Sask at BC - GDT

[Waffler]

The onside kick - don't agree, there was enough time on the clock to kick it deep and try for a 2 and out.  BC's kicker is one of the best in the league as well - if they had a poorer kicker, maybe I could support that decision but not with SW kicking. 

I was ok with the decision but the execution?  Has to be higher and a few yards deeper to have a hope. They should practice that.

[bunker]

And the fact it was for 2 points if they win and in hindsight that was a great drive that BC scored on...I question Dickenson's coaching all the time but in that case I do agree with that challenge given the situation.

The onside kick - don't agree, there was enough time on the clock to kick it deep and try for a 2 and out.  BC's kicker is one of the best in the league as well - if they had a poorer kicker, maybe I could support that decision but not with SW kicking. 

I think the onside kick was a mistake also. Almost never works if the other team is expecting it. The defense was playing well, should have trusted them to hold the lion's offense.
I think it was also a mistake not to go for the TD at the 5 yard line at the end. Its about 50/50 they score from there, maybe a bit less, but much better odds than having to drive a long field for a TD at the end of the game. I don't agree with all of O'Shea's decisions, but he's light years ahead of Dickenson.

[Blue In BC]

I think the onside kick was a mistake also. Almost never works if the other team is expecting it. The defense was playing well, should have trusted them to hold the lion's offense.
I think it was also a mistake not to go for the TD at the 5 yard line at the end. Its about 50/50 they score from there, maybe a bit less, but much better odds than having to drive a long field for a TD at the end of the game. I don't agree with all of O'Shea's decisions, but he's light years ahead of Dickenson.

I thought they'd go for it instead of kicking the FG. The problem was getting sacked on 2nd down. They had to be expecting a blitz so the Rider play calling and blocking was very bad and unprepared.

While I think both defences played well, I think it was also a combination of very poor offence on both teams.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Overall not a bad game, Sask. did about as well as could be expected with Fine starting, Rider fans shouldn't be too mad.   

Concerned about the steady attrition of QB's this season, same thing happened 4 or 5 years ago when almost every starting QB went down, it leads to lower scoring games and too many 2 and outs.  It's really not good for the league when defence gains the upper-hand over offence, football is football but they have to somehow find a way to provide the QB's with more security to throw the ball.  Entertainment is their product.

[bunker]

Overall not a bad game, Sask. did about as well as could be expected with Fine starting, Rider fans shouldn't be too mad.   

Concerned about the steady attrition of QB's this season, same thing happened 4 or 5 years ago when almost every starting QB went down, it leads to lower scoring games and too many 2 and outs.  It's really not good for the league when defence gains the upper-hand over offence, football is football but they have to somehow find a way to provide the QB's with more security to throw the ball.  Entertainment is their product.

I sometimes wonder if part of the problem with QB injuries (and the relative lack of offense in the CFL sometimes) is due to the fact that teams can play as many nationals on offense as they want out of the 7 required, and tend to play most nationals on offense (especially the O-line) and less nationals on defense. Its not clear cut, since some of the best D-line players are actually nationals like Betts, and some of the best O-line players are national like Desjarlais, but in general, if you field an offense with 5-6 nationals (most teams seem to have 2 national receivers, plus 3 on the interior of the O-line) against a defense with 1-2 nationals, the O will be at a disadvantage, not only in the D-line pressuring the QB, but in the ability of the secondary to generate "coverage sacks". An option, which will never happen, would be to mandate at least 3 or even 4 nationals on defense. Just a random thought on a rainy, boring Sunday morning.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I sometimes wonder if part of the problem with QB injuries (and the relative lack of offense in the CFL sometimes) is due to the fact that teams can play as many nationals on offense as they want out of the 7 required, and tend to play most nationals on offense (especially the O-line) and less nationals on defense. Its not clear cut, since some of the best D-line players are actually nationals like Betts, and some of the best O-line players are national like Desjarlais, but in general, if you field an offense with 5-6 nationals (most teams seem to have 2 national receivers, plus 3 on the interior of the O-line) against a defense with 1-2 nationals, the O will be at a disadvantage, not only in the D-line pressuring the QB, but in the ability of the secondary to generate "coverage sacks". An option, which will never happen, would be to mandate at least 3 or even 4 nationals on defense. Just a random thought on a rainy, boring Sunday morning.

Yah, I've thought of mandating a balanced ratio between O and D as well but I don't think that's the direction they should go, as it justifies the attitude some coaches promote that Natls. are the problem and can't compete.  Maybe a super simple rule change like only allowing 5 to rush at one time would be enough to restore a balance, easy to implement and easy to monitor.  It would force defences into playing more traditional coverage.

