Official Game Day Thread - Grey Cup Game - Saskatchewan & Montreal

[Tecno]

That was the most absurd fumble I've seen in ages - especially on that stage. It's like Patterson didn't even try.

Told you guys that he should have never been here in blue & gold.  On the bright side, his career is done.  Kaput.  He'll be the first guy cut, and the witch will be burnt.  Good riddance.  I can't help imagine that on the plane ride home he was being treated like that lady in Airplane who was getting smacked by everyone on the plane all lined up.

This also proves my perennial point that if you want to be a serious team you get a dedicated SY specialist.  SSK did, and their SY was impeccable (best in league actually because the guy is a freight train).  Patterson is more a #2 / backup guy -- totally the wrong body for SY.  What was the MTL GM thinking?!  Bet they don't make that mistake in '26.

And double-punished for the fumble AND the touchback to the 30 YL.  LOL... you can't make this stuff up.

[Tecno]

He changed Oulette somehow, eliminated the constant injuries.

Oullette was sort of a muscle-bound joke before.  OK, but kinda dumb and plodding.  AH has turned Oullette into a stacked version of AH.  Every single thing you see Oullette do is AH.  It's all AH.  Those are all the AH tricks and moves, the film study, the hurdling.

Oullette should share half is paycheck with probably-massively-underpaid AH.  Because Oullette doesn't achieve much if AH wasn't/isn't there.  I wonder if he knows how lucky he is.  And whatever genius in Greenerville came up with this crazy "hire AH" idea should get a $1M bonus.

[Tecno]

And I feel for Patterson, they were saying it was the first tI,e he's ever fumbled. I find that hard to believe. He was released by sask and us, he's a third stringer. I'm wondering if teams will just let their #2 Qb be their short yardage Qb as well, like they used to.

The fumble was near identical to (I think) that CGY GC where they lost with the REC trying to get extra YAC and he coughed it up for a pick-six.  Same near-EZ cough up, same lose-the-game because of it.

This one will go on SC reels for "biggest GC turning points" for sure.  Patterson can see himself cost them the gave for the next 20 years.  Yay!

[J5V]

And that's the main problem with how the CFL is officiated.  As the post-season progresses the refs do more and more of "let them play".  They are loathe to call holds.

And so "holding teams", and I mean ones who really push the boundaries all season and explicitly coach to max-hold to the point of illegality, have a massive advantage the farther they go.

During the season they can practice their mega-holding, and if refs get antsy they can just scale it back a touch until the refs stop calling it.  So they are well-practiced and experts come SF, DF, GC, when it's a huge payoff as the refs turn a blind eye.

For SSK, it's not just OL, it's REC and ST who all do max-hold.  And this is where their big-body RECs come in extra handy.

It presents a conundrum for "more honest" teams like ours.  Unless we switch to coaching like this, and focusing on holding, we'll always be at a disadvantage, especially in the post-season.

But strangely enough, SSK has been this mega-hold team since the C.Jones era.  This is 2 HC's later and they still mega-hold.  I wonder what the commonality is... or is it just the players maintaining this continuity?  Maybe there's a constant OL or REC coach?  Who knows.

And please, don't give me "all teams hold" nonsense.  Yes.  But SSK takes it a special level that no other team does.  So many examples in the GC it's not even funny, not to mention the regular season.

Good post and I agree almost completely and will add it's not just mega-holding but other benefits from the zebras such as phantom PIs. I suspect it's due to their abysmal history of constant losing so the league helps them as much as possible. Proud franchises with a history of playing in the Grey Cup, like ours, don't get those kinds of "breaks". We have to earn everything we get.

[dd]

The fumble was near identical to (I think) that CGY GC where they lost with the REC trying to get extra YAC and he coughed it up for a pick-six.  Same near-EZ cough up, same lose-the-game because of it.

This one will go on SC reels for "biggest GC turning points" for sure.  Patterson can see himself cost them the gave for the next 20 years.  Yay!

I dunno. You could also argue Ento cost them a must needed 7 points/TD when he botched an absolute gimme pick six TD on the swing pass to Oulette. That would have put the Als up by 14 at the time and panic may have set in, so to me, that could have been the bigger play and nobody say boo about that.

But really, the Patterson fumble and the Ento/stonehands dropped sure pick six, cost the Als 14 points, and really, make one of those 2 plays, and they'd be grey cup champs. Montreal pulled a Blue Bomber in this Grey Cup, they kept screwing up/shooting themselves in the foot and it cost them.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I dunno. You could also argue Ento cost them a must needed 7 points/TD when he botched an absolute gimme pick six TD on the swing pass to Oulette. That would have put the Als up by 14 at the time and panic may have set in, so to me, that could have been the bigger play and nobody say boo about that.

But really, the Patterson fumble and the Ento/stonehands dropped sure pick six, cost the Als 14 points, and really, make one of those 2 plays, and they'd be grey cup champs. Montreal pulled a Blue Bomber in this Grey Cup, they kept screwing up/shooting themselves in the foot and it cost them.

"Any given Sunday", sure the Als could have won if, if, if, but on GC day the Riders were the better team, they neither stumbled nor fell.

[Balticfox]

That was the most absurd fumble I've seen in ages - especially on that stage. It's like Patterson didn't even try.

I'm glad Shea Patterson fumbled. He was trying one of those idiotic extend the ball across the goal line when you're standing well before the goal line moves.

I wish the definition of getting into the endzone was consistent with the out of bounds rules. For the latter it depends upon whether the player's feet touch the line not where the ball is.

 

[Tecno]

I wish the definition of getting into the endzone was consistent with the out of bounds rules. For the latter it depends upon whether the player's feet touch the line not where the ball is.

So many difficulties with that though, with not much pay off.  Completely messes up diving-into-the-EZ plays, for example.

I think it's fine the way it is because there has to be an eye towards "what is easier / feasible to officiate by an on-field ref".  Spotting the ball crossing the plane would seem to be easier in most cases (SY piles notwithstanding).

[Balticfox]

Not really a problem. If a player in possession of the ball dives/falls/tumbles to the ground in the vicinity of the endzone, the spot should depend upon where the ball is located when he lands. But if the ball carrier doesn't fall into the endzone because he's still standing when his forward progress is stopped, it should depend upon where his feet are at the whistle.

Quite simply for a touchdown to be awarded I want to see players actually get into the endzone. None of this standing outside or at the one yard line and artificially extending your arms to "break the plane". That's not getting into the endzone. Neither is it consistent with all other in bounds/out of bounds rules and the one thing I demand in a sport is consistency within the rules.