Blue Bombers Forum
May 22, 2019, 04:54:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do we think that scouting is the Bombers problem?  (Read 3313 times)
Cool Spot
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 90


« on: January 07, 2019, 11:49:24 PM »

This is something I see come up regularly in these forums - It's some version of The Bombers need to develop better scouting and find better players.

The sentiment behind this seems to be that other teams regularly (or semi-regularly) find hidden gems of players who are great in college, and overlooked by other scouts. The Bombers should be going out to these colleges (presumably in the United States?) and snapping up this talent before other teams can find them. By doing this, the Bombers can get an edge over other teams.

I don't really understand this and how it relates to modern times. This may have been true up till and including the 1980's and maybe the 1990's. But today, everyone who's anyone has access to more-or-less the same information. This is because all college players who are serious about their career already has all their stats inventoried for discovery somewhere on the web, and they all have their videos up on YouTube or Vimeo or some other site. Maybe 25 years ago these players weren't discoverable, but today they would be.

And if everyone has access to the same information, then how can better scouting be the solution? The scouts would all find (more or less) the same hidden gems. But all you have to do is watch the same videos and the same information sheets as all the other scouts.

Isn't this a recruitment problem? Don't the Bombers have to convince these hidden gems (aka, undiscovered talent) to come to Winnipeg above all other places? Or, is there something about the business of scouting that I don't understand?
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23161


« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2019, 01:10:40 AM »

Finding players AND securing their rights or getting them signed is recruitment. Sure all the same info is available to all but having info and using it well are two different things.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2019, 02:12:44 AM »

I think it goes without saying that the role and expectations of scouting has changed over the years as we have moved into a modern era of overwhelming volumes of resources available at your fingertips or from your couch. Identifying talent in and of itself is simple, there are some many entities out there online or on cable television that compiling a list of talented athletes as well as ranking them by position in almost real time can be done by almost anyone. So, for me, the question is what is your expectation of what a scout should be doing. If it's providing management with a list of the best talent available, you or I could be a scout, as long as were we able to read and had access to the internet.

For sure scouting has changed over the years as the world has gotten a lot smaller due to technology, there are very few 'hidden gems' to be found. Also, because of all of information and the size of the pool of available players, organizations have gone to establishing criteria, or matrix, to evaluate potential talent, such as height, weight, 40 time, 3 cone, etc., to manage the pool. Scouting reports are plentiful and accessible by almost anyone.

For us old timers, scouting is/was viewed as much as an art as it was a science. Successful scouts understood every division, league, conference, school, etc and what each was strong in, what the competition was like, what type of players were there, and wasn't always misled by box scores or stats, or lack there of. And you had to know these these right then, because most player talent is directly related to supporting cast of players around them. Scout developed relationships with schools and coaches and would routinely get calls from them saying 'you need to see this guy'.  Good scouts wouldn't be misled by gaudy stats, they would be less influenced by numbers than they were with mechanics and technique.  The goal was finding those overlooked guys that make the fans say 'where did they find this guy'...

Scouts looked for the guy that played bigger than his physical attributes, Lewis Welker types, or, played faster than their 40 time at game time, finding great potential hidden in bad programs, or players that they felt could blossom under the right/better coaching, and or, would fit and excel in your organization...

Times have changed and sports have become big money. Decisions are based upon need and availability of funds. It's hard to blame scouting as the sole responsibility for the level of talent within an organization because who the organization brings in is a management based upon multiple factors. Players are cut for reasons other than talent/potential alone, so, to blame scouting as the route of all evil is a bit short sighted. Not to mention, unless we know what the scouts are charged with doing, (i.e. types of players to be looking for), or who the scouts presented to the team for consideration, it's hard to say that they haven't found players.

There were several players this year that were cut or not given playing time that several members here watched in training camp and thought showed great promise. Why did these guys not make the team? Several things could be factored in, like, managements decision of area of need, money available, assessment of veteran talent, players attitude, work ethic, offensive or defensive scheme and how a player fits in, who gives us the best chance to win today, etc.

Within the the CFL there are other contributing factors, such as the Negotiation List. Sometimes a player isn't available to you because someone else has them on their list. Management controls this list, not the scouts, and we don't know that names are submitted to management that they elect not to add to the list. Sports are so money driven today that potential players have a lot of outside influences as well, such as player agents, family, responsibilities, etc. Teams have to make decisions based upon who they believe are players that may be available to them, sometimes you win, sometime you lose.

Lastly, we all know that just because a player excelled at lower levels of play, that may not translate at the next level, or, within your organizations style of play or scheme philosophy. Teams can misuse talent, or not play players for any number of reasons or situations, a player may not be given enough time to adapt to the CFL style of play or develop trust or chemistry with current players within the organization, etc. Receivers are especially difficult, in my opinion, due to their success is largely dependent upon offensive scheme and their relationship with the QB. QB's look to throw to people that they trust and have chemistry with, this can take time to establish so if you're not getting throws, or limited throws, it's hard to make an impact. I'm not blaming this on the QB it's just human nature. If you have a guy that comes out and has trouble running routes or has a unacceptable number of drops, QB1 isn't going to be looking your way as often. We saw the opposite this year with the acquisition of Bighill, injecting him into the defense had opposing teams focusing on him allowing others to shine, such as Santos-Knox. 

So, long story long, lol, I thinks it's short sighted to say that our scouts aren't finding talented players and lay blame solely at their feet... but I could be wrong, lol...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2019, 02:17:34 AM »

Finding players AND securing their rights or getting them signed is recruitment. Sure all the same info is available to all but having info and using it well are two different things.

if so, this extends scouting responsibilities to those in the front office and coaches as well, not just the scouts, as they are the ones that invite players to camps, pursue contractual agreements with, or decide to cut...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23161


« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2019, 12:17:02 PM »

if so, this extends scouting responsibilities to those in the front office and coaches as well, not just the scouts, as they are the ones that invite players to camps, pursue contractual agreements with, or decide to cut...

The CFL works quite differently than the NFL in regards to scouting. Scouts are active in recruitment, as well as identifying talent in the CFL. A LOT of a scouts job in the CFL is to actively recruit what they identify as blue chip prospects and are often authorized to place players directly onto the neg list once they have identified mutual interest. Danny McManus and Ted Goveia, for instance, are our AGMs and actively scout. They have the authorization to sign players to contracts. Ideally you want to give the GM and coaching staff a chance to discuss and review any potential signings but if there are other teams sniffing around you may miss out. Rarely do we sign players simply off the strength of their game film. Our scouts go out and work the players they identify and then discuss whether there is any true mutual interest as well as doing some background checks. In that regard, each scout is different. That is why you will see a team like the Riders bringing in ultra talented players that are of suspect character. John Murphy and Chris Jones value talent above all. whereas the Bombers take a different approach and place much more value on character and will pass on troubled players.

Point is our scouts do not solely investigate talent. They do the due diligence that the GM/AGM would normally do because unlike the NFL there is no time or money to waste for a CFL club. Scouts are much more empowered here.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 12:19:30 PM by GCn18 » Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28141


Fort Hew


« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2019, 01:12:01 PM »

I would think this regime's track record speaks for itself as far as talent scouting in the US goes. Receiver and DB in particular have been extremely weak.
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6614



« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2019, 01:53:35 PM »

This is something I see come up regularly in these forums - It's some version of The Bombers need to develop better scouting and find better players.

