We have zero pass rush , no pressure on quarterbacks. We only get some if we send extra players on a play, but nothing on a regular rush. QB's have too much time.
And yet we held BLM to pretty crappy passing stats. We've made a conscious choice that we are a D with no pass rush. It also worked pretty well against SSK. And most other teams this year.
What the 3-man-rush didn't stop in this, and some other games, is the late-game run-mostly O's. I'm fine with the no pass rush if we still limit passing yards, but we also then have to find ways to be stout against the run.
It's a big experiment, probably never before seen in the CFL, where a team completely forgoes pass rush. The jury's still out, but it's not looking too hot. It seemed so much easier to win with the Jeffcoat/Willie/Stove "traditional" scheme.
The other factor is when your not putting pressure on qbs, its more difficult to create turnovers.Tonite we weren't close to intercepting a pass
I don't think we made a bad choice on defence.
The real crux of this game, and in every loss this season, was offensive turnovers.
Quote from: Jesse on September 13, 2025, 04:32:36 AMThe real crux of this game, and in every lose this season, was offensive turnovers.
You bet. Teams don't even take chances on O against us anymore. They just sit back until their D can get the 2-3 picks a game we are
guaranteed to give up. (Zach as much as Strev.)
Even with no pass rush, our D has not been the problem in games. They kept us in nearly every game, certainly the last few/many, until the 4th.
This discussion is more than valid, but a thread about the atrocious O schemes would be equally warranted.
All of a sudden Woodbey is getting a ton of playing time, on the depth chart they had him listed behind Kyrie, but I swear he was playing in place of Griffin at SLB quite often. He was the 2nd busiest tackler with 6 behind Kramdi tonight who had 8. Does this mean he has surpassed half the LB's on the team including Ayers and Jon Jones?
Also Didn't see much of Cam Allen tonight at Safety, fairly quiet night for him but then BLM spent the night testing Lawson at corner.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 13, 2025, 06:15:35 AMAll of a sudden Woodbey is getting a ton of playing time
Woodbey made that very noticeable, tough stop somewhere in the middle of the game. That was
very impressive. If he's going to do stuff like that, I can see why we'll keep dressing him.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 13, 2025, 06:15:35 AMAlso Didn't see much of Cam Allen tonight at Safety, fairly quiet night for him but then BLM spent the night testing Lawson at corner.
You said it. BLM avoided the post all but 1-2 times. Tons of work against Lawson. So if we know they are picking on Lawson, why can't we cheat our FS over to help him on the mid/deep routes? Or were we just playing that dumb zone most of the time?
And no roving LBers, no sneaky undercuts, none of the stuff that used to make us famous.
Quote from: Pete on September 13, 2025, 04:28:50 AMThe other factor is when your not putting pressure on qbs, its more difficult to create turnovers.Tonite we weren't close to intercepting a pass
It's true. The scheme on defense is questionable and/or we don't have the players to pull it off.
We will lose the vast majority of games we play if the best we can do is get our hand on the quarterback one time as he's throwing it on one drive in the third quarter.
It's not nearly good enough and they also got lit up in the interior run game towards the end of the game.
It's the scheme or the personnel or both but it was complete garbage last night and that's the nicest way to put it.
Quote from: Jesse on September 13, 2025, 04:32:36 AMI don't think we made a bad choice on defence.
The real crux of this game, and in every lose this season, was offensive turnovers.
And offensive turnovers are largely occuring because teams are pressuring the heck out of our quarterbacks and we let theirs stand back there for 10 seconds a play.
The only reason we were as close as we were is because their coach didn't call a time-out on the busted coverage TD we got. That was a high school moment for them.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 13, 2025, 06:40:17 AMWoodbey made that very noticeable, tough stop somewhere in the middle of the game. That was very impressive. If he's going to do stuff like that, I can see why we'll keep dressing him.
You said it. BLM avoided the post all but 1-2 times. Tons of work against Lawson. So if we know they are picking on Lawson, why can't we cheat our FS over to help him on the mid/deep routes? Or were we just playing that dumb zone most of the time?
And no roving LBers, no sneaky undercuts, none of the stuff that used to make us famous.
Was Allen on the field much last night? I only saw him a couple of times?
