GAME 14 : Stampeders at SASKATCHEWAN

[Dion]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

No one said perfect. Try putting a complete game together where backups don't light you up, or every return is a penalty.

Who has the best record in the CFL???

A win is an win no matter how you do it.

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Still, the stamps should have taken two kneels and then brought in the kicker for the last play, and it doesn't even matter if parades misses, because all it has to do is go through the end zone. And then even if it doesn't go out of the end zone, you just have to prevent sask from taking it back 110 yards to get a 50% chance of winning in OT.

Glad we don't have to look back and wonder why the Stamps didn't do that.

Why would you even do that when 6 points was a yard away and you have 3 downs to do it?

it's way riskier to have the game balance on a field goal attempt when your kicker has missed all 3 FG attempts. You also give the Sask Returner a chance to run it back to your own end and score a TD

Huff made the right choice going for the TD

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by OzSome

Maybe it was the confidence that made them try to score right away. Maybe another reason was with Paredes missing the FG on 3 occassions (not a 100% fault of his), they think scoring a TD is a way to win the game.

The highest likelihood of winning might be take one kneel to run 20 seconds off the clock, attempt to plunge in on second down, and if that gets stuffed, attempt the FG on third down on the last play.

Either way, it's a 99%+ chance of winning.

Plunging in on first down probably down the stamps likelihood of winning to "only" 95% or so. And we can see why, the riders advanced to a point where they didn't even need a true last play Hail Mary.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Pizza

Why would you even do that when 6 points was a yard away and you have 3 downs to do it?

it's way riskier to have the game balance on a field goal attempt when your kicker has missed all 3 FG attempts. You also give the Sask Returner a chance to run it back to your own end and score a TD

Huff made the right choice going for the TD

Scoring on 2nd down would have been great. The Stamps scoring on first down gives the Riders the best chance of winning though, leaving the most important thing to them at that point - time. There were 32 seconds on the clock that they had to play with - certainly not impossible. A 10 yard FG is about a 99% likelihood of being good, especially when even a miss (single point almost certain) will win the game for the Stamps. Even if it's blocked, anything but it returned all the way gives the Stamps a 50% chance to win in
OT.

The chances of Sask marching down to score a TD to tie in the last 32 seconds is probably above 10%.

[OzSome]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The highest likelihood of winning might be take one kneel to run 20 seconds off the clock, attempt to plunge in on second down, and if that gets stuffed, attempt the FG on third down on the last play.

Either way, it's a 99%+ chance of winning.

Plunging in on first down probably down the stamps likelihood of winning to "only" 95% or so. And we can see why, the riders advanced to a point where they didn't even need a true last play Hail Mary.

I am sorry but I have to disagree. Huff made the safe call and went for a TD right away. Saskatchewan got the momentum. I would have done the same thing and hope that my defense answer the call. Sask need to score a TD anyways in order for them to get a chance to win the game in OT.

[You Need a Thneed]

Also, another factor I didn't mention is that, if you kneel on first down, run 20 seconds off the clock, then try to score on second down, Saskatchewan's best option to let Calgary score. I think trying to get a kickoff return TD is more likely than blocking a FG attempt that Calgary knows it doesn't even have to hit the uprights.

It's different if Calgary is down a point ior two nstead of a tie game. Then you have to take every opportunity to score. Even then, it's probably best to kneel on first down, to make sure the other team has no time left in case something does go wrong.

[OzSome]

Another costly win for us. We lost quite a few players due to injury. WR Jeff Fuller after coming back from 6 game injured list left the game early, RB Jon Cornish didn't even play in the 2nd half I think due to (????) injury. WR Charbonneau-Campeau got rocked in the 2nd half. I suspected he had a concussion problem. It feels like there are a lot injuries this season in the whole league compared to previous few seasons I hope all 3 of those guys' injuries are not serious.

[MissTeeks]

That defense desperately needs Hughes back.

[Flickered Flame]

Originally Posted by OzSome

Another costly win for us. We lost quite a few players due to injury. WR Jeff Fuller after coming back from 6 game injured list left the game early, RB Jon Cornish didn't even play in the 2nd half I think due to (????) injury. WR Charbonneau-Campeau got rocked in the 2nd half. I suspected he had a concussion problem. It feels like there are a lot injuries this season in the whole league compared to previous few seasons I hope all 3 of those guys' injuries are not serious.

Cornish left in the 3rd quarter. From what I heard on the post game, it is not expected to be a serious injury but you never know.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Also, another factor I didn't mention is that, if you kneel on first down, run 20 seconds off the clock, then try to score on second down, Saskatchewan's best option to let Calgary score. I think trying to get a kickoff return TD is more likely than blocking a FG attempt that Calgary knows it doesn't even have to hit the uprights.