The sentiment behind this seems to be that other teams regularly (or semi-regularly) find hidden gems of players who are great in college, and overlooked by other scouts. The Bombers should be going out to these colleges (presumably in the United States?) and snapping up this talent before other teams can find them. By doing this, the Bombers can get an edge over other teams.

I don't really understand this and how it relates to modern times. This may have been true up till and including the 1980's and maybe the 1990's. But today, everyone who's anyone has access to more-or-less the same information. This is because all college players who are serious about their career already has all their stats inventoried for discovery somewhere on the web, and they all have their videos up on YouTube or Vimeo or some other site. Maybe 25 years ago these players weren't discoverable, but today they would be.

And if everyone has access to the same information, then how can better scouting be the solution? The scouts would all find (more or less) the same hidden gems. But all you have to do is watch the same videos and the same information sheets as all the other scouts.

Isn't this a recruitment problem? Don't the Bombers have to convince these hidden gems (aka, undiscovered talent) to come to Winnipeg above all other places? Or, is there something about the business of scouting that I don't understand?

It's not as simple as seeing a great highlight reel in order to determine a player would be good in the CFL. Talented scouts (in every sport) analyze everything about this information and use it to create a conclusion and risk assessment about the player, how they will adapt to the professional level, how much of their play is attributed to the players and level of competition around them, etc.

Good scouts will look at tape of a player who may look entirely average but see them doing things that would be exceptional on their team, in their league, and take a risk getting them signed. That formula will unearth the gems from time to time.

If our scouts are simply looking at good players' highlight reels and determining that they're good...well, maybe that's our problem!
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5922



« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2019, 04:30:55 PM »

I would think this regime's track record speaks for itself as far as talent scouting in the US goes. Receiver and DB in particular have been extremely weak.

I agree with you regarding receivers but I don't see a problem with the quality of the DB's they've brought in over time, Leggett, Johnny Adams, Loffler, Fogg, Alexander, Sayles, even Brian Walker wasn't half bad.  They've added some good F.A.'s in Fenner and Gaitor recently and have some decent Natl. backups in Jones, Conteh and Morgan.  I think the bone to pick is how the talent has been employed within Richie Hall's system.
Logged
kkc60
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3513


« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2019, 04:42:28 PM »

This is something I see come up regularly in these forums - It's some version of The Bombers need to develop better scouting and find better players.

The sentiment behind this seems to be that other teams regularly (or semi-regularly) find hidden gems of players who are great in college, and overlooked by other scouts. The Bombers should be going out to these colleges (presumably in the United States?) and snapping up this talent before other teams can find them. By doing this, the Bombers can get an edge over other teams.

I don't really understand this and how it relates to modern times. This may have been true up till and including the 1980's and maybe the 1990's. But today, everyone who's anyone has access to more-or-less the same information. This is because all college players who are serious about their career already has all their stats inventoried for discovery somewhere on the web, and they all have their videos up on YouTube or Vimeo or some other site. Maybe 25 years ago these players weren't discoverable, but today they would be.

And if everyone has access to the same information, then how can better scouting be the solution? The scouts would all find (more or less) the same hidden gems. But all you have to do is watch the same videos and the same information sheets as all the other scouts.

Isn't this a recruitment problem? Don't the Bombers have to convince these hidden gems (aka, undiscovered talent) to come to Winnipeg above all other places? Or, is there something about the business of scouting that I don't understand?
A big part of it it negotiation list guys. One team gets a guy there before we do. Another part of it is just plain and simple we aren't getting rookies to fill many positions of need, especially positions we need help with such as receiver and, pre-Biggie, MLB. We have relied on FA a TON. I'd argue more than most teams.
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23161


« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2019, 04:44:22 PM »

One of the things just about every scout in the CFL has told us is that when they go to the CFL combine the interview is the most important factor to them. The scouts and management are more interested in what they say there, than what they do. Some guys like Lemar Durant fell drastically in the draft because they gave poor interviews during combine week. Now, Durant turned out to be a very good player and team guy but he just about screwed it up with his combine interview.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2019, 05:13:28 PM »

I agree with you regarding receivers but I don't see a problem with the quality of the DB's they've brought in over time, Leggett, Johnny Adams, Loffler, Fogg, Alexander, Sayles, even Brian Walker wasn't half bad.  They've added some good F.A.'s in Fenner and Gaitor recently and have some decent Natl. backups in Jones, Conteh and Morgan.  I think the bone to pick is how the talent has been employed within Richie Hall's system.

Alexander and Sayles were great additions but that's it over the last 3 years. Walker wasn't good enough to keep and Fogg has been a liability as a starting DB. He was also here for year 3 in 2018 before he really became the full time starter. And that was the best we could achieve?

Loffler was an excellent choice to draft but we're talking about import acquisitions through scouting.

Fenner and Gaitor don't fall into that equation of finding young talented, low cost unknown's like Alexander or Sayles.

So. Once again we're really down to 2 very good import DB's added in the last 3 or 4 seasons.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 05:16:49 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5922



« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2019, 05:17:32 PM »

A big part of it it negotiation list guys. One team gets a guy there before we do. Another part of it is just plain and simple we aren't getting rookies to fill many positions of need, especially positions we need help with such as receiver and, pre-Biggie, MLB. We have relied on FA a TON. I'd argue more than most teams.

With the dominance of short term contracts the last few years the CFL axis has shifted and it's essential that GM's embrace the concept and participate vigorously in the F.A. market to replace player losses.  Some teams like CGY and EDM. may have resisted up till now, but I'm guessing that will change shortly.  New players will be harder to recruit with the competition of the new leagues on the horizon, I expect there will plenty of recycling CFL vets going on across the league this season.
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5922



« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2019, 05:22:58 PM »

Alexander and Sayles were great additions but that's it over the last 3 years. Walker wasn't good enough to keep and Fogg has been a liability as a starting DB. He was also here for year 3 in 2018 before he really became the full time starter. And that was the best we could achieve?

Loffler was an excellent choice to draft but we're talking about import acquisitions through scouting.

Fenner and Gaitor don't fall into that equation of finding young talented, low cost unknown's like Alexander or Sayles.

So. Once again we're really down to 2 very good import DB's added in the last 3 or 4 seasons.

You absolutely can't discount Fogg's contribution to the team over the last 3 years, just look at the stats. he's put up.  I agree he's been hot or cold as a DB but that doesn't make him a bad recruit.  Loffler was scouted first, drafted second, so he counts.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2019, 05:39:09 PM »

You absolutely can't discount Fogg's contribution to the team over the last 3 years, just look at the stats. he's put up.  I agree he's been hot or cold as a DB but that doesn't make him a bad recruit.  Loffler was scouted first, drafted second, so he counts.

Fogg has made some great plays and some really bad plays. As a starter he's still a liability so that goes to poor recruitment. I'll take consistent and average over hot and cold.

It wasn't hard to recruit and draft Loffler. If you read back to before that year's draft I said he was a player we should draft. That's different direct access to information we have compared to the 1,000's of US players.

The CFL drafts about 70 players out of a couple of 100 tops. It's a lot easier to do than look at the imports available.

Logged

No more excuses.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 21148



« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2019, 06:05:01 PM »

Fogg has made some great plays and some really bad plays. As a starter he's still a liability so that goes to poor recruitment. I'll take consistent and average over hot and cold.

It wasn't hard to recruit and draft Loffler. If you read back to before that year's draft I said he was a player we should draft. That's different direct access to information we have compared to the 1,000's of US players.