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 13, 2025, 04:30:06 PMWas Allen on the file muuch last night? I only saw him a couple of times?
I didn't notice him *at all*. But I was angry for much of the game and not seeing things right ;) ;)
BLM did very few deep shots so hard to tell if Allen ever got near the ball. We did so much of our blanket zone coverage sets where we wouldn't necessarily have Allen in.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 13, 2025, 04:30:06 PMWas Allen on the file muuch last night? I only saw him a couple of times?
2 official tackles, saw him a few times.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 13, 2025, 04:30:06 PMWas Allen on the file muuch last night? I only saw him a couple of times?
Was at the game, and he was actually on the field a fair amount of the time.
We need more pressure but it's far from our biggest issue
Our D have been average and has had a few good games
Not worried about our D
Need the OL to click,get healthy at QB and get 100 yards rushing per game
2 consecutive games without a sack.
1 sack in the last 4 games.
Quote from: The Fresh Prince Of Belair, MB on September 15, 2025, 08:35:36 PM2 consecutive games without a sack.
1 sack in the last 4 games.
Wow, I didn't realize it was THAT brutal!!
Jefferson is washed. Still gets his mitts in the way of the Qb but he gives up on numerous plays every game. He is no longer an every down player. Yet he still might be the best D line player on the team.
They must be the bottom in the league in the sack department .
Quote from: Ducky on September 15, 2025, 11:49:38 PMJefferson is washed. Still gets his mitts in the way of the Qb but he gives up on numerous plays every game. He is no longer an every down player. Yet he still might be the best D line player on the team.
Not washed in any way imo. His stats were near the top of the league last year. He has evolved and is still effective.
Quote from: Ducky on September 15, 2025, 11:49:38 PMJefferson is washed. Still gets his mitts in the way of the Qb but he gives up on numerous plays every game. He is no longer an every down player. Yet he still might be the best D line player on the team.
Go check out ancient Riderforum posts from when Willie was there. Willie has been "giving up on numerous" plays his entire career. It's what he does. Sometimes gives up on whole games too. Rider fans noticed this waaaay back when, and nothing has changed.
If you don't accept that, you'll never accept Willie. Mafia knew this before signing him, and they condone it every year they re-up him.
And it's ok. It's part of why Willie is never hurt when Jeffcoat spent 75% of his time in the tub and was eventually canned.
Willie saves it up for when it really counts, like the post-season. How many times have we seen that?
I'm perfectly fine with it, as long has he keeps getting the batdowns and FF's when it counts.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 16, 2025, 08:15:26 AMGo check out ancient Riderforum posts from when Willie was there. Willie has been "giving up on numerous" plays his entire career. It's what he does. Sometimes gives up on whole games too. Rider fans noticed this waaaay back when, and nothing has changed.
If you don't accept that, you'll never accept Willie. Mafia knew this before signing him, and they condone it every year they re-up him.
And it's ok. It's part of why Willie is never hurt when Jeffcoat spent 75% of his time in the tub and was eventually canned.
Willie saves it up for when it really counts, like the post-season. How many times have we seen that?
I'm perfectly fine with it, as long has he keeps getting the batdowns and FF's when it counts.
He always has, but also always came up with 10+ sacks and multiple turnovers. He's not doing that anymore. Only thing he goes for is the bat down now.
The biggest flaw with this style of defense is the lack of creativity when we do finally do blitz. Bomber blitzes have been getting picked up all year long, and the D is getting burnt anytime we do. My biggest beef with this style of defense is your not wearing down any offensive line as the game goes on, and you're not forcing OLines to make decisions at the snap. Drop back block 3 with 5, wait for a soft spot in the zone, complete the pass. Nothing organic on defense or offense this season, both coordinators can be shown the door come seasons end.
Quote from: Jesse on September 16, 2025, 11:07:32 AMHe always has, but also always came up with 10+ sacks and multiple turnovers. He's not doing that anymore. Only thing he goes for is the bat down now.
Last year he was top three in distractions to the QB or something like that. Was featured on TSN month or so ago. More one way to skin a cat. He's an old cat but still has a few lives left imo. He still goes for the sack and pressures but yes uses his wings as good as anyone ever.
