; but i do watch other football too - lots of NFL, CIS and a bit of US college ball.

I think you may have some problems with hearing anything that offends your notion of how the CFL or the Argos should or just has to be? So, if you hate that so much, just stop reading or posting here.

I happen to like lots of variety in the game of football - so sue me; and wish i could see more of it in the CFL, instead of the same old basic look from pretty well every offence in an 8 team league; and i wouldn't want to see every CFL team "revert" to a same look offence that did feature lots of ground game or a tight end and a fullback - that would be same old / potential for boring too. A tight end or a fullback or a 2 back set with lots of run plays might be interesting to see again in the CFL, from at least one single team anyways; but the point is, you ain't gonna see it when the league is run by a limited gang who all subscribe to groupthink (beauty Rich ;o))

OV, I really don't want to get in an argument here. All I'm saying is that the majority of your posts are negative towards the type of football being played in Canada today (and yes, the majority of CIS teams are also playing this style now). If the game was to go back to QB under centre with a FB and TE, I would have no problem with it. But I'm not going to complain about the football I'm watching now. I liked the game in the 70's, 80's, 90's and now.

[ArgoRavi]

OV, I really don't want to get in an argument here. All I'm saying is that the majority of your posts are negative towards the type of football being played in Canada today (and yes, the majority of CIS teams are also playing this style now). If the game was to go back to QB under centre with a FB and TE, I would have no problem with it. But I'm not going to complain about the football I'm watching now. I liked the game in the 70's, 80's, 90's and now.

I wonder if OV complained back in the 1970s about everyone running the same offence then. :) At the end of the day, it is all about scoring points and CFL teams score about as many points now as they have for most of the time since the early 1980s. That also happens to be more points than used to be scored with tight ends and fullbacks and less complex defensive schemes in the 1960s and 1970s. BTW, Mike Kelly did try having the QB under centre and two running backs in the backfield back in '09 in Winnipeg and I don't recall that working out too well save for the one game which OV likes to reference in B.C. against an atrocious Lions run defence.

[OV Argo]

I can always count on you Ravi - a true defender of the good ole boys faith !!!


And BTW Ravi - you probably didn't get to watch CFL football in the 60s and 70s, but just FYI - offences then had wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more diversity than the same old CFL offensive look of today - QB always in shot-gun, only one RB with one standard run play, slotbacks always running straight ahead (and frequently jumping off-side); wether you like it or not, bygone CFL offences had inherently way more looks and possibilites than today's standard same-old; factors like lots of applied ground game, 2 back sets, tight ends or fullbacks, plus still lots of explosive passing game where they actually threw the ball well down the field or deep often (ever heard of Sam the rifle Etchevarry or Russ Jackson?).

But hey - if you are in love with today's homgenous CFL offensive look and accept that as just the way things have to work in the CFL now - then knock yourself out; as far as the more "complex" offences of today or less complex defences of those days ??? - totally laughable to me - but believe what you want to. ;o)

[1argoholic]

I have to agree with OV. How hard can it be to toss in a few plays where the qb's under centre. Hell lets see the fumblerooski or however it's spelled. haha. I thought Mianovich was some offensive guru. I didn't know that meant his schemes were offensive to watch. Monday looked like the Lemon area was back.

[paulwoods13]

And BTW Ravi - you probably didn't get to watch CFL football in the 60s and 70s, but just FYI - offences then had wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more diversity than the same old CFL offensive look of today - QB always in shot-gun, only one RB with one standard run play, slotbacks always running straight ahead (and frequently jumping off-side); wether you like it or not, bygone CFL offences had inherently way more looks and possibilites than today's standard same-old; factors like lots of applied ground game, 2 back sets, tight ends or fullbacks, plus still lots of explosive passing game where they actually threw the ball well down the field or deep often (ever heard of Sam the rifle Etchevarry or Russ Jackson?).

I can agree with a lot of this except the idea that there was "lots of explosive passing game where they actually threw the ball well down the field or deep often." That is not my recollection. Sure there were some effective QBs and receivers, and some creative pass patterns, but a lot of the time there was little in the way of a consistent, sustained passing attack. From 1960 to '69, there were just 21 1,000-yard receivers in the entire league, with just three over 1,300 yards. In the 1970s, 1,000 yards was achieved just 23 times, with just five over 1,300 yards. A factor in this was the 14-game schedule in the East, but a far bigger factor, IMO, is that teams did not spend much time working on the passing game until the Eskimos brought in the twin-slotback system in the late 1970s. It was common to run twice and then punt to play a field-position game.