The CFL drafts about 70 players out of a couple of 100 tops. It's a lot easier to do than look at the imports available.



Not necessarily. That's your assumption. Maybe he was recruited primarily as a kick/punt return option? Certainly, he's been a solid punt returner for us over his years as a Bomber. He's been an off-and-on starter over his tenure, playing some DB in his first season and not really getting his spot back fulltime until 2018. You can only roster so many players and every team has DBs that the offense attacks. If not him, someone else. He got burned at times last year but you can't automatically compute that with scouting = bad without factoring in all the other variables.
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2019, 07:16:11 PM »

you can't attribute this all to Fogg, but as far as end of year defensive stats, and particularly passing, we improved greatly...


for starters, we moved from 5th to 2nd least points allowed, but that's all points... if you take only points scored by the opposing offense we went from 7th to 2nd!
from 7th to 2nd in fewest offensive TDs allowed...
from 8th to 2nd in fewest passing TDs allowed...
from 9th to 5th in fewest passing yards allowed...
from 8th to 2nd in average gain per pass...
we gave up the least 30+ yard passes, only 19 for the year, second best was 25 and the worst was 38...

I know that Fogg isn't responsible for all of the improvement, but didn't seem to be that much of a liability overall...

but, he did lead the entire league in turnovers created for the year!
had the 2nd most interceptions...
and the 2nd most fumble returns/recovered...
had the 2nd most punt return yards...
the most missed FG returns and return yards... (plus he was the only player in the league that returned one for a TD)

so, all in all I believe he earned his keep... but just my opinion...





Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2019, 07:26:25 PM »

I would think this regime's track record speaks for itself as far as talent scouting in the US goes. Receiver and DB in particular have been extremely weak.

Thompkins looks like he could be a keeper, started out pretty hot but only had 29 catches for the year. However, 15 of them were during the first 4 games when Nichols was out, the other 14 were over the last 14 games... but he did average 14.5 yards per catch...

this is a good example of what I was talking about in regards to chemistry and trust. Streve had zero history with all receivers and Thompkins had 15 catches in the first 4 games, Nichols comes back and targets fall way off... Not hating on Nichols here, either, it is what it is for whatever reasons...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2019, 07:46:19 PM »

also, with regards to scouting/recruiting receivers, specifically last year, the team knew early on that the plan was to start to National receivers so there was only 1 spot available for a new receiver... We knew that Harris, Adams, Dressler, and probably Demski were going to be targets 1 thru 4... hard to shine when you're basically the 5th or 6th option...

also, Washington only had 6 games over 3 games but did average 27.5 yards per catch...

short of cutting either Adams or Dressler I don't see any new guy getting much attention shown their way...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28141


Fort Hew


« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2019, 08:08:52 PM »

I agree with you regarding receivers but I don't see a problem with the quality of the DB's they've brought in over time, Leggett, Johnny Adams, Loffler, Fogg, Alexander, Sayles, even Brian Walker wasn't half bad.  They've added some good F.A.'s in Fenner and Gaitor recently and have some decent Natl. backups in Jones, Conteh and Morgan.  I think the bone to pick is how the talent has been employed within Richie Hall's system.

Leggett was a great find. Adams was a flash in the pan. Fogg is okay to good. Alexander had a strong sophomore season. Sayles was a beauty find. Walker seemed good but didn't stick. Loffler is a NAT, along with other NAT DBs, so I'm not necessarily giving credit to scouts in the US who are meant to look for INT talent. My whole point was the unearthing of unknowns, so the free agency discussion is basically meaningless.

And sure, the system could be a factor. But I'm speaking strictly on how unimpressive the scouting of DB talent in the US has been under the regime. There is definitely a bone to be picked with regard to that as the results are in plain sight.

Thompkins looks like he could be a keeper, started out pretty hot but only had 29 catches for the year. However, 15 of them were during the first 4 games when Nichols was out, the other 14 were over the last 14 games... but he did average 14.5 yards per catch...

this is a good example of what I was talking about in regards to chemistry and trust. Streve had zero history with all receivers and Thompkins had 15 catches in the first 4 games, Nichols comes back and targets fall way off... Not hating on Nichols here, either, it is what it is for whatever reasons...

Thompkins will be 31 at the end of the July. Despite the issues at QB, he had a solid rookie season. However, he wasn't some unknown prior to the CFL and his age is a factor. Besides him, I can't think of another INT receiver this regime has found that's made an impact. And certainly nobody close to what other organizations have unearthed south of the 49th. That's been a glaring deficiency for the entirety of this regime, IMO.

And you may want to re-check the game logs. Thompkins' first regular season game was July 27th vs. the Argos. Nichols was the starting QB in that game, along with every other game in which he played in 2018.
Logged

#forthew

#risetogether

You can't fix stupid.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6614



« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2019, 08:14:57 PM »

Colour me unimpressed with Thompkins.
Logged
blue girl
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3374



« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2019, 08:26:52 PM »

The reason that I blame the scouts is because it took us 28 years to find a QB and I can't remember the last rec that we found and I mean specifically a young receiver not someone who has exhausted all their NFL opportunities.
Leggett was a great find. Adams was a flash in the pan. Fogg is okay to good. Alexander had a strong sophomore season. Sayles was a beauty find. Walker seemed good but didn't stick. Loffler is a NAT, along with other NAT DBs, so I'm not necessarily giving credit to scouts in the US who are meant to look for INT talent. My whole point was the unearthing of unknowns, so the free agency discussion is basically meaningless.

And sure, the system could be a factor. But I'm speaking strictly on how unimpressive the scouting of DB talent in the US has been under the regime. There is definitely a bone to be picked with regard to that as the results are in plain sight.

Thompkins will be 31 at the end of the July. Despite the issues at QB, he had a solid rookie season. However, he wasn't some unknown prior to the CFL and his age is a factor. Besides him, I can't think of another INT receiver this regime has found that's made an impact. And certainly nobody close to what other organizations have unearthed south of the 49th. That's been a glaring deficiency for the entirety of this regime, IMO.

And you may want to re-check the game logs. Thompkins' first regular season game was July 27th vs. the Argos. Nichols was the starting QB in that game, along with every other game in which he played in 2018.
Thank you. I was pretty sure that Thompkins didn't start until later in the season. I believe our starting receivers with Streveler were Adams, Dressler, Demski, Wolitarski and Bowman.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2019, 08:29:54 PM »

Not necessarily. That's your assumption. Maybe he was recruited primarily as a kick/punt return option? Certainly, he's been a solid punt returner for us over his years as a Bomber. He's been an off-and-on starter over his tenure, playing some DB in his first season and not really getting his spot back fulltime until 2018. You can only roster so many players and every team has DBs that the offense attacks. If not him, someone else. He got burned at times last year but you can't automatically compute that with scouting = bad without factoring in all the other variables.

I've just re-watched most of the 2018 games. Most twice but the victories a 3rd time. At times Fogg was beaten like a rented mule. Doesn't matter if he was recruited primarily as a returner. The fact is that he ended up playing a starting role in the secondary. In theory the wide side will see less activity than the inside or strong side WR.

That is the definition of failure. Part of the failure also lies on the DC who had DB's playing in different time zones than receivers. Oppositions targeted Fogg in every game.

I'd be curious to know how many targets versus completions were made against him and for how many yards. Last night I re-watched the 2nd game against the Stamps. Fogg was owned by Matthews.