Quote from: jdrattops on September 16, 2025, 01:42:29 PMThe biggest flaw with this style of defense is the lack of creativity when we do finally do blitz. Bomber blitzes have been getting picked up all year long, and the D is getting burnt anytime we do. My biggest beef with this style of defense is your not wearing down any offensive line as the game goes on, and you're not forcing OLines to make decisions at the snap. Drop back block 3 with 5, wait for a soft spot in the zone, complete the pass. Nothing organic on defense or offense this season, both coordinators can be shown the door come seasons end.
3 man front very normal last few years across the league
We have the lowest number of tackles for a loss this season (11) and second fewest sacks made (16).
How far are we off of the pace? The Riders have 34 sacks and Ottawa has 27 tackles for a loss.
Further, we've forced 8 fumbles, third fewest and have 10 interceptions, again, third last. Not surpringly, the Riders lead the leage with 18 interceptions which is a direct result of the amount of pressure they generate.
If we're not more aggressive on defense since better pass rushers this year seems out of the question then we have little chance to improve those categories.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 18, 2025, 01:40:23 AMWe have the lowest number of tackles for a loss this season (11) and second fewest sacks made (16).
How far are we off of the pace? The Riders have 34 sacks and Ottawa has 27 tackles for a loss.
Further, we've forced 8 fumbles, third fewest and have 10 interceptions, again, third last. Not surpringly, the Riders lead the leage with 18 interceptions which is a direct result of the amount of pressure they generate.
If we're not more aggressive on defense since better pass rushers this year seems out of the question then we have little chance to improve those categories.
As a fan, its pretty frustrating watching a defense that generates no pressure, and generates very few turnovers. And yet the most important defensive category is offensive points allowed, and we are fourth in offensive points allowed (24.5), not far behind third place Montreal (24.2) and second place Sask (23.5). We are second in offensive touchdowns allowed. We are middle of the pack in yardage given up, and actually first in first downs allowed. We are third in passing yards given up, and actually first in completion percentage against (62%).
Not saying we have a great defense, I think its middle of the pack, but maybe improving, especially if we can get Parker and Houston in at corners. It looks worse than it is because its such a strange mix of passivity and bottom line success...sort of like being flogged with a wet noodle.
Quote from: bunker on September 18, 2025, 02:05:25 AMAs a fan, its pretty frustrating watching a defense that generates no pressure, and generates very few turnovers. And yet the most important defensive category is offensive points allowed, and we are fourth in offensive points allowed (24.5), not far behind third place Montreal (24.2) and second place Sask (23.5). We are second in offensive touchdowns allowed. We are middle of the pack in yardage given up, and actually first in first downs allowed. We are third in passing yards given up, and actually first in completion percentage against (62%).
Not saying we have a great defense, I think its middle of the pack, but maybe improving, especially if we can get Parker and Houston in at corners. It looks worse than it is because its such a strange mix of passivity and bottom line success...sort of like being flogged with a wet noodle.
I agree that points allowed iand some of the other points you mentioned are better than you might think but they're also averages and therefore only so helpful.
What I mean is we held a pretty bad out of the blocks team in BC to 20 and 14 points. The second of which Rourke was knocked out of the game. Then we had a run at Tre Ford and he put up 23. More recently we held a 4th stringer in Montreal to 13 points. That's all wonderful for the average but doesn't mean we had an outstanding defense effort, it can mean we enjoyed easier competition.
When we've played better teams and more capable quarterbacks?
Calgary scored 37, 41 and 28.
Toronto put up 31 and 31.
Riders had 34 and 21.
Hamilton put up 32.
And of course there's the very real and fair counterpoint that special teams and offensive turnovers also very much impact what happens on defense but at the end of the day if you can't pressure the good quarterbacks and force them to make mistakes, they probably won't. And tha leads to an even or negative turnover margin (we're deadlast at -13, by the way) and you lose football games because you can't get stops in the forth when you need it because you can't get home.
Maybe there is some "off the beaten trail" defensive system that wins despite a super long coverage time per play but it's a heck of an exception. If you look at really good defensive teams in the CFL, NFL or college ( including ours when we won Grey cups) they relentlessly attacked the QB, caused mayhem, mistakes and were physically punishing. We can't even make an open field tackle with this group. Everyone is covering for far too long. Everyone gets tired. All reaction. Never dictating. It's exhausting and requires perfection every play.