[Pete]

the other issue is that offensive linemen are in very short supply as are good qbs. The nfls expanded rosters and the new leagues are a factor. The reason we are carrying two oline men on the practice roster is that if you need a replacement there just arent any. Look at the teams that have big issues on the line there just isnt any fixes.
  The bombers may have been partially to blame as well, the success in recent years with a emphasis on pressure defence has led to other teams copying them. i do agree that ratio plays a factor,,we usually have only one cdn starter on defence.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Riderfans losing their minds calling for O'Day and Dickie firings, as if they believed they had a chance in hell of beating the Lions even with Trevor Harris.

[The Zipp]

From Farhan:

Good news for @VernonAdamsJr8 & @BCLions. His knee is structurally stable & no ligament damage. Will see how he responds over next 1-2 days. Hasn?t been ruled out for this week?s game vs #Elks, but team has been very cautious with injuries all year. Having a capable backup helps

[TecnoGenius]

Evans looks very comfortable.  I remember so many being hard on this guy.  Nice drive.

Evans always thrives as the #2, and always starts to implode when handed the #1 reigns.  No surprise he did ok in this game.  The trick will be not getting the jitters and imploding next week ... or the week after. 

And I'm pretty sure this isn't just fan/pundit myth: I think he stated this himself.

Maybe he'll be in a good headspace if it's clear VAJ will come back soon(ish).  Maybe it'll be worse if he finds out he's "the guy" for the next 6 weeks.

[TecnoGenius]

Voice of the Bombers believes it was not RTP:

No way that should be roughing the passer. What do you want defensive players to do?

If it wasn't on a safety I agree to not challenge.

I think the refs were biased by having just lost VAJ.  They wanted to send a signal at that moment that they were tightening up on damage to QBs.  But then they let one go later in the game on the SSK QB... maybe riderfans are right and the league hates the greenies 

[TecnoGenius]

It's really not good for the league when defence gains the upper-hand over offence, football is football but they have to somehow find a way to provide the QB's with more security to throw the ball.  Entertainment is their product.

The thing about VAJ's injury: I always predict that the "running QBs" won't last a full season because when you turn into a RB, you tend to get injured; but VAJ got creamed just sitting normally in the pocket!  That's where he's supposed to be safest from leg injury!  Oh well, just a taste of bad luck, I guess.

Maybe a super simple rule change like only allowing 5 to rush at one time would be enough to restore a balance, easy to implement and easy to monitor.  It would force defences into playing more traditional coverage.

I am 100% against any of the "JV league" blitz limitations.  Hated them in that other league, what was it, the AAF?  So lame and ruins the chess match.  D's open themselves up to explosion plays when they blitz: that's half the fun.  If blitzes were magic always-win always-injure-the-QB plays then all D's would do nothing but blitz.

Also, QBs have equal chance of getting creamed by a DT swimming past a turnstile as a blitzer does.  So not sure it would help with injuries.  Don't give Crazy Ambrosie bad ideas! 

[dd]

Agree. If you're going to get creamed by a blitz, throw it into the second row and don't take the big hit. I know that's easier said than done, but agree we can't limit schemes defenses run, just play the game.

[bunker]

The thing about VAJ's injury: I always predict that the "running QBs" won't last a full season because when you turn into a RB, you tend to get injured; but VAJ got creamed just sitting normally in the pocket!  That's where he's supposed to be safest from leg injury! 

It may be counter-intuitive, but based on available evidence, that is a fallacy:
https://www.filmstudybaltimore.com/new-study-quarterbacks-that-run-most-are-not-injured-most/

[TecnoGenius]

It may be counter-intuitive, but based on available evidence, that is a fallacy:
https://www.filmstudybaltimore.com/new-study-quarterbacks-that-run-most-are-not-injured-most/

Hmm, interesting article, something to study.

However, I specifically said "leg injury", and I wish that study broke it down by injury type.  From my memory of CFL QB injuries leg injuries are rarer in the pocket and more prevalent down the field.  It's when you add in hand/arm/head injuries that the pocket starts to look more dangerous.  Though my memory may be faulty and Stats Junkie may need to chime in.

There could be a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation here too.  It could be that those more likely to run are the younger / fitter type and their bodies can take a lot more damage and bending without breaking.  So kind of self-fulfilling in a way.  As those QBs age-out they either get too injured to play, or they stop their running and become mostly pocket-passers (see: Zach).  VAJ is kind of an anomaly in this regard because he's older but still runs like an inexperienced/young QB.

As to that VAJ injury, I don't recall seeing that type of rolled-up-on injury to a QB in the pocket in a while.  (The Masoli/Marino injury I don't count as a rolled-up-on injury.)  To me the typical pocket injury is an upper body like Nichol's Lemonation, or the finger-on-helmet busting variety.

This year should give a great CFL year to test the theory because we have so many "running" QBs: Kelly, Crum, VAJ, Doege.  And to a lesser extent: Cody.  It might be the year of the running QB.  We'll see if the next injury to a "running QB" is in the pocket or on the run.