Matthews had 5 receptions for 113 yards of the 274 yards BLM had including the 6 yard completion early in the game. We did win the game but we got some good plays by Bighill in particular and Thomas to force some turnovers that either prevented points or allowed us to score points.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 08:38:07 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
blue girl
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3374



« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2019, 08:34:32 PM »

I've just re-watched most of the 2018 games. Most twice but the victories a 3rd time. At times Fogg was beaten like a rented mule. Doesn't matter if he was recruited primarily as a returner. The fact is that he ended up playing a starting role in the secondary.

That is the definition of failure. Part of the failure also lies on the DC who had DB's playing in different time zones than receivers. Oppositions targeted Fogg in every game.

I'd be curious to know how many targets versus completions were made against him and for how many yards. Last night I re-watched the 2nd game against the Stamps. Fogg was owned by Matthews.
I've said all along that Fogg is our weakest link in the secondary. Maybe it's me but he seems to play way off the receivers.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2019, 08:46:41 PM »

I've said all along that Fogg is our weakest link in the secondary. Maybe it's me but he seems to play way off the receivers.

As I suggested that's part of the problem with our strategy. We give up long time consuming drives with the expectation that the opponent will make mistakes and / or we will create turnovers.

We've had success on both those fronts. OTOH it's frustrating seeing an opponent march 80 yards in 10 plays hoping they cough up the ball before they score.  When it goes well it goes well but when it doesn't we come out on the short end of the stick. In those games we lose TOP, field position and ultimately the game.

Obviously there is a weakest link in every secondary. I don't know if Fogg will re-sign in Winnipeg or whether we even want him to re-sign.

If Fogg is re-signed and starts the season as a starting CB I will be greatly concerned once again.
Logged

No more excuses.
Tehedra
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1613


« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2019, 08:53:55 PM »

I agree with Chevelle, I also do not understand all the Fogg hate, I mean yeah in 2017 he got beat several times like a rented mule but he made up for it with some amazing returns.  This year his returns weren't as great when he did them but on defense he had a very good showing.  I think many are hard on our team without really looking at the facts.  We started off the year with a weak defense, which seemed mostly to be scheme and chemistry, and an okay offense.  We ended the year with a strong defense, and a weak offense.  If the defense and the offense could have clicked at the same time I think we would have made it much further this year and probably would have had a chance at the cup.  In the end we lost to the cup winners
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2019, 09:02:28 PM »

I agree with Chevelle, I also do not understand all the Fogg hate, I mean yeah in 2017 he got beat several times like a rented mule but he made up for it with some amazing returns.  This year his returns weren't as great when he did them but on defense he had a very good showing.  I think many are hard on our team without really looking at the facts.  We started off the year with a weak defense, which seemed mostly to be scheme and chemistry, and an okay offense.  We ended the year with a strong defense, and a weak offense.  If the defense and the offense could have clicked at the same time I think we would have made it much further this year and probably would have had a chance at the cup.  In the end we lost to the cup winners

Many of us said that Fogg would be the problem in TC if he was a full time starter. Of course we look at the facts. We watch and re-watch the games in detail. We understand roster strengths and weakness's on the team and across the league.

It's not that we couldn't have won with Fogg and he certainly wasn't the only weakness even on defense.

Losing to the winners is not much of a consolation though.

Logged

No more excuses.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2019, 09:09:49 PM »

you can't attribute this all to Fogg, but as far as end of year defensive stats, and particularly passing, we improved greatly...


for starters, we moved from 5th to 2nd least points allowed, but that's all points... if you take only points scored by the opposing offense we went from 7th to 2nd!
from 7th to 2nd in fewest offensive TDs allowed...
from 8th to 2nd in fewest passing TDs allowed...
from 9th to 5th in fewest passing yards allowed...
from 8th to 2nd in average gain per pass...
we gave up the least 30+ yard passes, only 19 for the year, second best was 25 and the worst was 38...

I know that Fogg isn't responsible for all of the improvement, but didn't seem to be that much of a liability overall...

but, he did lead the entire league in turnovers created for the year!
had the 2nd most interceptions...
and the 2nd most fumble returns/recovered...
had the 2nd most punt return yards...
the most missed FG returns and return yards... (plus he was the only player in the league that returned one for a TD)

so, all in all I believe he earned his keep... but just my opinion...







Three things.

We lost more games in 2018 than in 2017.

In 2018 we added Bighill to replace Hurl at MLB.

Interesting that you're willing to throw Nichols under the bus but not Fogg.

BTW. Along with the " good " defensive stats.

We were 7th in highest completion % against. 8th in number of completions and 8th in completion attempts.

Teams threw on the Bombers.

Could never figure out why Fenner wasn't starting somewhere in the secondary. In TC we thought Fenner would be possibly start at SAM or Gaitor if Leggett was not ready. As it turned out Gaitor won the position at SAM.

Depending on Leggett's health I thought both of Fenner and Gaitor would probably start somewhere if he couldn't. That might have pushed one of them out to CB making Fogg the DI returner. Or they might have considered moving Alexander out to CB as well.

Fenner was probably making quite a bit more than Fogg to only play ST's?? Coaching error? Coaching loyalty?

Not sure but seemed surprising to me.

Fenner had 76 DT's in 2017 starting in BC as well as 27 ST's.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 09:31:56 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2019, 09:20:52 PM »


And you may want to re-check the game logs. Thompkins' first regular season game was July 27th vs. the Argos. Nichols was the starting QB in that game, along with every other game in which he played in 2018.


You are absolutely correct, my apologies... when I looked at his stats I noticed the large number of catches during the first 4 games, however, I didn't bother to check the week. It was his first 4 games he played in for the year, not the teams first 4 games...  thanks for catching that...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Blue72
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1014


« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2019, 09:30:10 PM »

What really made our defense strong this year was the play of our MLB. With Bighill in there and being a real MLB our DBs were able to play there positions and not have to move up and help the front seven. Also we went with ALL but one IMP on the defensive side which weakened the offensive side a bit, now was that because of a weak DC ( Richie Hall) and his plays or we couldn't find another starter Nat position.
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2019, 09:43:49 PM »

Three things.

We lost more games in 2018 than in 2017.

In 2018 we added Bighill to replace Hurl at MLB.

Interesting that you're willing to throw Nichols under the bus but not Fogg.

BTW. Along with the " good " defensive stats.

We were 7th in highest completion % against. 8th in number of completions and 8th in completion attempts.

Teams threw on the Bombers.

in all honesty I try to only use stats that would most likely be attributed to the secondary, otherwise, I would have included...

that the defense allowed over 100 fewer offensive points than last year, 7th to 2nd...
gave up 15 fewer TDs, 7th to 2nd...
18 fewer passing TDs, 8th to 2nd...
allowed over 900 fewer passing yards, 9th to 5th...
over 50 fewer pass attempts against them, and, allowed 45 fewer completions, and opposing teams had a worse completion % against them this year..
opponents passing efficiency dropped by more than 10 points as well...

I'm sure I could find a few more, but, that really wasn't what I was trying to achieve...

sure, we lost more games this year than last, but we did win a playoff game... maybe we could chalk up a few of those losses to those Pick6's that Nichols threw, you think?

plus, I didn't realize that Bighill played in the secondary, I thought his primary responsibilities were pass rush and run stop...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2019, 10:07:17 PM »

in all honesty I try to only use stats that would most likely be attributed to the secondary, otherwise, I would have included...

that the defense allowed over 100 fewer offensive points than last year, 7th to 2nd...
gave up 15 fewer TDs, 7th to 2nd...
18 fewer passing TDs, 8th to 2nd...
allowed over 900 fewer passing yards, 9th to 5th...
over 50 fewer pass attempts against them, and, allowed 45 fewer completions, and opposing teams had a worse completion % against them this year..
opponents passing efficiency dropped by more than 10 points as well...