It is flawed defensive strategy that won't win over the long term unless we can find some defensive lineman who not only want to eat double teams all day but can win and get home against them with some regularity. Good luck.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 16, 2025, 01:56:26 PMLast year he was top three in distractions to the QB or something like that. Was featured on TSN month or so ago. More one way to skin a cat. He's an old cat but still has a few lives left imo. He still goes for the sack and pressures but yes uses his wings as good as anyone ever.
3 man front very normal last few years across the league
3 man front was normal when you had a secondary that could make plays and interceptions. We don't have that secondary anymore. Our secondary is weak, and our DL is weak and when you combine those 2, you get a defense that is last in most defensive categories.
But as frustrating as our defense is, they aren't the ones turning the ball over 5 times a game and gifting the other team 15-20 points a game. The offense has got to stop turning the ball over. I don't care if we don't score more points than presently, just don't give teams the easy points and ultimately wins.
Quote from: dd on September 18, 2025, 02:49:50 AM3 man front was normal when you had a secondary that could make plays and interceptions. We don't have that secondary anymore. Our secondary is weak, and our DL is weak and when you combine those 2, you get a defense that is last in most defensive categories.
But as frustrating as our defense is, they aren't the ones turning the ball over 5 times a game and gifting the other team 15-20 points a game. The offense has got to stop turning the ball over. I don't care if we don't score more points than presently, just don't give teams the easy points and ultimately wins.
Our secondary with Parker back is above average imo
3 man front are used widely across the league and for a few years
Quote from: dd on September 18, 2025, 02:49:50 AM3 man front was normal when you had a secondary that could make plays and interceptions. We don't have that secondary anymore. Our secondary is weak, and our DL is weak and when you combine those 2, you get a defense that is last in most defensive categories.
But as frustrating as our defense is, they aren't the ones turning the ball over 5 times a game and gifting the other team 15-20 points a game. The offense has got to stop turning the ball over. I don't care if we don't score more points than presently, just don't give teams the easy points and ultimately wins.
For as long as I've watched football running a 3-4 defense doesn't mean you don't pressure the QB. That's a bunch of nonsense that some Bombers fans have put forth as a way to do explain why we're not good at it but it doesn't check out if you examine the claim a little bit.
The Steelers from 2008 to 2010 played a 3-4 and were top three in sacks each of those years.
The Patriots early 2000s ran a 3-4 to three Super Bowls and while it wasn't top 5 in sacks those teams got a ton of pressure.
There's many more though the years. While 4-3s typically pressure from the defensive lineman, 3-4s are supposed to pressure from the scheme: linebacker blitzs, digused pressures from the secondary, stunts up front.
We don't do any of that and when we do it doesn't actually generate the result we want. Most often, we just drop everyone, abandon the front 3 to straight line pressure and hope 10 seconds goes by.
It's unorthodox and weird and a bit stupid being honest.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 18, 2025, 02:40:40 AMI agree that points allowed iand some of the other points you mentioned are better than you might think but they're also averages and therefore only so helpful.
What I mean is we held a pretty bad out of the blocks team in BC to 20 and 14 points. The second of which Rourke was knocked out of the game. Then we had a run at Tre Ford and he put up 23. More recently we held a 4th stringer in Montreal to 13 points. That's all wonderful for the average but doesn't mean we had an outstanding defense effort, it can mean we enjoyed easier competition.
When we've played better teams and more capable quarterbacks?
Calgary scored 37, 41 and 28.
Toronto put up 31 and 31.
Riders had 34 and 21.
Hamilton put up 32.
And of course there's the very real and fair counterpoint that special teams and offensive turnovers also very much impact what happens on defense but at the end of the day if you can't pressure the good quarterbacks and force them to make mistakes, they probably won't. And tha leads to an even or negative turnover margin (we're deadlast at -13, by the way) and you lose football games because you can't get stops in the forth when you need it because you can't get home.
