Blue Bombers Forum
December 17, 2018, 02:54:33 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Team Philosohy and the turnover margin  (Read 2548 times)
Tiger
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4085



« on: January 11, 2018, 09:17:26 PM »

Well I am stepping off a ledge without the knowledge or numbers of Stats Junkie

That said the number one metric that correlates between a football team winning and losing is the turnover margin and turnovers in general.

The Bombers are keenly aware of this and seem to have adopted the philosophy of trying to win this battle.....which is good.

Why is Tiger stating the obvious? 

The reason I raise this is to consider our philosophy, coaching, players and expectations.

ON OFFENCE

I don't think anyone would disagree that ball control on offence is most important.  When you have the ball you can prevent it from being fumbled or intercepted.  That said short passing to achieve this end make cause other problems if you do throw the long ball successfully on occasion.  This stretches the defences.  It opens up the short passes and running game.  We cannot rely on another miraculous Andrew Harris year (for many reasons) where he accounted for 1/3 of our offence......even without many long balls.

ON DEFENCE

The real focus of this post is defence. While interceptions have an element of luck, fumbles are greatly a function of luck for a defence.  Sure you can swarm, rip, learn new techniques, but an effective and experienced ball handler will prevent this most times.  How are interceptions obtained?  Pressure on the QB and disguised coverages.   Sure you can have athletic ability and a "nose for the ball" But you need one or both of these other elements to be successful as a team, and even then, there is a great amount of luck. 

Hence we need more pressure by our DL.  On paper they are all stars.   In reality they were above average.  Why? Scheme? LBs? Injuries?  Motivations?  I don't know but I do know we lacked push.

LBs - we need LBs.  Mo is a great athlete and defensive player (and the best on the team), but he is really a DB.  It is amazing he did not get more banged up than he did.  We put him at LB because we have no one else. This has been hashed so much but  let me say that LBs are integral in pressure and disguised coverage.  Some better football minds than mine (such as Nick Saban) see the LBs as the key and the core of a good D.

Further if you are going to pressure and you do not win the battle in the trenches - you have to blitz and often. 

As to disguising coverage - were you fooled? We need to work on this.

So if turnovers are more luck on defence and less in your players control should you rely on turnovers on defence as part of your philosophy and game planning?

OR should you rely on a different type of defence. 

I am not a professional coach or an expert.

That said what will the Bombers do by way of scheme, planning and personnel to make our defence better?  I'm thinking the same thing may not be the right thing.

Any  thoughts?
Logged

Football is easy if you're crazy as hell
 Bo Jackson

We are inclined to think that if we watch a football game or a baseball game, we have taken part in it
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

BC Sucks
Tiger
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2018, 09:23:06 PM »

I think the defensive scheme needs to be simplified at times for the younger DBs like Alexander and Walker...maybe play more man D until they have a better understanding of the scheme.  It looked like a lot of the explosion plays were a result of the young DBs being confused about their role on that play.  It is my understanding that Hall's D is complex. 
Logged
bunker
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1852


« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2018, 12:25:08 AM »

Full disclosure Tiger: I am not an expert on x's and o's, and never made it beyond high school football.

I think the offence was excellent at avoiding turnovers (Nichols and Harris in particular), and still managed to be highly productive. One more impact receiver, and provided we don't lose too much replacing Bond, and I think we are ok as long as Harris and Nichols stay healthy, and Lapo stays as OC.

Defense is more complicated. Great that we generated turnovers, and points off turnovers, but the amount of bending and breaking more than undid any advantage IMO. Job number one is a real MLB. We also need to be able to generate pressure rushing 4, which to me means retaining Westerman and going double American at starting DT. If we can upgrade the strong side of our secondary through either internal development or new blood, then I think we could field an above average defence.

I don't know if the big passing plays we gave up were due to a scheme that emphasized gambling, rookie DBs, or a combination of the two. I would guess mostly rookie DBs though, since it seemed less of a problem on the weak side. I think a real run stopping MLB could cut down in the big running plays.
Logged
pjrocksmb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7257


This is the CFL- support our league- Go Canada!


« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2018, 01:15:00 AM »

two things will improve next year, talent and schemes.  D will be decent as long as we do two things.

Sign a few key guys
A couple new faces show up that are decent
Logged

I don't watch the No Fun League b/c I live in Canada and love the CFL
Lincoln Locomotive
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2410



« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2018, 05:02:55 PM »

We need a scheme where your MLB does much more than fill gaps well....we need him to actually make stops closer to the LOS.  Hurl was chasing RBs from behind.  The last time we won the Cup we had tremendous LBs and the past seasons not so much.  I believe our defensive philosophy and MLB need upgrading in order for us to advance. 
Logged

" Leo Lewis was the best player I ever coached, on either side of the border"!