I'm sure I could find a few more, but, that really wasn't what I was trying to achieve...

sure, we lost more games this year than last, but we did win a playoff game... maybe we could chalk up a few of those losses to those Pick6's that Nichols threw, you think?

plus, I didn't realize that Bighill played in the secondary, I thought his primary responsibilities were pass rush and run stop...


The negative stats I mentioned are directly attributed to the secondary. Our front 7 improved over 2017 so negative stats have to be attributed to the secondary.  Even if those stats were " somehow " an improvement over 2017, it still ranked us near the bottom in 2018.

I think if you poll Bomber posters they will agree the biggest improvement to our defense in 2018 was the addition of Bighill and elimination of Hurl.

Of course some of the losses could be blamed on Nichols. Are none of the highest scoring offense more than offsetting a couple of really bad games ( plays ) against Regina.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 10:08:52 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2019, 12:17:45 AM »

The negative stats I mentioned are directly attributed to the secondary. Our front 7 improved over 2017 so negative stats have to be attributed to the secondary.  Even if those stats were " somehow " an improvement over 2017, it still ranked us near the bottom in 2018.

I think if you poll Bomber posters they will agree the biggest improvement to our defense in 2018 was the addition of Bighill and elimination of Hurl.

Of course some of the losses could be blamed on Nichols. Are none of the highest scoring offense more than offsetting a couple of really bad games ( plays ) against Regina.



not looking for an argument or trying to be hard to get along with, apologies if it came across that way... I was sincere in what I posted as I explained it earlier... to me it didn't appear that we were getting beat by the big pass play nearly as bad as last year, that was the point I was trying to convey...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2019, 01:36:35 AM »

not looking for an argument or trying to be hard to get along with, apologies if it came across that way... I was sincere in what I posted as I explained it earlier... to me it didn't appear that we were getting beat by the big pass play nearly as bad as last year, that was the point I was trying to convey...

I didn't take it that way and you are correct that we are giving up less big plays and points than in 2017. I only view that a win if we actually win more games as a result.

My point that it can be even worse when a defense allows long time consuming drives in the bend but don't break concept. The offense has to take some of that heat for NOT staying on the field longer at times.

However it's a two way street when the defense is closer to the bottom in 1st downs given up  passing and % of completions etc. The defense is as responsible for getting the opponents off the field as our offense is responsible for staying on the field longer.

One NFL example from this weekend's Colts / Texan game. I didn't watch all of it but thought I heard the broadcasters mention that midway through the 3rd Q the Texans had -19 yards passing had just created their 1st 1st down of the half.

You can't expect that to happen all the time but I would like to see it more often than I see long drives against our defense. That's true whether or not the opponent scores or we force a turnover.

It becomes a question of mathematical probability. If a team makes a long time consuming drive they are more likely to score at least a FG then turnover the ball. Field position and TOP are also critical factors in game management.

IMO that's where we struggle with our DC scheme and talent ( possibly to a lesser degree than in past ).
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 01:44:55 AM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2019, 03:17:24 AM »

I agree with what you are saying, I was just excited because by the end of the year we actually looked like a real defense, for the most part, lol. Plus, I've been working on my end of year team summary stats sheet for 2018 and instead of creating a complete new  document I combined it with 2017's end of year stat info so everyone could easily see how we compared to year before. I was surprised at how many defensive stats we improved upon and the amount of overall improvement. I'll be posting that info here on the board as soon as I get it completed, probably in the next day or two.

Like you, I'm a big believer in 'time of possession', and was pleasantry surprised that we improved in that area as well, by over a minute! We are to the point where we are holding onto the ball for for almost exactly half of the time, 30:03. I'd like to see that go up a bit more but better than it has been.

I also agree with you about Bighill, he was the best signing of last year and made the entire defense exponentially better, including the secondary...  sure hope he wants to be in Winnipeg as badly as we all want him here...

However, I'm still not sold on the idea that finding an impact receiver will help the team. Not that one couldn't help, but based upon what I've seen in regards to receiver and how they are used, it's not that we won't find one, but won't know if we did. Unless, we move on from Dressler, then there may be some opportunity there.

We don't seem to give them much opportunity and most plays have them at the number 4 or 5 option, so limited throws. And then they float back and forth from the PR to the AR and then eventually cut them without giving them much playing time. That and our ball control offensive scheme, well, it makes it tough for the new guy to shine, especially we they are new to the CFL and having to get use to the difference in game and especially the waggle...

With that being said, I'm happy with the group we have now, especially the national talent. They all have a lot of upside. I think Woli really had a good year last year, I like Peterman, his numbers weren't all that great buy I like the way he played, and Demski showed flashes of what could be from time to time. As a team though, every year you have to be concerned what product we will field with these short contracts... but I guess we'll start answering those questions shortly...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2019, 02:33:00 PM »

I also like the roster we had in 2018 with very few exceptions. Even though we didn't win as many games we were very entertaining and competitive. Every team has 3 or 4 clunkers during the season.

We won the WSF and nearly won the WDF.

The National talent has improved every season and we've got some high draft picks for 2019.

The number of top free agents we have is a concern at the moment. Walters has been very good at getting players to re-sign. Regardless we have 12 starters potentially going to free agency and 3 looking at NFL options ( Jeffcoat, JSK and Alexander ). So this is a wait and see issue at the moment.

I do believe our import receivers need to be improved. SMS aside I'd like to see a bigger / faster / better # 2 import receiver push Dressler to the # 3 import spot. Dressler has become more of a possession receiver than a deep threat.

We don't really have " that " import guy that will fight and win the 50/50 balls over the shorter DB's. Maybe Woli should be moved more inside more often? Maybe Petermann and Simonise see the field more often?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 03:01:26 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
BLUEBOMBER
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5109



« Reply #35 on: January 16, 2019, 06:27:49 AM »

Our scouting department is okay.. not great though..
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #36 on: January 18, 2019, 09:54:44 AM »

Our scouting department is okay.. not great though..

again, I say that you can't blame talent signed or not signed all on the scouts... for one thing, we don't know what is being asked of them and the second thing, GM's aren't interested in signing the best available talent at every position possible.  GMs are looking to sign the best talent available that they feel that they can sign again after playing out their ELC contract. A good GM knows he can't keep all of the talent and any one that he doesn't sign now can be used against you by another team. GMs look at ratio, current stars and future free agent needs when signing new players. Honestly, there is just a number of players that are signed that are just good enough to not hurt your team but not so good as to become wanted by other teams. just the economics of the game... some are just expendable...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #37 on: January 18, 2019, 05:18:07 PM »

again, I say that you can't blame talent signed or not signed all on the scouts... for one thing, we don't know what is being asked of them and the second thing, GM's aren't interested in signing the best available talent at every position possible.  GMs are looking to sign the best talent available that they feel that they can sign again after playing out their ELC contract. A good GM knows he can't keep all of the talent and any one that he doesn't sign now can be used against you by another team. GMs look at ratio, current stars and future free agent needs when signing new players. Honestly, there is just a number of players that are signed that are just good enough to not hurt your team but not so good as to become wanted by other teams. just the economics of the game... some are just expendable...

