GAME 5: Saskatchewan at CALGARY STAMPEDERS

[bigal]

Just one more point because I can't resist responding to the single point criticism. I have always believed it is meant to penalize the receiving team for not running the ball out and keeping the ball in play rather than rewarding failure. If the rule bothers people so much then I have long proposed eliminating the single point in the last three minutes of the game. Again if critics just can't live with the rule then they must level the same criticism at the NHL...I mean is there a more stupid rule in sports then the puck over the glass penalty. A faceoff in the defensive zone and no changes allowed similar to the icing rule would suffice. All it does is reward the attacking team a powerplay for what is often just bad luck on the part of the defensive team.

The rule really bugs me, but I can get over it and watch the NHL because I am a hockey fan. It would be nice if the CFL was given a similar break by so called football fans.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by bigal

Just one more point because I can't resist responding to the single point criticism. I have always believed it is meant to penalize the receiving team for not running the ball out and keeping the ball in play rather than rewarding failure. If the rule bothers people so much then I have long proposed eliminating the single point in the last three minutes of the game.

I can live with the single point on punts or really long field goals, but on attempts from 40 yards or less it's just stupid.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Third. NCAA is better.

Is there a QB in any league anywhere that is more anti-clutch than Burris? Two absolute ducks on second and third down, not to mention the third down throw would've been short even if it had been completed. The guy just doesn't know how to think the game.

Epic fail by the Stamps tonight.

NCAA is not a better league, not at all. Guys who are stars in college can't cut it in the CFL.

I don't know what Burris was thinking, it's like he was going for glory when there was PLENTY of time left on the clock.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

NCAA is not a better league, not at all. Guys who are stars in college can't cut it in the CFL.

I don't know what Burris was thinking, it's like he was going for glory when there was PLENTY of time left on the clock.

uhh .... guys who are start in college go to the NFL.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by nik-

uhh .... guys who are start in college go to the NFL.

Like Heisman winner Eric Crouch? or Graham Harrell? or Tee Martin?

Those guys were stars in College and although Harrell may be too early to tell, they didn't make the NFL, but Crouch and Martin couldn't even crack a regular CFL starting job.

[nik-]

Exceptions aren't the rule. You can cherry pick examples for almost any argument.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So did The Dark Knight. What's your point?

My point is that the NFL is a lot more like Transformers 2 than the Dark Knight. Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's any good; doesn't necessarily mean it's crap, either, but pointing to the popularity of something as proof that it is quality is a poor argument.

There is a difference between watching the best athletes and the best game; if I wanted to see the absolute top athletes, I'd be watching decathlon or some other multi-skill sport, not football. The NFL has players that are too big and too fast for the tiny field they play on - that's why I can enjoy watching college ball where the players aren't as big or as fast, and thus the game is more open and less predictable.

PS - any CFL team could beat the best American college team no problem. Talk about delusional... like claiming a junior hockey team could beat an SEL team. Unless rubecube just meant "better" in the sense he likes the game more.

[Tyler]

Why would the NCAA be better than the CFL?

Pretty much all of the players in the CFL are NCAA grads, and are older and more mature players.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Tyler

Why would the NCAA be better than the CFL?

Pretty much all of the players in the CFL are NCAA grads, and are older and more mature players.

You're using logic here, which is forbidden in the NFL fan handbook; as I recall last year there was someone arguing the NFL offences would score just about as much playing only 3 downs on their standard NFL field, as they would simply change their offensive play calling to gain more yards . Of course, there never was any explanation of why they wouldn't change their offensive play calling right NOW to gain more yards if it was that easy...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jammies

PS - any CFL team could beat the best American college team no problem. Talk about delusional... like claiming a junior hockey team could beat an SEL team. Unless rubecube just meant "better" in the sense he likes the game more.

That's exactly what I meant. The atmosphere and the games themselves are better. I would hope that CFL team could beat a college team, considering the CFL would be the professional league in that scenario.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jammies

You're using logic here, which is forbidden in the NFL fan handbook; as I recall last year there was someone arguing the NFL offences would score just about as much playing only 3 downs on their standard NFL field, as they would simply change their offensive play calling to gain more yards . Of course, there never was any explanation of why they wouldn't change their offensive play calling right NOW to gain more yards if it was that easy...

Whoever said that was either being facetious or ######ed. I would almost venture to say that the lower-scoring games in the NFL have less to do with the size of the field, and more to do with the fact that the defense is closer to the line of scrimmage.

