Blue Bombers Forum
October 22, 2017, 12:29:31 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Coaching change  (Read 2194 times)
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10116



« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2017, 02:50:47 PM »

I think that anyone's defence is better suited to veteran players. There is a level of decision making in anyone's defensive scheme. Players are given options in all schemes and must make good decisions. The role of the coordinator is to put them in a position where the decisions become easy. However, Hall likes to give his players more latitude to risk take than some DCs would allow. It is ultimately up to the comfort level of the player though. Hall will not eat their lunch for not taking a risk, or for taking one and getting burned.
Yes, which is much more suited towards veteran players, versus a D that leaves less discretion to the players. 
Logged
66 Chevelle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 400


« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2017, 04:13:57 PM »

Interesting... and informative... nice... Now with what Lincoln pointed out relative to the Edmonton game, the D has proven to be able to give shut down defense, which points to we have the ability to do so. Yet at times we either fail to execute or make the wrong decision on field. With that being said, does MOS and Hall tighten down the decisions allowed to be made on the field moving forward, given the importance of the balance of the schedule?

Also, another comment about our D line and the over pursuit or going so wide around the edge in the pass rush. It seems like the get close, a lot, to getting to the QB, yet don't. In contrast, it's seems that Nichols sacks are generally contained to when the rush is more compact and having the pocket collapse around him. Otherwise he either steps up and throws or takes off, like others... Would we be better off doing likewise, making the rush more compact in an effort to contain the QB?
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
KINGCHARLES
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3511



« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2017, 04:19:36 PM »

Have to agree the only way Hall might stay is if the Bombers win the Grey Cup.... Still he runs a defence thats been consistently among the league worst in TD's given up, Points allowed, Yards allowed, yards on 1st down allowed, 30+ yrd plays allowed. I think its because he is a poor talent evaluator and doesn't fully utilize his players strengths. If I guy like Okpalaugo  had a 12 and 11 sack season in TO he should have a minimum of 5 sacks here in the 8 games he's played, why doesn't he? its because of Halls schemes and game plans.
Given its harder to actually be a CB/DB/S or to cover passes period because of the CFL's crappy PI/Illegal Contact rules. I have to ask why The Bombers would have a guy like Randle on Banks initially show man to man coverage than drop into zone coverage then constantly allow screen passes and hitch passes to be completed to Banks. If he stayed in Man there would have been no screens or hitches if Hamilton would have continued those it would have been the easiest pick 6.
The Randle on Banks is just a minor example of Hall's defence and the lack of adjustments. Another would be a typical defence the MLB role is the #1 RB....why isn't Hurl the 1st guy to the RB?
Logged

BEASTS OF THE EAST

I DON'T BRAKE FOR RIDER FANS
KINGCHARLES
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3511



« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2017, 04:21:02 PM »

Interesting... and informative... nice... Now with what Lincoln pointed out relative to the Edmonton game, the D has proven to be able to give shut down defense, which points to we have the ability to do so. Yet at times we either fail to execute or make the wrong decision on field. With that being said, does MOS and Hall tighten down the decisions allowed to be made on the field moving forward, given the importance of the balance of the schedule?

Also, another comment about our D line and the over pursuit or going so wide around the edge in the pass rush. It seems like the get close, a lot, to getting to the QB, yet don't. In contrast, it's seems that Nichols sacks are generally contained to when the rush is more compact and having the pocket collapse around him. Otherwise he either steps up and throws or takes off, like others... Would we be better off doing likewise, making the rush more compact in an effort to contain the QB?

they also showed to be a shut down defence against a poor QB in Ottawa...
Logged

BEASTS OF THE EAST

I DON'T BRAKE FOR RIDER FANS
66 Chevelle
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 400


« Reply #64 on: October 11, 2017, 04:44:42 PM »

The Randle on Banks is just a minor example of Hall's defence and the lack of adjustments. Another would be a typical defence the MLB role is the #1 RB....why isn't Hurl the 1st guy to the RB?

you bring up a great point here, it doesn't seem like we really make any real adjustments through out the game other than the switching back and forth from man to zone schemes as a whole periodically...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10266


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2017, 04:48:35 PM »

you bring up a great point here, it doesn't seem like we really make any real adjustments through out the game other than the switching back and forth from man to zone schemes as a whole periodically...

most of us probably don't know enough about defence to be able to spot the adjustments - especially when watching on TV - pretty much impossible to see.
Logged
bowlerdude
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3844


« Reply #66 on: October 11, 2017, 05:32:13 PM »

Given its harder to actually be a CB/DB/S or to cover passes period because of the CFL's crappy PI/Illegal Contact rules. I have to ask why The Bombers would have a guy like Randle on Banks initially show man to man coverage than drop into zone coverage then constantly allow screen passes and hitch passes to be completed to Banks. If he stayed in Man there would have been no screens or hitches if Hamilton would have continued those it would have been the easiest pick 6.
The Randle on Banks is just a minor example of Hall's defence and the lack of adjustments. Another would be a typical defence the MLB role is the #1 RB....why isn't Hurl the 1st guy to the RB?

if he stayed in man Banks would either run straight past him for a TD like he did on the early big play. Randle played Banks extremely well after that big play... you have to respect his speed, so those hitches are easy completions because you don't want to get burned again... but Randle generally shut them down for small gains, including a couple huge plays forcing losses on screen passes
Logged
GCn17
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 19166


« Reply #67 on: October 12, 2017, 03:04:51 AM »

Interesting... and informative... nice... Now with what Lincoln pointed out relative to the Edmonton game, the D has proven to be able to give shut down defense, which points to we have the ability to do so. Yet at times we either fail to execute or make the wrong decision on field. With that being said, does MOS and Hall tighten down the decisions allowed to be made on the field moving forward, given the importance of the balance of the schedule?

Also, another comment about our D line and the over pursuit or going so wide around the edge in the pass rush. It seems like the get close, a lot, to getting to the QB, yet don't. In contrast, it's seems that Nichols sacks are generally contained to when the rush is more compact and having the pocket collapse around him. Otherwise he either steps up and throws or takes off, like others... Would we be better off doing likewise, making the rush more compact in an effort to contain the QB?

Whether a DL stays wide or not depends on the offence really. You have to play contain in this league because tbe field is so wide and LBers are in coverage.
Logged

Unabashed free thinker. No Kool-Aid in my fridge. I don't get blinded by sunglasses at night.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!