Blue Bombers Forum

And no cheating because you know it didn't work out!  Be honest: what were you screaming at the TV before you saw Strevie run out.

...

The most controversial HC decision of the game.  Even more interesting after Dinwiddie made the same choice (and failed in the same way) earlier in the game.

MOS in the past has said he considers that 1Y automatic and will always go for it.  But in his post-game he basically spelled out next time he'll take the points... which is strange to see MOS contradict his previous statements.  However, maybe when he said "always" before, he really meant "always under normal game circumstances".

Everyone knows where I stand!  I'm with (the old) MOS.  It should be automatic for a decent team with a good sneaker.  WPG has always been stellar at SY.  I was screaming "go for it", and I stand by that and would do it again.  Every time this season we've given a team 3-down ball at the end of the game we've lost.  Go for the win that's in your hands.

I had my TOR-dwelling WPG ex-pat meet me at the '23 GC.  There were a critical times when each team had to get a 3rd & 1.  I said to him (only a casual fan) that if the team can't get that, they don't deserve to win.  WPG got theirs... I can't recall if MTL did (no?).

Same thing applied today: if we couldn't get that 1Y, we don't deserve to win.  And we didn't.  And I can live with that.

It wasn't controversial at all. Getting the one yard was the highest percentage play to attempt.

But everything that could go wrong, did go wrong yesterday. What a mess.

I thought they were just trying to pull the Argos offside. If that didn't work they would kick the FG. That said, it was the 1st time IIRC that we failed in a 3rd in short this season?

Very frustrating game to witness. We suck. Can't find ways to win.

I was a little surprised he went for it. It was a pretty solid 1 yard and maybe a tad more. You can definitely come up short on those. I wanted the field goal. Under the circumstances, it was the better choice. The main reason is Toronto did not have a time out. There would have been a kick-off that they were covering very well to that point. You likely have Toronto starting at inside their 30 with less than 50 seconds left with no time out. A tough position for them they way they were struggling to move the ball. Worst case they tie the game up with a field goal.

It was a no brainer kick the FG yesterday.  Another error by MOS this season.  To this point of the game the  defense only allowed 6pts.  The special teams coverage was great.  But the reason the FG should have been the call yesterday was because "AT BEST" Toronto was only going to tie the game with a FG.  There was absolutely no way their offense was scoring a TD yesterday.  So now you go to OT just like they did.  They win the game even if they kicked a single yesterday, Toronto was not going to get in FG range.

So against BC, let's punt to give the best offense the ball back. Now fast forward, let's keep points off the board, the possible winning points, against the worst in game offense I've seen in a decade.  And do it in a game where Dinwiddie gives you a break because he doesn't kick a FG to go up 2 scores moments earlier. 

On a side note, that's now the 4th fumble by Demski, third lost.  Running into a crowd of tacklers not protecting the ball.  He'll never learn.

Quote from: Jesse on July 28, 2024, 01:11:57 PMIt wasn't controversial at all. Getting the one yard was the highest percentage play to attempt.

But everything that could go wrong, did go wrong yesterday. What a mess.

I don't feel it was the highest percentage play yesterday.  Our Oline was being manhandled up the middle, and we also made an in game change with Eli in for Neufeld.  You also need a proper spot from incompetent officials.

Quote from: Blue In BC on July 28, 2024, 01:29:32 PMI thought they were just trying to pull the Argos offside. If that didn't work they would kick the FG. That said, it was the 1st time IIRC that we failed in a 3rd in short this season?

I think The Riders stopped us on 3rd & short lastgame?

We were in a very low scoring game where both teams struggled to score. At that point in the game you take the points and force Toronto to march the field and score which they wouldn't have. They didn't move the ball all game.

Our defense played great, I would have taken the points and they would have held the hopeless Toronto offense to nothing. Even if Castillo missed we get a single and still win the game. That's what smart coaches would have done. I fully expected oshea to do what he did as he isn't a smart Coach. Very good on him to admit he made a mistake and would have taken the points afterwards but too little too late.

This was a game neither team deserved to win but Toronto literally stole that win from us.their defensive TD was massive pass interference but we haven't been able to get a call this year and that trend continued

My first thought was we were going to pretend to go for it and then call a timeout.  I was very surprised MOS went for it considering how Toronto offensively wasn't moving the ball very well all game.  He usually is very conservative on these plays. 

But I think Strevy being 18 for 18 on 3rd down was going to get it automatic and of course the refs gave us the bad spot.