One more point to the no-yards rule vs. the fair catch. I think I counted about 6 punts tonight where the returner simply ran up and fell on the ball and got a no yards penalty. How is that more exciting than a fair catch? Not to mention punters in the CFL get penalized for kicking the ball out of bounds. Where's the strategy in that? You can't pin teams deep in their own end in the CFL.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's exactly what I meant. The atmosphere and the games themselves are better. I would hope that CFL team could beat a college team, considering the CFL would be the professional league in that scenario.

Well I can't argue with that; clearly you mustn't be drunk yet today!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by jammies

Well I can't argue with that; clearly you mustn't be drunk yet today!

Honestly, when I bash the CFL it comes from a place of frustration more than hate. I loved the CFL back in 90s, but I think the quality of the game has gone way down since then. They also have some quirky rules that I'd like to see modified or taken out altogether. I don't think they need to "Americanize" the game, but some of the rules are just simply outdated and take away from the game.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Whoever said that was either being facetious or ######ed. I would almost venture to say that the lower-scoring games in the NFL have less to do with the size of the field, and more to do with the fact that the defense is closer to the line of scrimmage.

Well, being right on the line does have a large effect, I'd agree. Especially on short yardage situations - going for a yard is much more dangerous when the defence is between you and that yard, and not merely sitting at it. I do think the narrow field has a big effect on offence, though - the power game becomes very important as a lot of the run has to go through people, whereas on a wide field there is also the option of going around. Not to mention passing is harder when the receivers don't have as much room to get open, especially in the short end zone.

Originally Posted by rubecube

One more point to the no-yards rule vs. the fair catch. I think I counted about 6 punts tonight where the returner simply ran up and fell on the ball and got a no yards penalty. How is that more exciting than a fair catch? Not to mention punters in the CFL get penalized for kicking the ball out of bounds. Where's the strategy in that? You can't pin teams deep in their own end in the CFL.

If the ball bounces, it's only 5 yards so the cover team will often limit the gain by encroaching and ensuring the returner can't run. The trick is to catch it in the air, where the cover team will do just about anything to avoid the 15 yard penalty, which then allows for the chance of a big punt return.

As far as kicking out of bounds and pinning a team goes, you can do it as long as the ball goes out inside the 20, so I don't see your complaint there as valid. This is, again, to leave open the possibility of a big return, as otherwise you could avoid both the chance of a no yards penalty and a return by kicking it out of bounds every time.

[cross16]

Originally Posted by jammies

Now about the game - the Riders defence and the Stamps defence played well, but both offences were mediocre at best. The Riders pulled off the one big play which won them the game, and to their credit they spent the whole game setting up that play with the short passing game until the Stamps D started playing up on the receivers and then got burned.

This game the Stamps really involved Reynolds from the start, which was good, but the passing game really lacked variety. Probably 80% of the attempts were at receivers around 10-12 yards downfield, and mostly out near the sidelines. Burris didn't stretch the defence, didn't set up the screen passes, didn't do much of anything other than hand it off and fire passes at guys standing still on the sidelines and no threat to take it deep downfield. I have to question Cortez's play calling - he took advantage of the run game made available by the Riders, but the pass game was very weak against a Riders defence that is not very good and could have been beaten with a different emphasis on moving the ball deeper, especially considering Burris sometimes had all day back there.

I also thought the Stamps looked complacent, as if they just had to show up to beat the Riders. Hufnagel better do something about that attitude, as it seems that execution is lackadaisical on offence and the defence can only do so much.

I would agree with most. Althought the Riders touchdown was I think more about a bad call by Chris Jones than the Riders reading the defence. It was a safety blitz so corners/halfbacks had to play man to man with no help over the top and they didn't execute it. But knowing that the Riders needed 7, why they took away their safety help when you know the Riders need a big play doesn't make sense to me. Especially when their d line/linebackers can get pressure.

I also have not been a fan of Cortez play calling this season, and really have never been. I like his offensive system, but not thrilled about his playcalling. He starts every game so conversative and then people wonder why the Stamps offence starts slow? he only opens it up in the 2nd half once he's set the defence up, but the problem with that is I think defense's have made adjustments, and the slower starts means the Stamps are not usually in the lead, or not comfortably so. They should be running more screens, especially against a blitz happy Riders d, as well as they need to take more shots down the field. i dont' blame Burris for that, i blame Cortez, becuase every since he has been here he's shown a reluctancy to go down field until the 2nd half, and thats not working like it normally does with the slower starts. It would help if their oline would play better too.