Maybe there is some "off the beaten trail" defensive system that wins despite a super long coverage time per play but it's a heck of an exception. If you look at really good defensive teams in the CFL, NFL or college ( including ours when we won Grey cups) they relentlessly attacked the QB, caused mayhem, mistakes and were physically punishing. We can't even make an open field tackle with this group. Everyone is covering for far too long. Everyone gets tired. All reaction. Never dictating. It's exhausting and requires perfection every play.
It is flawed defensive strategy that won't win over the long term unless we can find some defensive lineman who not only want to eat double teams all day but can win and get home against them with some regularity. Good luck.
Those are Valid points. Although I will point out that the other 8 CFl teams we are comparing with have also had games against backup QBs and sputtering offences.
I'd also add (arguing against myself here) that the turnover deficit is actually costing our Offense points when all is said and done (I read somewhere each turnover generated by the D translates to about another 3 points for the O).
I'm curious about what you think Younger is doing here? He seems like a very bright guy, and he's working with Richie Hall, who's been around the block and then some. Are they simply scheming around a talent deficit? Are they playing 4d chess and we just don't understand how it works because it's so unconventional? Is there some advanced analytics somewhere that shows that getting into passing lanes and pass knockdowns is actually a better strategy than pressure? It is a bit mystifying, especially when you watch our defensive ends make one brief attempt to go wide around the tackle, and then give up and stand at the line waving their arms and jumping up and down.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 18, 2025, 02:40:40 AMMaybe there is some "off the beaten trail" defensive system that wins despite a super long coverage time per play but it's a heck of an exception.
Mafia + Younger/Hall may have run the numbers and decided they can't have the whole team they want AND have top (expensive) DL. They may have decided they
can win games with coverage and batdowns.
Think about it. Would one high-end IMP DT really make a difference? Two, yes. But one? Nah. Or how about another Willie-level DE, but no improvement at DT? Would that help? No, I don't think anything other than replacing 2 DL with 2 top-10 (big money) DL (plus a 3rd who is better than what we have now) would help. That's huge money.
So you say "but then you need to make sure you buy top DB/SAM talent". And you'd be right,
except top DB talent is waaaay cheaper than top DL talent. And Mafia can usually find 1 great one a season.
It may still work out. We were already going down this path in '24. If it keeps blowing up in our face, then maybe we go back to traditional monster DL in '26. Not like we haven't done that in the Mafia Years before. Call it what it is: an experiment.
Quote from: bunker on September 18, 2025, 03:51:15 AMI'm curious about what you think Younger is doing here? He seems like a very bright guy, and he's working with Richie Hall, who's been around the block and then some. Are they simply scheming around a talent deficit? Are they playing 4d chess and we just don't understand how it works because it's so unconventional? Is there some advanced analytics somewhere that shows that getting into passing lanes and pass knockdowns is actually a better strategy than pressure?
Yes, yes and yes. And since it's our O losing games (mostly), one could say it hasn't been a failure. Even if it looks that way to casual fans.
I think the design of our D is a reaction to the move to the short-pass-mostly game our biggest rivals are relying on. SSK does this, TOR does this, MTL does this. The latter two having cleaned our clocks in GCs using a short-mostly plan.
If T.Harris is just chucking short passes after 1.5s all day long until he gets a TD, no amount of DL pass rush will help. None. Same with MTL and those cursed hitch screens. So why bother? Having a DL that is $800k of beef is just wasted in that scenario.
The only team taking shots these days is CGY, but that's only because of VAJ, and we couldn't have foreseen they'd be the powerhouse this season. Rourke will also take shots, and Alexander, but they are still built around the short pass because of their OCs.
The proof of this is we do better against short pass and run-heavy teams. We were worst when going against VAJ/CGY.
So we may be built for, and gunning for, our likely WDF and GC rivals. The irony is we may not even make it that far because our O scheme has cost us a ton of wins.
Yup no pass rush is a joke. If a QB wants to play pro, he certainly can complete passes vs. no pressure.. that philosophy is a joke.
Quote from: DM83 on September 18, 2025, 08:14:03 AMYup no pass rush is a joke. If a QB wants to play pro, he certainly can complete passes vs. no pressure.. that philosophy is a joke.
And yet here we are, roughly middle of the pack on D, and in most losses this season our D kept us in the fight until late. It's the O that has been killing us, either by being unable to score, or turning the ball over so much.