It's different if Calgary is down a point ior two nstead of a tie game. Then you have to take every opportunity to score. Even then, it's probably best to kneel on first down, to make sure the other team has no time left in case something does go wrong.

Adding fuel to this question, apparently Huff wanted them to take a knee on first down, but Dickenson and Tate decided otherwise:

"(The coaches) wanted to kneel it down, but Dave (Dickenson, offensive co-ordinator) changed his mind. That's playing aggressive football," Tate said. "I wanted the offence to end it."

[PeteLFan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Or win games. A lot of them. The most in the league. That works too

How has that worked out for us? 1 championship in that span.

This team needs to find a second gear and knock teams out, unless they want to be humiliated again at home.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

How has that worked out for us? 1 championship in that span.

This team needs to find a second gear and knock teams out, unless they want to be humiliated again at home.

Just tone it down in the threads ok? People are tired of it

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

How has that worked out for us? 1 championship in that span.

This team needs to find a second gear and knock teams out, unless they want to be humiliated again at home.

knock teams out? you mean by intentionally injuring players on the other team?

or by winning? which we just did

btw, because of injuries, we have far fewer starters than they do. So for a team with only two thirds a starting roster, i dont think we did too bad against the 2nd best team in the CFL

[Pizza]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Scoring on 2nd down would have been great. The Stamps scoring on first down gives the Riders the best chance of winning though, leaving the most important thing to them at that point - time. There were 32 seconds on the clock that they had to play with - certainly not impossible. A 10 yard FG is about a 99% likelihood of being good, especially when even a miss (single point almost certain) will win the game for the Stamps. Even if it's blocked, anything but it returned all the way gives the Stamps a 50% chance to win in
OT.

The chances of Sask marching down to score a TD to tie in the last 32 seconds is probably above 10%.

I wont disagree that they should've considered taking a knee on the 1st down and then trying to score on the 2nd.
But to burn both a 1st and 2nd down to run down the clock and then going for a FG that close is more risky.

A 10 yard FG attempt on one try is much riskier than a 1 yard TD attempt on three tries. I dont know how much more clearly that can be said

not to mention you're getting a major scoring which means inorder for a team to tie you, they have to score a major as well just to tie you. Just leading by 1 or 3 points would just give the opportunity for the other team to beat you with a TD. Even if you're giving them less time, you're still giving them an opportunity for a lucky run to win the game rather than letting them just tie it.

and why do you think being at 10 yards is a 99% success rate? being that close is actually harder to score a FG as it's a more challenging trajectory to kick than if you were 20 or 30 yards out

[old-fart]

Stamps only Western team to win this weekend. 'Peg lost, and looked horrible doing it, Riders continue to suck, Edmonton took over 200 yards in penalties to hand the game to TO, and BC couldn't finish it off against Hamilton.

First in the West, and first in the league is all but guaranteed.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Stamps only Western team to win this weekend. 'Peg lost, and looked horrible doing it, Riders continue to suck, Edmonton took over 200 yards in penalties to hand the game to TO, and BC couldn't finish it off against Hamilton.

First in the West, and first in the league is all but guaranteed.

Yeah, I'd Saskatchewan loses in Montreal next week, A win over Winnipeg after the bye will clinch first overall for Calgary.

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by Pizza

I wont disagree that they should've considered taking a knee on the 1st down and then trying to score on the 2nd.
But to burn both a 1st and 2nd down to run down the clock and then going for a FG that close is more risky.

A 10 yard FG attempt on one try is much riskier than a 1 yard TD attempt on three tries. I dont know how much more clearly that can be said

not to mention you're getting a major scoring which means inorder for a team to tie you, they have to score a major as well just to tie you. Just leading by 1 or 3 points would just give the opportunity for the other team to beat you with a TD. Even if you're giving them less time, you're still giving them an opportunity for a lucky run to win the game rather than letting them just tie it.

and why do you think being at 10 yards is a 99% success rate? being that close is actually harder to score a FG as it's a more challenging trajectory to kick than if you were 20 or 30 yards out

Yeah, if a team really wanted to eliminate risk they would run it right down to 0, snap it back 15 yards and then punt it through the end zone with no time left on the clock but that's really an extreme example. I think they had confidence in their group and that's why they did it the way they did.

[Bar-Down]

What did Parker do to jinx the stamps?

[Da_Chief]

I think he said shutout...

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by PeteLFan

How has that worked out for us? 1 championship in that span.

This team needs to find a second gear and knock teams out, unless they want to be humiliated again at home.

This isn't like college football where the "good" teams need to beat the "bad" teams by 50 points in order for it to be a "legitimate" win. In the pros -- even in the CFL -- both teams are comprised of professional players who are paid to win.

I fully agree that for this team success and failure will be measured in the playoffs. So why freak out about a regular season road win against the defending Grey Cup champions? A 50 point win now means nothing once the playoffs start...