I don't buy the signing of players they think they can re-sign after their ELC deals. Football teams are built or re-built in the course of 1 off season potentially.

Teams can go from 1st to last so teams look to field the best team possible. With shorter contracts and now 1 year NFL options, it would be foolish to not try and roster the best you can find.

Not many cuts from TC find there way onto other teams for any significant success. It does happen but most are just PR players that are gone after 1 season.
Logged

No more excuses.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2019, 07:38:05 PM »

I don't buy the signing of players they think they can re-sign after their ELC deals. Football teams are built or re-built in the course of 1 off season potentially.

Teams can go from 1st to last so teams look to field the best team possible. With shorter contracts and now 1 year NFL options, it would be foolish to not try and roster the best you can find.

Not many cuts from TC find there way onto other teams for any significant success. It does happen but most are just PR players that are gone after 1 season.

while not the primary decision factor, I do think that it plays into the equation from a financial and competitive stand point. Given the SMS cap there are only so many players that you can sign at 'X' amount of money... after you take out money for your 'stars', QB and national talent you have only so much money to fill out your team. with that being said, any talent that you find that you can't afford to re sign means they are going to be playing against you.

now I'm not saying that all players are signed in this manner but I would think that it's within reason to believe some are. As a GM I'm looking for those 'stars' to keep and expendable, serviceable talent for the rest of my positions... because I know that at the end of any given year there is not enough money to keep everybody so some have to go... I'd rather they go home than to my competition...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2019, 10:16:05 PM »

while not the primary decision factor, I do think that it plays into the equation from a financial and competitive stand point. Given the SMS cap there are only so many players that you can sign at 'X' amount of money... after you take out money for your 'stars', QB and national talent you have only so much money to fill out your team. with that being said, any talent that you find that you can't afford to re sign means they are going to be playing against you.

now I'm not saying that all players are signed in this manner but I would think that it's within reason to believe some are. As a GM I'm looking for those 'stars' to keep and expendable, serviceable talent for the rest of my positions... because I know that at the end of any given year there is not enough money to keep everybody so some have to go... I'd rather they go home than to my competition...

The number of neg list players is only 405 players in total. That will include players already in the NFL and some still in college as future players to keep an eye on. As we know, players are added and dropped at will after tryout camps, bowl games and so on.

Not every team is after or interested in the same given player. A team needing a " receiver " or DB might be inclined to neg list more candidates at those roster positions for example.

I'd be curious to see what player signings were the result of neg list finds and how long they were on the list. IE: If a mini camp is held April 4 and a couple of players are added and ultimately signed and brought to TC. Or were some players on the list for a couple of years through college and then brought to mini camps and then signed.

I can't think of any way this sort of information can be found. Regardless I don't think it matters. We've already signed 8 players I've never heard of before.  By TC that number will be in the 30 - 40 as additions and deletions are made.

Most rookies that make any roster are probably going to be at ELC. Obviously there are always SMS parts to the equation.

We might lose Alexander to the NFL. Did we think that might happen when we signed him 2 years ago? Probably not. He may get replaced by another rookie on an ELC of we might sign a CFL veteran at a higher cost.

Balancing the roster, ratio and the SMS is not an easy task.

I used the example of losing JSK and Loffler. For the same amount of money and the need to balance the ratio, I thought Lokombo might be a player to consider.

OTOH, I'd love to have both JSK and Loffler back. That happening may not be in our control any more than knowing Lokombo reaches free agency and might join the Bombers at an affordable price.

It's always a question of what happens 1st. If JSK indicates he's coming back then we don't need to find a new player at WIL. Although if we lose Loffler than the ratio becomes a player in the decisions.

Both of those decisions could be decided in the first couple of hours of free agency.
Logged

No more excuses.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2019, 01:14:03 AM »

The number of neg list players is only 405 players in total. That will include players already in the NFL and some still in college as future players to keep an eye on. As we know, players are added and dropped at will after tryout camps, bowl games and so on.

Not every team is after or interested in the same given player. A team needing a " receiver " or DB might be inclined to neg list more candidates at those roster positions for example.

I'd be curious to see what player signings were the result of neg list finds and how long they were on the list. IE: If a mini camp is held April 4 and a couple of players are added and ultimately signed and brought to TC. Or were some players on the list for a couple of years through college and then brought to mini camps and then signed.

I can't think of any way this sort of information can be found. Regardless I don't think it matters. We've already signed 8 players I've never heard of before.  By TC that number will be in the 30 - 40 as additions and deletions are made.

Most rookies that make any roster are probably going to be at ELC. Obviously there are always SMS parts to the equation.

We might lose Alexander to the NFL. Did we think that might happen when we signed him 2 years ago? Probably not. He may get replaced by another rookie on an ELC of we might sign a CFL veteran at a higher cost.

Balancing the roster, ratio and the SMS is not an easy task.

I used the example of losing JSK and Loffler. For the same amount of money and the need to balance the ratio, I thought Lokombo might be a player to consider.

OTOH, I'd love to have both JSK and Loffler back. That happening may not be in our control any more than knowing Lokombo reaches free agency and might join the Bombers at an affordable price.

It's always a question of what happens 1st. If JSK indicates he's coming back then we don't need to find a new player at WIL. Although if we lose Loffler than the ratio becomes a player in the decisions.

Both of those decisions could be decided in the first couple of hours of free agency.

I will say this, being a GM in this league has to be a very hard job to be consistently successful in... especially when you figure that you will probably turn as much as half your team every year, two years for sure...

sure, the negotiation list consist of only 405 players, but, there are only about 200 imports in the league... I agree that most spots are being taken up by prospective NFL players that get cut and future hedges from the college ranks...  but when you consider that the NFL drafts only 256 players each year for 32 teams, and that the majority of them will not make it in the league, that the starting caliber of professional players can be consumed rather quickly...

but unless you have prior and probably significant playing time in the NFL, you're going to have to come to the league via a ELC... and from what I've read, all imports, as long as the meet the criteria, will be signed off the negotiation list...

but, at the end of the day, you know that almost every ELC player will think they deserve a raise, some you will be able to absorb, others will be let go and replaced with another crop of new ELC players, for the most part. you just have to hope that your ELC hurt you down the road playing with someone else... because you know you will let go most of them...

I think it would be very interesting to see the entire negotiation list for all teams, could be very telling...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27842



« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2019, 04:24:30 PM »

As mentioned elsewhere, you can use your neg list as a recruiting tool, or a bargaining tool.  What does having a guy like Kaeperninck on your list do if you already have a QB?  It give you leverage to a team that NEEDS Kaeperninck should he suddenly decide to play one year in the CFL (all entry contracts are 2 years, yes, but there is the NFL window now...

Hamilton seems to use the list for bargaining, I don't think Walters does. 

THe players will probably get modifications to the Neg list in the new CBA if they are smart. 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2019, 08:49:01 PM »

As mentioned elsewhere, you can use your neg list as a recruiting tool, or a bargaining tool.  What does having a guy like Kaeperninck on your list do if you already have a QB?  It give you leverage to a team that NEEDS Kaeperninck should he suddenly decide to play one year in the CFL (all entry contracts are 2 years, yes, but there is the NFL window now...

Hamilton seems to use the list for bargaining, I don't think Walters does. 

THe players will probably get modifications to the Neg list in the new CBA if they are smart. 