[AngeloV]

Just for the record, last night Montreal threw 31 passes and ran 14 times (including a scramble by AC), while B.C. threw 39 times and ran 17 (4 of which were QB runs). Even without 2 or their 3 best receivers, Montreal still kept a better than 2 to 1 pass run ratio. I think it would be hard to argue against the fact that the entertainment value of last night's game was as high as any game we've seen all year. And to back up my earlier post, with neither team off to a big lead at any point, the run totals don't get up as high, because neither team is trying to protect a lead and kill the clock. Oh and did I mention that right now, these are the 2 best teams in the league?

[Will]

Did the CFL have similar rules to the NFL regarding pass interference in the 1970's? I know that in the late 1970's the NFL made rule changes that dramatically opened up the passing game. I was doing a Sporcle quiz on guessing every 300 yard passing game in NFL history and the number of those games rose dramatically after 1978 I believe. The CFL also saw an increase in passing yardage with Moon, Holloway, Brock and Clements.

[argotom]

Just for the record, last night Montreal threw 31 passes and ran 14 times (including a scramble by AC), while B.C. threw 39 times and ran 17 (4 of which were QB runs). Even without 2 or their 3 best receivers, Montreal still kept a better than 2 to 1 pass run ratio. I think it would be hard to argue against the fact that the entertainment value of last night's game was as high as any game we've seen all year. And to back up my earlier post, with neither team off to a big lead at any point, the run totals don't get up as high, because neither team is trying to protect a lead and kill the clock. Oh and did I mention that right now, these are the 2 best teams in the league?


I agree with you.
The caliber of the game and entertainment value was exceptional.
Both teams were playing to win at all times, unlike some of the games our Argos have shown with starts and spurts that were pathetic.
That has been my pet peeve with our offense which has frankly been offensive to the paying public.
The lack of a downfield attack by testing the defense to me is unbelievable.

[OV Argo]

I have to agree with OV. How hard can it be to toss in a few plays where the qb's under centre. Hell lets see the fumblerooski or however it's spelled. haha. I thought Mianovich was some offensive guru. I didn't know that meant his schemes were offensive to watch. Monday looked like the Lemon area was back.


That's just the thing - "a few plays" maybe; I wasn't campaigning for CFL offences to totally change or anything; just pointing out that a bit (a lot more actually) of variety on offence is possible compared to the the standard, same old look we see from all 8 teams now - game in and game out for the most part (that's why i like to point out the odd anomaly like a team that runs / has balance - and wins).

The same old 5 pack could be a basic set; but we could also see things like QB under center some; a set and drive that features a 2 back set and lots of run (sweeps, counters, draws, traps), or some screens to a big fullback; a tight end formation where he helps block for the run and also can release down field as an effective big-target receiver; or go to a 6 pack look - all pass drive with QB roll-outs and run options, etc. etc. etc.

But you'd think from the reaction of some - i was calling for a return to leather helmets and banning the forward pass or something; and launching a vicious attack on their good ole CFL ??? So, if you're good with same ole homogenous look CFL offence of today - fair enough, to each his own; but i think i'm entitled to my opinion too - is that OK on these type of fan forums? ;o)

[gilthethrill]

Don't forget about the "direct snap" (also known as the Wildcat..or am I mistaken)? Did B.C. not use that with Harris last night? That formation was used a fair bit in 2009, but faded quickly.

[ArgoRavi]

Don't forget about the "direct snap" (also known as the Wildcat..or am I mistaken)? Did B.C. not use that with Harris last night? That formation was used a fair bit in 2009, but faded quickly.

Both teams used the direct snap at least once last night IIRC. B.C. is the only team right now that uses it with regularity.

[AngeloV]

Don't forget about the "direct snap" (also known as the Wildcat..or am I mistaken)? Did B.C. not use that with Harris last night? That formation was used a fair bit in 2009, but faded quickly.