I would have gone for the FG and had faith on our D to hold

You always take the points when you can... especially at the end of a tied game. 

The Bombers had no problem converting their earlier chances on short yardage, so getting that first down puts the game away with a short field goal. I put this loss 100% on the O line. Changes on the O line are needed.

I thought field goal. Worst case Argos have time to tie, it's still overtime. But... Sergio missed his kick later so who's to say he made this one. We may have lost in regulation.

I stand by  my signature here: Everything seems stupid when it fails.  - Fyodor Dostoevsky

Quote from: bwiser on July 28, 2024, 02:29:09 PMThe Bombers had no problem converting their earlier chances on short yardage, so getting that first down puts the game away with a short field goal. I put this loss 100% on the O line. Changes on the O line are needed.

Exactly!! This game proved beyond a shadow of a doubt we have a brutal,O line and changes are needed immediately otherwise Collaros isn't finishing the season, he was getting hammered all day and hats off to him, he pushed through that pounding and had a very good game.

I liked the call to go for it in general - however given the game situation and the way it was going - take the points. 

Dinwiddie kept us in the game with his choice - they kick the FG - they win the game. 

Both Toronto and Winnipeg should have taken the FG's instead of going for 3rd and 1. 

Yes.  We always get that one yard.  We have Mr. One Yard in Streveler, and we had done it easily multiple times.

We get that one yard, and it is game over.  You take the 3, and there is a chance for them to tie.  And Castillo had missed one yesterday.

This season we are 100% on short yardage.  100%.

The minute MOS calls the "safe" play, we lose.  It always seems to be the way.  So I do not fault him for going for it.

And, Streveler got the yardage, we got screwed on the spot and review.

Last item.  On a FG in the last 3 min, we have to kick off.  Kick off to: Janarion Grant.  Who had scored a return TD in three straight games.  A KO return for a TD wins the game.  We make the first, we can run down the clock and kick the FG with 0:00 on the clock.

Plus, in choosing to, the coach is saying he 100% beleives in his team's ability to deliver in the crunch.  Kicking the FG says he has doubts.

So, yeah, I go for it, every time.

Quote from: jdrattops on July 28, 2024, 02:06:55 PMI don't feel it was the highest percentage play yesterday.  Our Oline was being manhandled up the middle, and we also made an in game change with Eli in for Neufeld.  You also need a proper spot from incompetent officials.

Our percentage going for it on one yard is better than Castillo's FG percentage. It best the best opportunity for success but unfortunately nothing is guaranteed.

we haven't scored more than 16 points in 3 games!!! you take the points as our offense 'doesn't got this', that's the problem. Points are extremely hard to come by, so when you get the chance to take the lead in a tight game, with time running out, you Take the 3 points, take the lead. Kick it off, our ST did a great job on Grant, he didn't scare me last night at all, and watch toronto go 2 and out, like they had for the last 3 quarters of the game. Did they even have 100 yd3 offense in the entire game?!?!

Quote from: Blue In BC on July 28, 2024, 01:29:32 PMI thought they were just trying to pull the Argos offside. If that didn't work they would kick the FG. That said, it was the 1st time IIRC that we failed in a 3rd in short this season?

Yup.  We've been 100%... until then.  And Prukop was near 100% last year on 3rd (excluding any passing SY attempt).  We pride ourselves on that 1Y being automatic.  Hence why we usually go for it anywhere within 2Y (remember Strevie's first sneak this season @PAS??).

Quote from: bomb squad on July 28, 2024, 01:56:12 PMA tough position for them they way they were struggling to move the ball. Worst case they tie the game up with a field goal.

We've been very bad for about a year in stopping teams who are in 3-down mode.  It cost us the '23 GC, remember.  With nothing to lose, Arbuckle could go into that all-deep-ish mode he was in when he came in relief last week.

Think of how many times our team has botched things by being wimpy on O and giving up the ball in the last 1-2 mins.  I maintain that lost us both '22 and '23 GCs.  Wimpy calls on critical drives.

I made a whole thread after the GC about being more "bold".  We've been way too safe for at least 1.5 seasons... and we're not good enough to win being "safe".  We need to be bold.  MOS always going for it on 3rd & 1 (before yesterday's post-game) is bold.  As such you go for it.  And you work on it with Strev & the hoggies so that you get to 99% like LeFeve did and Prukop was close to.  If you can't get 99%, find some hoggies that can.

