Fortune Favors The Bold

[TecnoGenius]

Something that came to mind whilst going over the GC loss in my head in the hotel after the game...

Fortune Favors The Bold.  The old adage is true, at least in GC games.

I think, in both GC losses, the opponent was more bold: especially in the MTL game.  MTL was the one throwing the mid-range and even deep balls, and going for higher-risk D plays.  They knew their only chance was to win the high-risk high-reward plays.

In contrast, WPG played everything about as safe as you could.  Very few deep shots.  Very few mid-range shots, especially ones that connected.  The second half was an exhibition in "playing it safe".  When MTL decided to shut Brady down, we continued to run on every first down.  Did we try to pass more than twice on first down the entire second half?

We did almost nothing new.  Very few wrinkles or plays or moves.  The only thing I noticed sitting in the stands was we were going with Demski way more than usual, especially in the run game.  And that was fine but they started keying on it.  I hate to say it but Buck was pretty much owned by (previously washed up and unemployed-in-the-CFL) Thorpe.  Some of the wrinkles we tried were transparent and expected by him, and mostly stuffed by Lemon.

Why aren't we opening up the playbook on our penultimate (but final non-hail-mary-time) drive?  Why aren't we playing to win?  Why aren't we pulling out some new and creative routes for our star WRs, especially the non-injured ones (Lawler, Woli).  MTL was going to stuff the box on 1st down, everyone knew it.  That was our main chance to be bold.

But we played to not lose, as we did vs TOR.  We played predictably so MTL film study could ensure we go 2'n'out.  And I get it, no one ever lost their job playing "by the book".  The book says when playing against a team with a weak O, when you have a good D and you've done well stopping them for much of the night, that you play it super conservative.  You do your clock-killing runs, even when they are virtually guaranteed to fail.  You take a sack on 2nd down rather than make a bold pass attempt to your stars.

That often works in the regular season, as you'll win 80% of them.  The problem is, in the GC, if that 20% strikes, the fact it evened out over the season doesn't help you.  It didn't even out over that one game.  Worse, the opponent in the GC is both of higher caliber and in major all-out must-win urgency desperation mode.  How many times have we seen teams make the impossible 3rd down miracle reception against us in post-season games?  Quite a few.

If Buck and MOS (and it was both of them deciding this, I virtually guarantee it) had passed on first down and it's an INT, they would have been destroyed by fans and the press.  Their competency would have been questioned.  The book seems to bind them into an impossible position, forcing them to do what everyone expects, and allowing the opponent to stuff the play.  Only by showing that you are willing to shake it up sometimes can you prevent this.  Or in other words, being bold.

Ironically, by never showing the desire to go outside the book we had the perfect opportunity to catch them off guard on that 1st down play.  That would have truly been the only time we would have fooled them, out-chessed them, and stunned the entire CFL world by going to Kenny 60Y downfield, or Woli 30Y down the rail (the old JFG failure pass), or sneaking Jackson out for a 8Y gain, or giving Eli that 7Y pass he used to set up for.

Just like the TOR game, we got ahead and then went prevent on O (and somewhat on D) and stuck our D with teams in berzerker, no care in the world, mode.

We weren't bold.  And it cost us.  Twice.  What are we going to do next year?

[ModAdmin]

We played well enough to be ahead in the game until the infamous 4th quarter when our defence failed to make the necessary stop on Montreal's 3rd down gamble late in that quarter.  That was the unfortunate breakdown that cost us the game.  Otherwise we win the game and we would not be talking about all the "what-ifs".

[TecnoGenius]

We played well enough to be ahead in the game until the infamous 4th quarter when our defence failed to make the necessary stop on Montreal's 3rd down gamble late in that quarter.  That was the unfortunate breakdown that cost us the game.  Otherwise we win the game and we would not be talking about all the "what-ifs".

But my point is the game wasn't lost by the D on the MTL final drive, the game was lost by our O on the drive right before that.  3:00 left and 1st down with decent field position and we can't move the ball.  Why didn't we go for the win?  Why let Brady get stuffed for 0Y gain on a waste of a first down?  Why not be bold?

Read that again: 3min left and good field position and the ball in our hands on 1st down.  This is a dream scenario.  This is what you want.  The game is ours for the sealing.  A championship team either pounds the ball successfully, or takes some creative shots to the superstar highest-paid players... they do something to hold onto the ball and close out the game, including trying for a TD to make a comeback impossible.  What they don't do is get stuffed twice with dumb plays that every single person in the entire world knows they will do (including Noel Thorpe).

Did anyone think Brady would get more than minimal yardage on that 1st down?  Did anyone doubt we would run?

Right after the Zach sack, who felt comfortable our D would stop them?  A FG was basically guaranteed, to tie.  Giving up the TD was just the extra egg in the face.

For those not at the stadium, you're probably not aware of something.  I said to my buddy when MTL got their first lead that if they get that first lead the depressed and quiet crowd would wake up and go mental supporting MTL.  And that's exactly what happened.  The noise picked up considerably after that first lead, and didn't die down when we got our response TD.  The momentum had turned, the crowd had woken up, and all the energy was with MTL.

To see what bold is: look at MTL... 3rd & 3 and they throw it to Mack.  Why not run it with Stanback?  Or QB draw?  That's much higher percentage, and given what they did all game was likely to succeed.  But they choose the mid-range pass to Mack to guarantee at least a tie (FG).

How often have GC teams won the big game playing everything safe?  How often has it been the team willing to be more bold?