This is true. The Argos offence was kicking butt in the first 2 games of '09 with a season opening win in Hamilton and a very entertaining loss to Saskatchewan at home. They were running the wildcat with good success with Jamal Robertson, but in game 3 that season in Calgary, they tried it with a reverse to KJ and a pass off that reverse. It blew up in the backfield, and Bart Andrus never ran it again. Almost as if the Andrus threw in the towel, and Argos season was over after that particular play

[gilthethrill]

This is true. The Argos offence was kicking butt in the first 2 games of '09 with a season opening win in Hamilton and a very entertaining loss to Saskatchewan at home. They were running the wildcat with good success with Jamal Robertson, but in game 3 that season in Calgary, they tried it with a reverse to KJ and a pass off that reverse. It blew up in the backfield, and Bart Andrus never ran it again. Almost as if the Andrus threw in the towel, and Argos season was over after that particular play

Yes...I do recall that meltdown in Calgary that night...the Argos never recovered....

[ArgoRavi]

This is true. The Argos offence was kicking butt in the first 2 games of '09 with a season opening win in Hamilton and a very entertaining loss to Saskatchewan at home. They were running the wildcat with good success with Jamal Robertson, but in game 3 that season in Calgary, they tried it with a reverse to KJ and a pass off that reverse. It blew up in the backfield, and Bart Andrus never ran it again. Almost as if the Andrus threw in the towel, and Argos season was over after that particular play

That was the most baffling part of the 2009 season. We had a dynamic, exciting offence up to that play and then Bart got extremely conservative after that and never changed.

[1argoholic]

I want the old leather helmets with no facemasks. That way we won't get facemask penalties. Less cance of guys leading with their heads. It'll be a safer game. Don Cherry would love it. haha.

[OV Argo]

Coming up - Argos vs. Pussycats: battle of 2 passing mostly offences - led by 2 veteran QBs who can put up big passing numbers; Ticats have an edge in both O-Line (slightly aybe - their group is hardly stellar, or even decent), but a huge edge IMO in the receiving corps - Argos have nobody close to Williams or Fantuz calibre and hardly a sure-handed possession guy either like Stala, and at least Giguere is doing a bit at wide-out compared to Watt doing nothing / getting ignored in the Argo passing game. Argos solid D can hopefully negate these Ticat superior factors, and their iffy D might allow Ray to have a good passing game.

[AngeloV]

Coming up - Argos vs. Pussycats: battle of 2 passing mostly offences - led by 2 veteran QBs who can put up big passing numbers; Ticats have an edge in both O-Line (slightly aybe - their group is hardly stellar, or even decent), but a huge edge IMO in the receiving corps - Argos have nobody close to Williams or Fantuz calibre and hardly a sure-handed possession guy either like Stala, and at least Giguere is doing a bit at wide-out compared to Watt doing nothing / getting ignored in the Argo passing game. Argos solid D can hopefully negate these Ticat superior factors, and their iffy D might allow Ray to have a good passing game.

Gee OV, did I miss something or do these great receivers have Hamilton at 3-5? Stala is so sure handed he is backing up...but I'm sure that is the result of having a same old/good ole boy running the team.

On a side note, I couldn't help notice that Laval and McGill ran what you consider to be a typical unimaginative offence while watching their game today. McMaster did as well last year. Go figure that the most successful CIS teams also run those types of O..sans Good Ole boys running those programs.

[OV Argo]

Gee OV, did I miss something or do these great receivers have Hamilton at 3-5? Stala is so sure handed he is backing up...but I'm sure that is the result of having a same old/good ole boy running the team.

On a side note, I couldn't help notice that Laval and McGill ran what you consider to be a typical unimaginative offence while watching their game today. McMaster did as well last year. Go figure that the most successful CIS teams also run those types of O..sans Good Ole boys running those programs.

A lot of CIS offences run CFL sort of mostly pass offence and formations - so what? Not every single team in that league runs the same old offence though, and you can still find plenty of CIS games that feature a lot of ground game (sometimes more run than pass) - THAT stuff is basically forbidden by the good old boys of the CFL you love so much. (and BTW - McMaster & Laval - probably the 2 top teams in CIS ball lately - do show good balance on offence with plenty of run game and lots of different formations - get to see the Vanier last year?; McGill has been a notorious pass heavy CIS offence for some time now - and they have been one of the worst teams).

[1argoholic]

Well I know Michigan St had one rb handle the ball on runs 44 times yesterday. It can be very cool when you have a killer running game. Remember Robert Drummond the beast. I just like to see things mixed up more and more of a running and deeper passing game in TO.

[Rich]

That's just the thing - "a few plays" maybe; I wasn't campaigning for CFL offences to totally change or anything; just pointing out that a bit (a lot more actually) of variety on offence is possible compared to the the standard, same old look we see from all 8 teams now - game in and game out for the most part (that's why i like to point out the odd anomaly like a team that runs / has balance - and wins).