Quote from: jdrattops on July 28, 2024, 01:57:39 PMRunning into a crowd of tacklers not protecting the ball.  He'll never learn.

Rs are trained to run into/between 2 defenders when they are waiting in front.

Quote from: BomberFan73 on July 28, 2024, 02:12:41 PMI think The Riders stopped us on 3rd & short lastgame?

Pretty sure no.  Remember, SY I Watch Like A Hawk (TM).  And don't worry, Junkie will correct me if I'm wrong!  ;)

Quote from: barbk on July 28, 2024, 02:24:27 PMMy first thought was we were going to pretend to go for it and then call a timeout.  I was very surprised MOS went for it considering how Toronto offensively wasn't moving the ball very well all game.  He usually is very conservative on these plays. 

a) MOS has never once played the "fake it to draw them offside" game.  Other HCs/DCs know this.

b) The "draw offside" trick is almost always done in the gun, not under C.  So they could tell from our alignment it was probably for real.

c) MOS has outright said in numerous pressers that he considers the 1Y sneak automatic and will always go for it.

d) Clearly TOR DC knows what I know because those TOR guys lined up and were set like they meant business.  We all know which HCs like to play silly games and the DLs often will ease up their tension so they don't accidentally go offside.

Quote from: Waffler on July 28, 2024, 02:35:28 PMBut... Sergio missed his kick later so who's to say he made this one. We may have lost in regulation.

Great point.  Wasn't the distance around the same as the O/T Castillo miss?  If he missed in regulation then Grant has a chance for a big return.

We also lost the '22 GC in a similar way thinking we were going to get a do-able FG.

I love the point here about our SY being of higher percentage than the FG... as such you'd actually have to be mental to go for the FG!!

The stop being made by Theadric Hansen kinda stung...

Quote from: dd on July 28, 2024, 06:41:16 PMwith time running out, you Take the 3 points, take the lead. Kick it off, our ST did a great job on Grant, he didn't scare me last night at all

Grant scares me every time we kick to him.  Our coverage did what half the other teams couldn't this season: stop him without a big gain every time.

Quote from: theaardvark on July 29, 2024, 05:28:22 AMThe stop being made by Theadric Hansen kinda stung...

Was it?  Ugh... Wasn't Hansen here in 2019 when Strev was?  Maybe he remembered out plans and tendencies.

You're right: insult to injury.

I think of this play this way:

How would I feel if:

- The D blows it and we outright lose via a TOR TD?  So many of those in the last couple of seasons.  I hate it because of course the Os always have the advantage, even when they are bad, because they know the play, they call the shots, and they have 3 downs.  This would drive me bananas, because you feel so powerless, and that's because you are because you relinquished the initiative.

- We pull a '22 GC and miss the FG and lose it in spectacular fashion.  I'd go mental because we weren't bold and essentially told (insulted!) our O that they aren't good enough.

- The D lets them get into FG range (the most likely outcome) and it's off to O/T anyhow.  Same feeling as what transpired, so that's a wash.

We have to be happy (and I am!) with the decision we took because we kept the initiative, were bold, showed faith in our O (which will resonate throughout the season!), and probably succeeded regardless and got robbed by blind officials.  I hope this puts a bee in the bonnet of the OL & Strev and they go 100% the rest of the season.

There is no shame in losing being bold and trusting your near-100% SY.

looked to me that Clercius missed his block on the sneak...Rookies are going to make mistakes.

Quote from: Jesse on July 28, 2024, 06:36:43 PMOur percentage going for it on one yard is better than Castillo's FG percentage. It best the best opportunity for success but unfortunately nothing is guaranteed.

We only needed a point at the time and the game would have been over. 

Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 29, 2024, 05:19:59 AMRs are trained to run into/between 2 defenders when they are waiting in front.

Over, under, between, or with a pitch fork in hand.  The point is protecting the ball.

I was pro-go for it at the time and still am.

The alternative was what, Sergio missing another chip shot? Then this thread would have been the exact reverse of what it is.

The spot was wrong. Otherwise this thread wouldn't be happening at all.

Streveler always makes it when they run off tackle. It looked like that 1 yard run was more up the middle, where all the players are all packed together! WT*. It looks like the Bombers are scared to make mistakes. Just move your A**ES and play football! It's the players fault totally for losing. They're either not trying or they're incapable. The Bombers offence is terrible. They look like some kind of expansion team.

Doug Brown was on CJOB this morning and agreed that go for it was the right move.

