Blue Bombers Forum
January 16, 2018, 12:24:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Team Philosohy and the turnover margin  (Read 305 times)
Tiger
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3915



« 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: 11413



« 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: 1678


« 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: 5109


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: 1774



« 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
Pages: [1]
  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!