The same old 5 pack could be a basic set; but we could also see things like QB under center some; a set and drive that features a 2 back set and lots of run (sweeps, counters, draws, traps), or some screens to a big fullback; a tight end formation where he helps block for the run and also can release down field as an effective big-target receiver; or go to a 6 pack look - all pass drive with QB roll-outs and run options, etc. etc. etc.

But you'd think from the reaction of some - i was calling for a return to leather helmets and banning the forward pass or something; and launching a vicious attack on their good ole CFL ??? So, if you're good with same ole homogenous look CFL offence of today - fair enough, to each his own; but i think i'm entitled to my opinion too - is that OK on these type of fan forums? ;o)

I agree with the above 100%.

I think, in general, questioning the coaching staff on any issue is seen around here as being a bit disloyal to the team. As I understand it, the attitude seems to be that we ought to trust what the coaching staff is trying to achieve, since they are the paid professionals and we are just fans. Who are we to make suggestions about play selection?

This attitude is a real discussion-killer.

On this particular topic for instance, a few elite posters have crapped on the idea of running a few plays with the QB under centre, but nobody has produced a good reason as to why we shouldn't at least try it. ("Winnipeg tried it a few years ago and it didn't work out" is not a good reason not to try it now)

[ArgoRavi]

I agree with the above 100%.

I think, in general, questioning the coaching staff on any issue is seen around here as being a bit disloyal to the team. As I understand it, the attitude seems to be that we ought to trust what the coaching staff is trying to achieve, since they are the paid professionals and we are just fans. Who are we to make suggestions about play selection?

This attitude is a real discussion-killer.

On this particular topic for instance, a few elite posters have crapped on the idea of running a few plays with the QB under centre, but nobody has produced a good reason as to why we shouldn't at least try it. ("Winnipeg tried it a few years ago and it didn't work out" is not a good reason not to try it now)

Would Ray be comfortable at this point in career in being under centre? If not, that would be one good reason not to do it.

[jerrym]

Well I know Michigan St had one rb handle the ball on runs 44 times yesterday. It can be very cool when you have a killer running game. Remember Robert Drummond the beast. I just like to see things mixed up more and more of a running and deeper passing game in TO.
I agree. The offence has become too predictable. A few handoffs to Durie each game would help mix up the ground game. He has carried the ball only three times this year, which seems ridiculous for a guy with a 5.7 yards average per carry for his career. After all, part of the way the Argos mixed things up when Drummond was dominant was by having Pinball also carrying the ball as well, even though he was primarily a slotback receiver, like Durie, at that point in his career. That way the opponents would not always be completely focused on Kackert (previously Boyd) in running situations. In addition, the dump passes are occurring so often that opponents are basing a large part of their defence on countering them, although this may be partly a function of Ray having to dump the ball quickly many times because the offensive line is doing a poor job.

[paulwoods13]

For what it's worth (probably not much), the U of Ottawa Gee-Gees under HC Gary Etcheverry certainly committed to the run in their opener against Windsor. They ran 56 times and threw just 16 passes, completing six, and lost 63-18. No doubt there were many reasons for the lopsided loss but I have to admit it's surprising that a team that lost by so much threw so few passes.

[Will]

For what it's worth (probably not much), the U of Ottawa Gee-Gees under HC Gary Etcheverry certainly committed to the run in their opener against Windsor. They ran 56 times and threw just 16 passes, completing six, and lost 63-18. No doubt there were many reasons for the lopsided loss but I have to admit it's surprising that a team that lost by so much threw so few passes.

Ouch? I knew that they weren't going to be as good as recent years, but they've fallen off that bad since the Sinopoli and Sacobie eras.

The Argos didn't run the ball a whole lot today either and Ray attempted 45 passes.

[ArgoRavi]

For what it's worth (probably not much), the U of Ottawa Gee-Gees under HC Gary Etcheverry certainly committed to the run in their opener against Windsor. They ran 56 times and threw just 16 passes, completing six, and lost 63-18. No doubt there were many reasons for the lopsided loss but I have to admit it's surprising that a team that lost by so much threw so few passes.

Sounds a little like Etch's offence in Toronto in 2002. I know that the pass/run distribution was not that skewed but Etch's offence in Toronto was not fun to watch on the way to a 4-8 record.

[argolio]

although this may be partly a function of Ray having to dump the ball quickly many times because the offensive line is doing a poor job.More like is mostly.