Streveler is almost 100% in converting that play.  Castillo's % is lower.  And Grant is there to run back a miss as well.

There are so many variables, but the main one is Streveler makes that play almost 100% of the time, pretty sure he was 100% at that point so far this season.

He makes it, we burn the clock and either score a TD or kick with 0:00 left.

Going for it with the best shirt yardage QB in the world is a gimme.
Ok we missed one, they flunked it off.
Just the same the O-line needs replacements.

Re structure some salaries. So we can pay some aggressive in shape uninjured guys.
Our guys look too old to bother, with no leadership, and. Just nit capable at this level.

A lot of guys not even putting in maximum effort. Losers make excuses Winnners make it happen.
Guess what we are.

Going for it made sense. I don't fault the call at all.

Quote from: DM83 on July 29, 2024, 04:20:03 PMGoing for it with the best shirt yardage QB in the world is a gimme.
Ok we missed one, they flunked it off.
Just the same the O-line needs replacements.

Re structure some salaries. So we can pay some aggressive in shape uninjured guys.
Our guys look too old to bother, with no leadership, and. Just nit capable at this level.

A lot of guys not even putting in maximum effort. Losers make excuses Winnners make it happen.
Guess what we are.

Your hat must be tired of you talking through it (I would have used a different euphemism, but this is a PG site.)

Not hearing excuses from the team, although they have many they could make.  Other than the chips, this team has taken their lumps, and committed to getting better, and getting back on track, and "getting up off the mat".

If there was a single player on this roster that was ANY of the derogatory terms you have heaped on them, MOS/Walters would have handed them an apple and a roadmap long ago.

NOTE:  For context, comments that were insulting have been removed.

You gotta go for it there. If we make it, it's game over.
If we kick the field goal we give them a chance. They haven't moved the ball great, but they would have three downs to work with so I think there's a chance they get into FG range.

18 for 18 on 3rdn1.
And with a better camera angle (NFL like) I bet it would clearly show Streveler crossed the 1D mark.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 28, 2024, 09:54:58 AMAnd no cheating because you know it didn't work out!  Be honest: what were you screaming at the TV before you saw Strevie run out.

...

The most controversial HC decision of the game.  Even more interesting after Dinwiddie made the same choice (and failed in the same way) earlier in the game.

MOS in the past has said he considers that 1Y automatic and will always go for it.  But in his post-game he basically spelled out next time he'll take the points... which is strange to see MOS contradict his previous statements.  However, maybe when he said "always" before, he really meant "always under normal game circumstances".

Everyone knows where I stand!  I'm with (the old) MOS.  It should be automatic for a decent team with a good sneaker.  WPG has always been stellar at SY.  I was screaming "go for it", and I stand by that and would do it again.  Every time this season we've given a team 3-down ball at the end of the game we've lost.  Go for the win that's in your hands.

The danger of a bad spot was always there and I believe I even called it live. It's pretty hard to deny the ball going through the uprights though. I would have made the decision that left the refs out of it as much as possible. It was too big a gamble, especially the way our D was playing.

Quote from: jdrattops on July 29, 2024, 02:51:09 PMWe only needed a point at the time and the game would have been over.

Are you suuuuuuuuure?  When they blew in that 3rd down gamble the clock said 1:14.  You suuuuuuuuuure we can hold a desperate 3-down-mode good TOR team (yes they are good) to nothing, or just a FG (which will give the same result as blowing the sneak)?

Are you suuuuuuure Castillo gets that FG from 30YL, which is where he'd kick from?

Again, how many games and cups have we lost by playing super safe on 2nd down (like both GCs) or screwed up FGs ('22 GC, this TOR game).

What makes you feel worse as a fan: having full control of the ball and coming up short, or giving the ball back and watching the other team ram it down our throats?

Quote from: J5V on July 29, 2024, 10:35:00 PMThe danger of a bad spot was always there and I believe I even called it live. It's pretty hard to deny the ball going through the uprights though. I would have made the decision that left the refs out of it as much as possible. It was too big a gamble, especially the way our D was playing.

A bit ironic given how we lost the game: by a ball wobbling in and out over the uprights leaving the entire game up to the one ref staring up hoping his eye is aligned with the post properly and he can properly measure a ball position within an inch 30Y above his head!