I doubt it, it only effects imports and only those that have not signed a contract yet... the ones that are already in the league won't care because they have already, or are currently, enduring the effects and the others, the ones yet to come north, have no clue or a voice as of yet...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Tehedra
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1613


« Reply #43 on: January 21, 2019, 01:53:16 AM »

I doubt it, it only effects imports and only those that have not signed a contract yet... the ones that are already in the league won't care because they have already, or are currently, enduring the effects and the others, the ones yet to come north, have no clue or a voice as of yet...

I agree; its just not going to be a holding point for the CBA
Logged
In Motion
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 437



« Reply #44 on: January 21, 2019, 06:57:20 PM »

The problem is our scouts can't seem to find us a couple of really GREAT
receivers and kick returners. We need to upgrade in both departments,
and that's been the case for many years now in my opinion. 
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #45 on: January 21, 2019, 10:01:45 PM »

I'm still in the camp that thinks QB abilities and offensive scheme play as much a part of the perceived lack of talent at the receiver position as the actual capabilities of the receivers... I'm sure that won't be popular, but it does have a role, a very big role...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7230


« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2019, 06:32:53 PM »

To a point yes the QB plays an obvious role, but let?s not overlook the fact that a receiver still has to go up and make plays?win the 50/50 ball consistently, break tackles/make people miss and get yards after the catch. Dressler is the only one who makes plays, the others are 50/50 if they catch a pass and very few gain significant yards after catch. I call them play makers, and we don?t have enough of them. They can catch a simple hook pass and gain 0 yards after catch. We need more than that from our receivers
Logged
1chad
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1638


« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2019, 06:57:58 PM »

We need to get some more INT depth at the receiver position. 
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27842



« Reply #48 on: January 25, 2019, 07:30:58 PM »

To a point yes the QB plays an obvious role, but let?s not overlook the fact that a receiver still has to go up and make plays?win the 50/50 ball consistently, break tackles/make people miss and get yards after the catch. Dressler is the only one who makes plays, the others are 50/50 if they catch a pass and very few gain significant yards after catch. I call them play makers, and we don?t have enough of them. They can catch a simple hook pass and gain 0 yards after catch. We need more than that from our receivers

You can't go up for a 50/50 ball if it isn't thrown as a 50/50 ball.  Nichols doesn't seem to throw a lot of 50/50 balls.  Not a place I see us needing rec help at...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23161


« Reply #49 on: January 25, 2019, 07:37:18 PM »

You can't go up for a 50/50 ball if it isn't thrown as a 50/50 ball.  Nichols doesn't seem to throw a lot of 50/50 balls.  Not a place I see us needing rec help at...

There is a reason Nichols doesn't throw 50/50 balls. If he had a receiver that could go up and win a vast majority of these type of throws, believe me he would throw more of them.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #50 on: January 25, 2019, 08:00:04 PM »

You can't go up for a 50/50 ball if it isn't thrown as a 50/50 ball.  Nichols doesn't seem to throw a lot of 50/50 balls.  Not a place I see us needing rec help at...

Harris, Demski and Dressler, Petermann are all smaller receivers at less than 6'.  Adams is only 6'2" as is Wolitarsky.
Logged

No more excuses.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2019, 05:17:13 AM »

we can probably chalk this up to my 'lack of understanding of the CFL game play', but... in what game scenario does one believe that the best option from the playbook is the 50/50 pass? now if you're talking about a receiver being able to go up and 'high point' the ball, well, that's as much on the QB in execution as the receiver... and still, unless you have a significant height advantage it's not a play that I would consider a first option except for rare instances with the right game situation...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5922



« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2019, 07:16:11 AM »

we can probably chalk this up to my 'lack of understanding of the CFL game play', but... in what game scenario does one believe that the best option from the playbook is the 50/50 pass? now if you're talking about a receiver being able to go up and 'high point' the ball, well, that's as much on the QB in execution as the receiver... and still, unless you have a significant height advantage it's not a play that I would consider a first option except for rare instances with the right game situation...

I would agree with this, and in LaPo's playbook the 50/50 pass is rarely used as it is considered a low percentage play with high risk attached.  Whether Nichols can throw these passes well or whether they have the receivers skilled enough to make contested catches is secondary to ball security and moving the yardsticks in the most consistent, conservative manner.  I don't think Paul really cares whether the play is entertaining for fans or not, his goal is to win as many games as possible, entertainment is the byproduct of victories.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2019, 02:17:09 PM »

we can probably chalk this up to my 'lack of understanding of the CFL game play', but... in what game scenario does one believe that the best option from the playbook is the 50/50 pass? now if you're talking about a receiver being able to go up and 'high point' the ball, well, that's as much on the QB in execution as the receiver... and still, unless you have a significant height advantage it's not a play that I would consider a first option except for rare instances with the right game situation...

Nobody said it's a 1st option. However, a 6'4" receiver isolated on a 5'7" DB on a bigger CFL field when the OL protects the QB to give him time and receiver to break coverage, is an option.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2019, 03:00:19 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7230


« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2019, 02:43:44 PM »

There is a reason Nichols doesn't throw 50/50 balls. If he had a receiver that could go up and win a vast majority of these type of throws, believe me he would throw more of them.
Exactly!! He has zero confidence in his receivers and it?s painfully obvious , and frustrating to watch. And as frustrated as I was with Nichols s play, believe me, I get that and I don?t blame him. Our receivers are flat out weak in competing for the ball, weak. And the other aspect of a good receiver?getting yards after the catch?only Dressler and harris to this consistently, the others are tackled by the first tackler and often curl up/crumple to the ground before they are even hit. To say we don?t need to improve at the receiver position is nieve.
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3090


« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2019, 03:29:31 PM »

Exactly!! He has zero confidence in his receivers and it?s painfully obvious , and frustrating to watch. And as frustrated as I was with Nichols s play, believe me, I get that and I don?t blame him. Our receivers are flat out weak in competing for the ball, weak. And the other aspect of a good receiver?getting yards after the catch?only Dressler and harris to this consistently, the others are tackled by the first tackler and often curl up/crumple to the ground before they are even hit. To say we don?t need to improve at the receiver position is nieve.

name 1 time last year that a Bamber receiver, any receiver, was beat fighting for the ball... also, I like you to name just one time that any of our receivers 'curl up/crumple to the ground' before being hit last year... do you have any idea just how stupid that sounds? you should read your post back to yourself out loud before clicking the 'post' button...

in the mean time, I'll be waiting for you to produce these examples...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27842



« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2019, 03:58:49 PM »

Exactly!! He has zero confidence in his receivers and it?s painfully obvious , and frustrating to watch. And as frustrated as I was with Nichols s play, believe me, I get that and I don?t blame him. Our receivers are flat out weak in competing for the ball, weak. And the other aspect of a good receiver?getting yards after the catch?only Dressler and harris to this consistently, the others are tackled by the first tackler and often curl up/crumple to the ground before they are even hit. To say we don?t need to improve at the receiver position is nieve.