The 2 SSK games were winnable had we had less TOs and gotten just a bit more scoring.
I hear ya, but in reality the weird D experiment is kinda working...?
Quote from: bunker on September 18, 2025, 03:51:15 AMThose are Valid points. Although I will point out that the other 8 CFl teams we are comparing with have also had games against backup QBs and sputtering offences.
I'd also add (arguing against myself here) that the turnover deficit is actually costing our Offense points when all is said and done (I read somewhere each turnover generated by the D translates to about another 3 points for the O).
I'm curious about what you think Younger is doing here? He seems like a very bright guy, and he's working with Richie Hall, who's been around the block and then some. Are they simply scheming around a talent deficit? Are they playing 4d chess and we just don't understand how it works because it's so unconventional? Is there some advanced analytics somewhere that shows that getting into passing lanes and pass knockdowns is actually a better strategy than pressure? It is a bit mystifying, especially when you watch our defensive ends make one brief attempt to go wide around the tackle, and then give up and stand at the line waving their arms and jumping up and down.
Totally agree with you that other teams also have played some of the same offenses we (and 4th in points allowed is not half bad) so I don't want to discount that but I like where you're going but I think that's the really interesting bit and, for me at least, it's what makes football so fun.
I think Jordan Younger is smart guy but I also think his schemes might be somewhat oversold. We should not forget that this is only his
second year as a defensive coordinator. He got a lot good press from his work last year, mostly deserved, and many fans (and the TSN guys) sort of held him up as a proto-defensive genius and I think that's looking like a mistake. I think a more accurate description would be 'high potential, young DC, with interesting but unproven ideas."
In my opinion, people rushed to genius because even last year the style was quite different from what we're used to seeing and if you're different and effective people tend to think it's exciting and get on board with an idea. The problem is having
some success is different that
sustained success and smart offensive coaches have had all year to scheme it going into 2025. It seems to be getting worse, not better this year and although there's some good there's some major drawbacks too which I think we have both correctly raised.
You know what's hard to scheme against? The Riders front. Or the one the Blue Bombers had in 2019-23ish. It's hard to scheme and even harder to execute four and five man pressure hitting you in the mouth all game. What's easier? Beating complex zone coverages where your quarterback can stand around for 4 or 5 seconds and eventually find someone. No system can cover forever and zones eventually break down at all levels of football if you have enough time and you learn how to attack them. Offensives have been learning.
Stepping back from all the stats for a moment, a common sense check, is it really possible to have a dominant defense if you barely get a hand on a QB through 60 minutes (Bo Levi in Hamilon)? I argue no. I think if you brought in outside consultants and asked them for their opinion, one of the things they'd flag is lack of QB pressure. That's not to say you need to lead the league in sacks to be effective, but you can't be nearly as bad as we are. There's a reason why elite defensive ends are typically among the highest paid non-quarterbacks in the NFL (and probably the CFL if they'd ever officially disclose).
So for those who still subscribe to Jordan Younger being a genius I would say there's a lot to like, but he needs to evolve as offenses figure out how to attack his schemes and being a defensive coordinator with staying power means figuring out what to do once they figure out what to do. I think that's where we're at. I also think you can't big brain your way out of not getting QB pressure and we've seen a lot of 3-4 defenses in the history of football be very effective in getting to the QB. 3-4 does not mean we don't need to pressure.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 18, 2025, 01:41:32 PMTotally agree with you that other teams also have played some of the same offenses we (and 4th in points allowed is not half bad) so I don't want to discount that but I like where you're going but I think that's the really interesting bit and, for me at least, it's what makes football so fun.
I think Jordan Younger is smart guy but I also think his schemes might be somewhat oversold. We should not forget that this is only his second year as a defensive coordinator. He got a lot good press from his work last year, mostly deserved, and many fans (and the TSN guys) sort of held him up as a proto-defensive genius and I think that's looking like a mistake. I think a more accurate description would be 'high potential, young DC, with interesting but unproven ideas."