At least the spot was reviewable and reviewed!  The kick result gets no second guess ever because there are no cams to triangulate.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 30, 2024, 05:41:57 AMA bit ironic given how we lost the game: by a ball wobbling in and out over the uprights leaving the entire game up to the one ref staring up hoping his eye is aligned with the post properly and he can properly measure a ball position within an inch 30Y above his head!

At least the spot was reviewable and reviewed!  The kick result gets no second guess ever because there are no cams to triangulate.

I guess they need a chip in the ball (just kidding, if there was a chip it would have missed by 10 yards)

Still don't know why they don't have a laser pointer on the inside of the goal post pointing upwards.  if it flashes on the ball, it's over the post (no good).  If it doesn't flash the ball, it's good.

Pretty simple, really.

Quote from: theaardvark on July 30, 2024, 04:21:51 PMI guess they need a chip in the ball (just kidding, if there was a chip it would have missed by 10 yards)

Still don't know why they don't have a laser pointer on the inside of the goal post pointing upwards.  if it flashes on the ball, it's over the post (no good).  If it doesn't flash the ball, it's good.

Pretty simple, really.

The laser on the goal post makes total sense, cheap to implement, puts the good/no good argument to bed. Get it done!!

Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 30, 2024, 05:39:40 AMAre you suuuuuuuuure?  When they blew in that 3rd down gamble the clock said 1:14.  You suuuuuuuuuure we can hold a desperate 3-down-mode good TOR team (yes they are good) to nothing, or just a FG (which will give the same result as blowing the sneak)?

Are you suuuuuuure Castillo gets that FG from 30YL, which is where he'd kick from?

Again, how many games and cups have we lost by playing super safe on 2nd down (like both GCs) or screwed up FGs ('22 GC, this TOR game).

What makes you feel worse as a fan: having full control of the ball and coming up short, or giving the ball back and watching the other team ram it down our throats?

If the make the first down they likely would have been kicking the field goal from virtually the same spot anyway.

Quote from: theaardvark on July 30, 2024, 04:21:51 PMStill don't know why they don't have a laser pointer on the inside of the goal post pointing upwards.  if it flashes on the ball, it's over the post (no good).  If it doesn't flash the ball, it's good.

Because it would cost the league an extra $100 per game?   ;)  ;)  ;)

You bring up a good question though: does the ball have to go inside the inside of the uprights?  Or over the uprights?  Or over but not beyond the outside of the uprights?

Rule 3 - Section 2 - Article 2 says "between the goal posts (or goal posts extended)"

So I guess you are right.  A laser pointer on the inside is enough to prove a FG was scored... well, at least if it's not snowing!

You could also do it by rigging a camera anywhere at the side of the stadium where it can aim straight at the uprights so they are in a perfect line.  If you time-sync that shot with the behind the posts shot you can have effective reviews because then you know the instant the ball is over the posts, then correlate with where it is between/outside the posts.

If a laser pointer isn't high enough tech, a simple fixed camera on top of the posts.  Use a backup camera, which can put those funny guide lines up.  Then you can actually see if the ball is inside the post. 

But the laser is still best, if it touches the ball, that means it would have touched the post. 

On further review, I guess it has to give the inside third of the post to the kicker, that would have hit and bounced in.  Middle third donk, dead ball.  Outer third, live ball.

Yes, I would have made the same decision and would again if in the same position. I think Strevie got the required yard but it was a bad spot even after being reviewed.

Real close battle on the results of this poll.  You still have time to vote or even change your answer!  Closes in the wee hours tonight (i.e. a few hours from this post you're reading).

It's clear we're all basically split 50/50 on the call.

https://www.bluebombers.com/2024/07/30/coach-oshea-july-30-3/

Skip to around 4:30

MOS is clear that he agrees with the YES's here in the poll.  And addresses the fact he said otherwise in the post-game (heat of the moment?).

If we're faced with it again, I hope OL and Strev get the gravity of the situation and do their best to bust through that line.

P.S. The key is to follow the best hoggie... Wallace blew it and it was probably Eli next to him who also was weak.  So why is Strev being told to take that hole?  With our OL issues and the presence of rookies, I don't know why you aren't running behind/beside Big Stan.  I would put Big Stan and Wallace as the road graders with no gap between them and run right there.  Make sure Wallace understands he can't outrun the QB.  The supporting cast can be sealers.

We also need to add the "diving jump-over" option to Strev's repertoire.  Don't use it often (can fail if some LB guesses the jump point), just once in a while to keep them thinking.  The advantage to the jump-over is the refs and cams can clearly see the ball.