Is it confidence in rec's or QB?  Regardless, you scheme to take best advantage of your players abilities... I don't think Nchols is as proficient at the 50/50 ball as other QB's, so even if he had a climb the ladder guy, I don't see him throwing them. 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
3rdand1.5
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3172


« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2019, 04:07:22 PM »

What is the 50/50 ball? In my mind a 50/50 ball is a pass used with no time or very little left on the clock. A designed play to a tall receiver at the back of an endzone as an example is not a 50/50 ball.
The curl-up and hit the deck is a designed play and thrown on purpose to give the defender virtually no potential to deflect or intercept. It is not a YAC designed pass. Now if we are talking about our guys "body catching" or not high pointing or going down with minimal contact, giving up on routes, hesitating to go across the middle, or simple dropping balls then that's legitimate concerns, but I don't recall those being general concerns last year.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #58 on: January 26, 2019, 04:46:51 PM »

What is the 50/50 ball? In my mind a 50/50 ball is a pass used with no time or very little left on the clock. A designed play to a tall receiver at the back of an endzone as an example is not a 50/50 ball.
The curl-up and hit the deck is a designed play and thrown on purpose to give the defender virtually no potential to deflect or intercept. It is not a YAC designed pass. Now if we are talking about our guys "body catching" or not high pointing or going down with minimal contact, giving up on routes, hesitating to go across the middle, or simple dropping balls then that's legitimate concerns, but I don't recall those being general concerns last year.

A 50/50 ball can be thrown at any time of the game. It's a situation where you expect your player to beat the defensive player. Generally that suggestion is on a deeper pass where the receiver out jumps, out positions and out muscles the DB.
Logged

No more excuses.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3528


« Reply #59 on: January 26, 2019, 05:00:37 PM »

I would agree with this, and in LaPo's playbook the 50/50 pass is rarely used as it is considered a low percentage play with high risk attached.  Whether Nichols can throw these passes well or whether they have the receivers skilled enough to make contested catches is secondary to ball security and moving the yardsticks in the most consistent, conservative manner.  I don't think Paul really cares whether the play is entertaining for fans or not, his goal is to win as many games as possible, entertainment is the byproduct of victories.

Quoted for emphasis.  If people remember when Nichols was first acquired, he threw plenty of 50-50 shots downfield, shots Willy wasn?t getting off.  Lots of them got caught, but there were INTs too.

In the off-season, Lapo coached Nichols in his system and offence.  Result was dramatically fewer INTs, better ball control, good completion percentage, and wins.

Conclusion? Nichols is perfectly capable of throwing 50-50 balls, but his OC is coaching him not to because it?s a poor percentage play. 
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27842



« Reply #60 on: January 26, 2019, 05:16:25 PM »

What is the 50/50 ball? In my mind a 50/50 ball is a pass used with no time or very little left on the clock. A designed play to a tall receiver at the back of an endzone as an example is not a 50/50 ball.
The curl-up and hit the deck is a designed play and thrown on purpose to give the defender virtually no potential to deflect or intercept. It is not a YAC designed pass. Now if we are talking about our guys "body catching" or not high pointing or going down with minimal contact, giving up on routes, hesitating to go across the middle, or simple dropping balls then that's legitimate concerns, but I don't recall those being general concerns last year.

Beleive that is a "Hail Mary"...

A 50/50 ball can be thrown at any time of the game. It's a situation where you expect your player to beat the defensive player. Generally that suggestion is on a deeper pass where the receiver out jumps, out positions and out muscles the DB.

What are the odds of completing a 50/50 pass?  Somewhere around 50%?  Not a play I want to become dependent on...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #61 on: January 26, 2019, 05:35:12 PM »

Beleive that is a "Hail Mary"...

What are the odds of completing a 50/50 pass?  Somewhere around 50%?  Not a play I want to become dependent on...

Again, I'm not saying it's a 1st option but clearly it's an option widely used by CFL teams as part of their offense game plan.

QB's can and will throw to receivers before they are open.
Logged

No more excuses.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27842



« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2019, 06:11:17 PM »

Again, I'm not saying it's a 1st option but clearly it's an option widely used by CFL teams as part of their offense game plan.

QB's can and will throw to receivers before they are open.

Of course, timing patterns, and the famous "throw them open" passes... but is you want a 65%+ completion average, you don't get that by throwing 50/50 passes...

Three things can happen when you throw a pass.  Two are bad. 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7230


« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2019, 06:55:56 PM »

name 1 time last year that a Bamber receiver, any receiver, was beat fighting for the ball... also, I like you to name just one time that any of our receivers 'curl up/crumple to the ground' before being hit last year... do you have any idea just how stupid that sounds? you should read your post back to yourself out loud before clicking the 'post' button...

in the mean time, I'll be waiting for you to produce these examples...
Your man Washington was a prime example of a receiver who would catch the ball and immediately cringe and fall to the ground before he got tackled. He was such a sorry excuse of a receiver it wasn?t even funny but since our scouts had no one else waiting in the wings that was any better, we had to go with. That simply isn?t good enough, not even close
Logged
Knocker42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 372


« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2019, 07:18:09 PM »

Your man Washington was a prime example of a receiver who would catch the ball and immediately cringe and fall to the ground before he got tackled. He was such a sorry excuse of a receiver it wasn?t even funny but since our scouts had no one else waiting in the wings that was any better, we had to go with. That simply isn?t good enough, not even close

Worst I ever saw in that respect.  He had speed and decent hands but.....  glad we have moved on.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22077


« Reply #65 on: January 26, 2019, 09:50:29 PM »

Of course, timing patterns, and the famous "throw them open" passes... but is you want a 65%+ completion average, you don't get that by throwing 50/50 passes...

Three things can happen when you throw a pass.  Two are bad. 

You better check the stats on the top 4 CFL QB's. Reilly, BLM, Masoli and Harris. Most passes, most yards, most TD's, highest average per pass and best QB ratings.  3 of those 4 had the best completion %'s. All of those QB's threw up lots of 50/50 passes to some of the best receivers in the CFL.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2019, 09:52:09 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

No more excuses.
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7230


« Reply #66 on: January 26, 2019, 11:36:44 PM »

Exactly, and we don?t do that because we don?t have that playmaker in our lineup. We have decent receivers but no game breaker/back breaker like Rogers who single handedly won the stamps the grey cup. This is the type of player we need. Walker does the same thing for Edmonton, they were a different team without him in the lineup . We need that game breaker in ours in addition to the supporting cast we have
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5922



« Reply #67 on: January 27, 2019, 03:56:27 AM »

What is the 50/50 ball? In my mind a 50/50 ball is a pass used with no time or very little left on the clock. A designed play to a tall receiver at the back of an endzone as an example is not a 50/50 ball.
The curl-up and hit the deck is a designed play and thrown on purpose to give the defender virtually no potential to deflect or intercept. It is not a YAC designed pass. Now if we are talking about our guys "body catching" or not high pointing or going down with minimal contact, giving up on routes, hesitating to go across the middle, or simple dropping balls then that's legitimate concerns, but I don't recall those being general concerns last year.

See: Mike Reilly.  Also see: Mike Reilly miss playoffs with one of the best receiver groups in the league.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2019, 04:33:43 AM by Throw Long Bannatyne » Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7230


« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2019, 12:25:25 AM »

To me, a 50/50 ball is more than just the hail mary....it's also a pass that has been underthrow or overthrown where the receiver has a 50% chance of catching the ball due to poor placement. The receiver has got to out battle the Db to get that catch, that's what separates the good recievers from the so so recievers. We have a bunch of so so recievers, that if they are open and uncontested, will likely catch the ball, but if they have to battle a Db for the ball, we more often than not lose that battle, therefore, nichols won't throw that pass, he'll sail it into the bleachers and go for the sure thing or punt the ball.
Logged
BLUEBOMBER
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5109



« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2019, 01:15:46 AM »

Certainly it's all aspects of the on and off field management of the team that determines how good a team is. So we need the best people on top and eventually things will fall in place.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 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!