In my opinion, people rushed to genius because even last year the style was quite different from what we're used to seeing and if you're different and effective people tend to think it's exciting and get on board with an idea. The problem is having some success is different that sustained success and smart offensive coaches have had all year to scheme it going into 2025. It seems to be getting worse, not better this year and although there's some good there's some major drawbacks too which I think we have both correctly raised.
You know what's hard to scheme against? The Riders front. Or the one the Blue Bombers had in 2019-23ish. It's hard to scheme and even harder to execute four and five man pressure hitting you in the mouth all game. What's easier? Beating complex zone coverages where your quarterback can stand around for 4 or 5 seconds and eventually find someone. No system can cover forever and zones eventually break down at all levels of football if you have enough time and you learn how to attack them. Offensives have been learning.
Stepping back from all the stats for a moment, a common sense check, is it really possible to have a dominant defense if you barely get a hand on a QB through 60 minutes (Bo Levi in Hamilon)? I argue no. I think if you brought in outside consultants and asked them for their opinion, one of the things they'd flag is lack of QB pressure. That's not to say you need to lead the league in sacks to be effective, but you can't be nearly as bad as we are. There's a reason why elite defensive ends are typically among the highest paid non-quarterbacks in the NFL (and probably the CFL if they'd ever officially disclose).
So for those who still subscribe to Jordan Younger being a genius I would say there's a lot to like, but he needs to evolve as offenses figure out how to attack his schemes and being a defensive coordinator with staying power means figuring out what to do once they figure out what to do. I think that's where we're at. I also think you can't big brain your way out of not getting QB pressure and we've seen a lot of 3-4 defenses in the history of football be very effective in getting to the QB. 3-4 does not mean we don't need to pressure.
Younger is a young dude trying to make a name for himself as a DC, he's going to try to re-invent the wheel a few times until he gives up and retreats to a system that consistently works with most players. If he was a grisled old DC like Bob Slowik that's been fired a number of times and been around the block a dozen times, he'd reduce complexity to a min. so he could bring in any player off the street and plug him in without needing 6 months to fully understand his positioning.
Younger's defence works well with smart experienced players in all positions, but breakdowns occur when he has to lower the bar introducing inexperienced or under-skilled players.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 18, 2025, 01:41:32 PMTotally agree with you that other teams also have played some of the same offenses we (and 4th in points allowed is not half bad) so I don't want to discount that but I like where you're going but I think that's the really interesting bit and, for me at least, it's what makes football so fun.
I think Jordan Younger is smart guy but I also think his schemes might be somewhat oversold. We should not forget that this is only his second year as a defensive coordinator. He got a lot good press from his work last year, mostly deserved, and many fans (and the TSN guys) sort of held him up as a proto-defensive genius and I think that's looking like a mistake. I think a more accurate description would be 'high potential, young DC, with interesting but unproven ideas."
In my opinion, people rushed to genius because even last year the style was quite different from what we're used to seeing and if you're different and effective people tend to think it's exciting and get on board with an idea. The problem is having some success is different that sustained success and smart offensive coaches have had all year to scheme it going into 2025. It seems to be getting worse, not better this year and although there's some good there's some major drawbacks too which I think we have both correctly raised.
You know what's hard to scheme against? The Riders front. Or the one the Blue Bombers had in 2019-23ish. It's hard to scheme and even harder to execute four and five man pressure hitting you in the mouth all game. What's easier? Beating complex zone coverages where your quarterback can stand around for 4 or 5 seconds and eventually find someone. No system can cover forever and zones eventually break down at all levels of football if you have enough time and you learn how to attack them. Offensives have been learning.
Stepping back from all the stats for a moment, a common sense check, is it really possible to have a dominant defense if you barely get a hand on a QB through 60 minutes (Bo Levi in Hamilon)? I argue no. I think if you brought in outside consultants and asked them for their opinion, one of the things they'd flag is lack of QB pressure. That's not to say you need to lead the league in sacks to be effective, but you can't be nearly as bad as we are. There's a reason why elite defensive ends are typically among the highest paid non-quarterbacks in the NFL (and probably the CFL if they'd ever officially disclose).
So for those who still subscribe to Jordan Younger being a genius I would say there's a lot to like, but he needs to evolve as offenses figure out how to attack his schemes and being a defensive coordinator with staying power means figuring out what to do once they figure out what to do. I think that's where we're at. I also think you can't big brain your way out of not getting QB pressure and we've seen a lot of 3-4 defenses in the history of football be very effective in getting to the QB. 3-4 does not mean we don't need to pressure.