Bud Grant, when asked who was the best player he ever coached
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2271


« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2018, 05:30:02 PM »

I agree with everything Tiger says.  The turnover/luck thing works great in the regular season but seems to let us down in the playoffs when you can't rely on luck for just one game.  The solution probably lies in the middle / LB's as everyone else has said.  I'm not sure exactly what magic will be required, but perhaps with some big LB's mixed in with our current D we can find a sweet spot.  It would be nice if we could keep our nose for turnovers whilst doing better closing up the middle.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20883


« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2018, 06:00:11 PM »

two things will improve next year, talent and schemes.  D will be decent as long as we do two things.

Sign a few key guys
A couple new faces show up that are decent

Hall hasn't changed his schemes since he was in Regina. Just because MOS says he'll be more involved doesn't fill me with optimism. Much of this was said before the beginning of the 2017 campaign.

We hope talent improves every season. Will it? Perhaps but we might just as easily lose some of the talent we have today about to go into free agency.

Not all rookies shine in their 1st season. Alexander and Walker may have better 2nd years. OTOH sometimes players like J. Adams look great in the 1st year and fall off quickly in their 2nd year.

I'd expect both to be competing for jobs in TC but it's also possible we find new talent that is better before TC in free agency.

IIRC we cut 4 DB's from the 2016 roster that spent time as starters during or before TC: Roberts, Frederick, Johnson and at least one other whose name escapes me.

I guess we'll see how it goes.

« Last Edit: January 18, 2018, 06:11:36 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2703


« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2018, 02:20:37 AM »

I think you're spot on, Tiger...

The 2 things that we have to fix is 1) lack of coverage in the secondary, and 2) our inability to tackle...

I say lack of coverage as opposed to blown coverage as the majority of big plays were to receivers in our secondary with no Bomber within 10-15 yards of the receiver. I could live with poor coverage but no one should be that wide open consistently in our secondary. Maybe we need to have backs quit trying to 'guess right' on making the big play and focus on understanding their responsibilities in coverage.

Next, the tackling... it was pathetic at times, and a lot of times, which became embarrassing at the end of the year when teams would go for it on 3rd and 4 or 5 yards regularly. It's alarming that players can make it to the professional level of ball when they choose to 'body check' a player as opposed to wrapping a guy up and dragging him down. You won't make the ESPN Top 10 on Sports Center with good form tackling but you won't be getting embarrassed on the field either...

The other thing that you touched on was putting more pressure on the QB. I mentioned this earlier last year that I thought that our d line was over pursuing the QB. A lot of times it seems like they are over aggressive and run past the play. Plus the wide angles that they are taking seems to allow the QB to simply step up in the pocket or take off running up the middle.

The up side though, is at times last year the defense showed that they are capable of executing, it seems like it may be more of an issue with discipline... And I will qualify of this by saying that by no means am I a defensive guru and will make no claims to the contrary, simply my uneducated observations...  Smiley
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
RebusRankin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2972



« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2018, 03:12:48 AM »

Mo plays SAM. That position is a linebacker in name only, its essentially the 6th DB. Everybody uses a DB in the spot.
Logged
booch
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1549


« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2018, 01:30:51 PM »

half the tackling issue was the holding a guy up trying to strip the ball...which essentially 9 times out of 10 allowed ball carrier to keep churning his legs and grinding out 4..5..6..yards more
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 15588



« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2018, 02:32:45 PM »

half the tackling issue was the holding a guy up trying to strip the ball...which essentially 9 times out of 10 allowed ball carrier to keep churning his legs and grinding out 4..5..6..yards more
Great point. The philosophy and teaching of trying to force the turnover can contribute to some of those explosion plays.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 26986



« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2018, 02:46:15 PM »

Great point. The philosophy and teaching of trying to force the turnover can contribute to some of those explosion plays.

OK, and turnovers are.... better or worse than explosion plays?
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
booch
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1549


« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2018, 02:48:04 PM »

more often the not a turn over will occur from a good hard tackle or hit on a guy...not this gang strip mentality that we used too often
Go back and watch some footage of times whee our defender came on a guy and ripped at the ball...with no real attempt at wrapping him up and bringing him down, or laying the wood on him to stop him in his tracks.

The ball carrier just kept his momentum going...piling up positive yardage...was so frustrating to watch
Logged
booch
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1549


« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2018, 02:50:31 PM »

turnovers are great when they happen spontaneous and just as part of the game.
Trying to strip a ball every **** time and doing so hemorrhaging yardage..and continuing plays...and drives is just pointless...and was a major factor to us giving up huge yardage the last 2 years

A turnover will happen...when it happens...trying to always cause one...well we all see the results
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22488


« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2018, 02:54:14 PM »

half the tackling issue was the holding a guy up trying to strip the ball...which essentially 9 times out of 10 allowed ball carrier to keep churning his legs and grinding out 4..5..6..yards more
\

I would agree with you except in the case of Walker. He was constantly flying through the air trying to deliver the big hit instead of just fundamentally tackling.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Pages: [1] 2  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!