[blue_gold_84]

But my point is the game wasn't lost by the D on the MTL final drive, the game was lost by our O on the drive right before that.

One could reasonably argue it was both. The defense didn't get the stop it needed. The offense didn't put together the drive it needed.

Back-to-back years where critical opportunities in the second half were squandered by two phases of the team.

[Lincoln Locomotive]

Something that came to mind whilst going over the GC loss in my head in the hotel after the game...

Fortune Favors The Bold.  The old adage is true, at least in GC games.

I think, in both GC losses, the opponent was more bold: especially in the MTL game.  MTL was the one throwing the mid-range and even deep balls, and going for higher-risk D plays.  They knew their only chance was to win the high-risk high-reward plays.

In contrast, WPG played everything about as safe as you could.  Very few deep shots.  Very few mid-range shots, especially ones that connected.  The second half was an exhibition in "playing it safe".  When MTL decided to shut Brady down, we continued to run on every first down.  Did we try to pass more than twice on first down the entire second half?

We did almost nothing new.  Very few wrinkles or plays or moves.  The only thing I noticed sitting in the stands was we were going with Demski way more than usual, especially in the run game.  And that was fine but they started keying on it.  I hate to say it but Buck was pretty much owned by (previously washed up and unemployed-in-the-CFL) Thorpe.  Some of the wrinkles we tried were transparent and expected by him, and mostly stuffed by Lemon.

Why aren't we opening up the playbook on our penultimate (but final non-hail-mary-time) drive?  Why aren't we playing to win?  Why aren't we pulling out some new and creative routes for our star WRs, especially the non-injured ones (Lawler, Woli).  MTL was going to stuff the box on 1st down, everyone knew it.  That was our main chance to be bold.

But we played to not lose, as we did vs TOR.  We played predictably so MTL film study could ensure we go 2'n'out.  And I get it, no one ever lost their job playing "by the book".  The book says when playing against a team with a weak O, when you have a good D and you've done well stopping them for much of the night, that you play it super conservative.  You do your clock-killing runs, even when they are virtually guaranteed to fail.  You take a sack on 2nd down rather than make a bold pass attempt to your stars.

That often works in the regular season, as you'll win 80% of them.  The problem is, in the GC, if that 20% strikes, the fact it evened out over the season doesn't help you.  It didn't even out over that one game.  Worse, the opponent in the GC is both of higher caliber and in major all-out must-win urgency desperation mode.  How many times have we seen teams make the impossible 3rd down miracle reception against us in post-season games?  Quite a few.

If Buck and MOS (and it was both of them deciding this, I virtually guarantee it) had passed on first down and it's an INT, they would have been destroyed by fans and the press.  Their competency would have been questioned.  The book seems to bind them into an impossible position, forcing them to do what everyone expects, and allowing the opponent to stuff the play.  Only by showing that you are willing to shake it up sometimes can you prevent this.  Or in other words, being bold.

Ironically, by never showing the desire to go outside the book we had the perfect opportunity to catch them off guard on that 1st down play.  That would have truly been the only time we would have fooled them, out-chessed them, and stunned the entire CFL world by going to Kenny 60Y downfield, or Woli 30Y down the rail (the old JFG failure pass), or sneaking Jackson out for a 8Y gain, or giving Eli that 7Y pass he used to set up for.

Just like the TOR game, we got ahead and then went prevent on O (and somewhat on D) and stuck our D with teams in berzerker, no care in the world, mode.

We weren't bold.  And it cost us.  Twice.  What are we going to do next year?

I totally agree with your take on this...."no guts no glory"!!

Cody stepped outside of his predictably conservative style on their last drive...which was also interspersed with quick wide outs for positive yards.    When we sacked him on 1st down (finally) I thought we had them, however his 13 yard scamper put them in 3rd and 5.    Instead of going short to just make a first down, or going with another quick wide out, he threw a 30 yard strike against man coverage by Parker, which had he not under thrown it, would likely have been a TD.   Then he anticipated the cover zero blitz on the next play and threw a perfect strike to Philpott just inches out of Demerio Houston's outstretched finger tips,   

And that sports fans, was a defining moment for a QB that had yet to accomplish this feat in the Big Game!   Montreal, as you said, played to win, whereas we played not to lose.   That last Montreal game winning drive was a perfect illustration of this!

[TecnoGenius]

One could reasonably argue it was both. The defense didn't get the stop it needed. The offense didn't put together the drive it needed.

Partly true.  But if the O puts together the drive they needed to, and should have, then the D: doesn't even step on the field, steps on the field with only seconds left, or steps on the field up more than 8 points.

It's the same as that knocked down curl Zach threw in the '22 GC to lose the game on O.  We just wimp out and go for the safe play, and the opponent knows we will do it, and they stuff it.

While on O we have 100% control: the ball, the clock, everything.  Our best plays will beat the D's best plays because we have the extra tenth of a second by having the initiative.  That's why Cody beat Houston on that final TD pass.  Because an O operating at 100% will always beat a D operating at 100%.

We should have done something completely unexpected on 1st down instead of run Brady for 0Y.  I don't know what it is, but it should have been so bold and new and creative that MTL would have had no defence for it.  Like a draw screen to Eli, or similar insanity.  Something, anything.

Where was the season-long, or post-season long, or even game-long setup trickery that Lapo always did, and Buck has also done?  Where was something like that Lawler sweep a few games ago, when Lawler never sweeps, to setup the Brady TD on a fake Lawler sweep later?  Where was the chess brainiac magic.  Where was anything but un-bold, straightforward, flat ball?