Other than the last Sask touchdown, and the first drive of the game I was very happy with the Stamps D. Yes they let Cates get away on some runs, but they completely shutdown the passing game.
To me the game was lost on the 2nd and 2 that the Stamps didn't make. If you want to coniser yourself a top team in the CFL and a top offence, you need to make a 2nd and 2 with about 3 mins to play. If they make that, they take more time off the clock, and give Sandro a try from anywhere from 5-10 yards or more. Not only if that a higher percentage kick, its also would have put the ball deeper in the end zone should he have missed it, and would have been harder to run out with the coverage team having to cover less ground. That was the game for me. They made that conversion I think they win the game.

[OzSome]

I am sick of people comparing NFL, CFL and NCAA on a game thread. It seems like every game someone not happy with the CFL rule/referee/play call or whatever will have to compare the league to NFL or NCAA. Guys, why don't you start a thread with a tile "CFL, NFL and NCAA or whatever" and write your rant there.

Back to the game: The Stamps lost the game because of the offense inability to take advantage of some of their chances. Burris was not in sync with some of his receivers especially the last two possessions after the Riders TD. All they need is a field goal and they had 2 and out for both possessions.

The play before Sandro's field goal, I still questioned that call. I'm just having a hard time trying to figure that out. I know they were trying to be conservative and don't want to lose the ball on a fumble or interception but I thought it was too early to be conservative. Too bad the only missed Sandro had this season is the one that could have been the nail in the coffin. Oh well, I was hoping he gets a chance to kick a field goal again and win it for the Stamps. I can't blame the lost on Sandro on this one.

Reynolds played well and I think the OLine did as well but like I said the QB and receivers are on a different page at some time.

The defense were average in this game. Whatever happen to Malik Jackson? Him and Odell Willis were playing well with their speed on the opposite side on the DLine. Run defense were terrible with Wes Cates having so much room to run. Our DBs got burned a few times especially the last Riders TD. Our strength all season so far, the coverage team got burned after the missed field goal. If it wasn't for Sandro stopping Dressler, he could have gone all the way. Oh well, i guess the game wasn't meant for the Stamps. No panic so far as all the Western teams are struggling this season so far. Edmonton and Saskatchewan are only ahead for 2 points Edm 3-2, Sask 3-2, Stamps 2-3 and BC 1-4.

Next game against Winnipeg at home. Offense needs to have a good start.

[Frequitude]

I'd take Sandro from 50 for the game anytime.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by cross16

I also have not been a fan of Cortez play calling this season, and really have never been. I like his offensive system, but not thrilled about his playcalling. He starts every game so conversative and then people wonder why the Stamps offence starts slow? .

Calgary's first play from scrimmage was a fumble out of the wildcat formation. I wonder if that cooled Cortez on being too daring? I'm convinced that Calgary is the class of the West. The problem is - they are too.

[cross16]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Calgary's first play from scrimmage was a fumble out of the wildcat formation. I wonder if that cooled Cortez on being too daring? I'm convinced that Calgary is the class of the West. The problem is - they are too.

He's always been conservative. He was last year too. Lets also note that its early. The problem with Cortez' play calling, IMO, is that he will only open it up int he 2nd half. Due to turnovers and a defence that has taken a while to get going, he doens't have leads like he did last year and he is actually normally down. Alters the way a defence plays you.

I dont' think there is any reason to worry about the Stamps. I actually think all the coaches need is too put some more pressure on these guys and they'd be fine. Chris Jones did after the Winnipeg lost and his defence has responded. Havn't seen that from Cortez and the offence.

[Cowboy89]

On the Getzlaf touchdown: Bottom line is this is the downside of playing man-to-man, When you're up by two field goals with 3 minutes left you're not up by enough to go into the prevent zone so you play you're regular defensive formation. If you have more athletic secondary staff then a well-executed man-to-man defence will net you more positive turnovers (Which is what you saw the previous two games). The downside being that if a defender slips or simply gets beat it's off the to the races and you give up the big play more often than in a zone defence. We were due for a big play allowed. I would rather blame the offence as 23 points isn't good enough to win on a regular basis in the CFL.

As a side note, I'd like to express that I like man-to-man defence in the CFL. If you have better athletes on defence then why not. With the big field in the CFL, QB's like Ricky Ray and Anthony Calvillo will pick apart your zone 10-15 yards at a time and march on you. When the field's that wide you just cannot cover your zones as easy as you could on an NFL field (even with the extra man). Man-to-man forces the other teams recievers to beat you, and a lot of times QB's make more mistakes for interceptions. The downside being as mentioned above that sometimes things happen and you get beat deep. The philosophy is that overall this will happen only rarely and on average you'll allow less points. Depite a few big game-ending plays (Remember Edmonton and Winnipeg games early in the year last season?), so far for the Stamps I would argue it's worked exceptionally well since the start of last season.