Good post. My instinct is the same, that ultimately you can't have sustained success on D without winning in the trenches and pressuring the QB. The stats on QB accuracy and completion percentage with and without pressure are pretty convincing to me.
This season might be a perfect storm of lousy scouting for D-lineman, bad decisions by Walters about letting players like Casey Sayles go with the mistaken impression they are easily replaced, O'Shea's misplaced loyalty to players like Jake Thomas, and Younger saying, "hey, no worries, you screwed up the D-line but just watch me put together a defense that can compensate for that".
Quote from: bunker on September 20, 2025, 04:04:10 AMGood post. My instinct is the same, that ultimately you can't have sustained success on D without winning in the trenches and pressuring the QB.
And yet you take almost any game this season and you'd likely come to the conclusion it was our O that lost it... not our D. No pressure, yet our D keeps us in most games: doubly impressive given the fact our O can't hang on to the ball, so the D is always on the field.
Scenario: you can fix 1 thing right now, which do you choose?
a) get a D that can cause SSK/CGY-level QB pressure
b) get an O that can put up 45 points a game
(everything else being equal)
Ya, I know what I'm picking!
Quote from: bunker on September 20, 2025, 04:04:10 AMYounger saying, "hey, no worries, you screwed up the D-line but just watch me put together a defense that can compensate for that".
Was it that? Or was it Younger working with KW saying "this is what I want"... Genuinely hard to tell.
Surely if Younger (with MOS's approval) went to KW in off-season(s) and said "I want to prioritize DL above all else" then KW would do that for him? It's not like there's not top DL available in FA every season.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 20, 2025, 05:23:43 AMWas it that? Or was it Younger working with KW saying "this is what I want"... Genuinely hard to tell.
Surely if Younger (with MOS's approval) went to KW in off-season(s) and said "I want to prioritize DL above all else" then KW would do that for him? It's not like there's not top DL available in FA every season.
Walters went out and got what he thought was a top DL in FA...Vaughters.
They retained WJ at 200,000 and payed Vaughters 170,000 to come here. We probably have the highest paid 2 starting DEs in the league. Both Jake and Lawson are also earning well above minimum salaries, I would quess 280,000 for the 2 of them. I don't think its so much a question of not being willing to pay for D-line talent. Its more a combination of 1) poor choices of where to put the money (WJ and Lawson are fine, Vaughters is meh for the money, and Jake is overpaid), 2) a bizarre decision to run an all Canadian interior when we don't have the horses and don't really need to for the ratio (with maybe a contribution from poor scouting for quality American DT), and 3 )a scheme that does not really give D-line the freedom to create any pressure or havoc behind the line of scrimmage.
Quote from: bunker on September 20, 2025, 01:51:49 PMWalters went out and got what he thought was a top DL in FA...Vaughters.
But that's DE, not the whole of the DL. It's clear to everyone that if you want to have a SSK-level DL KW should have gone out and brought in 2 monster IMP
DTs. All the best DEs in the world can't do anything if the interior is weak. See: our DL this season.
The fact we didn't do that must be proof that Younger did NOT say "go get me the best DE + 2 DTs in FA". Either that, or we really did think Lawson would be the next Sayles -- when Lawson isn't even the next Walker.
Our boy Jake Thomas with another zero stat night although you could say he did generate a bit of interior pressure in between flopping and begging for holding calls.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 21, 2025, 01:13:25 AMBut that's DE, not the whole of the DL. It's clear to everyone that if you want to have a SSK-level DL KW should have gone out and brought in 2 monster IMP DTs. All the best DEs in the world can't do anything if the interior is weak. See: our DL this season.
The fact we didn't do that must be proof that Younger did NOT say "go get me the best DE + 2 DTs in FA". Either that, or we really did think Lawson would be the next Sayles -- when Lawson isn't even the next Walker.
not only that but we didnt bring any new defensive linemen into training camp. When you look at teams like Toronto Calgary and Hamilton who switched out more than half of their dline successfully it makes you wonder