I hate to say this...

[Esks4ever]

Re: I hate to say this...

I think I actually mentioned it last year.....

well weeks upon weeks could mean any amount of time.... would you have rather me put :


Weeks upon weeks upon Weeks upon weeks upon Weeks upon weeks upon Weeks upon weeks upon Weeks upon weeks upon Weeks upon weeks upon Weeks upon weeks upon Weeks upon weeks upon Weeks upon weeks upon etc ?

[Opus]

Re: I hate to say this...

nah, it's all good......well, not good........you know what I mean

he can pull his head from his posterior any day now and play like the QB he is supposed to be....

[Angelus]

Re: I hate to say this...

bump

[Esks4ever]

Re: I hate to say this...

I knew this thread was going to be bumped...



I dont know what to say about Wad..

[quake]

Re: I hate to say this...

3 seconds before the snap on the second miss, the freaking wind started to blow like a sum bitch. I knew he was going to miss. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Next year we will be posting on how much we miss Sean Fleming.

[Hugoagogo]

Re: I hate to say this...

Yeah, as much as I question his kicking sometimes, I agree. Wad's misses last night were obvious, but ONE touchdown would have tied the game. Whether it's Ricky or whoever, we gotta get in the endzone.

[Sgt. Nuke]

Re: I hate to say this...

It doesn't matter. He should have had both of those. We need a new field goal kicker. Hell, we needed on last year.

[eskies_rule]

Re: I hate to say this...

We ran the ball effectively tonight.

We still only had 7 rush attempts.

'Nuff said.

The CFL stats page says Ebell ran the ball 14 times for 69 yards (4.9 yard average, not bad, but not exactly enough to make you want to give him 25+ carries and stop passing). Ray ran the ball 5 times for 39 yards. Lefors ran the ball 5 times for 20 yards. McCarty ran the ball 2 times for 4 yards. My math tells me that's 26 rush attempts by the team for 132 yards. Ebell also had 7 catches for 42 yards (21 touches total). You could argue that these short dump passes to Ebell are basically rushing plays that go in the stats book as a passing play because the ball travels forward in the air. In his limited playing time, Ebell leads all CFL running backs with recieving yards, and you could make the argument that this rush/pass type play has been more effective for the Eskimos than the pure handoff.

As a comparison, Ray had 22 pass attempts and Lefors had 15 pass attempts for a combined total of 180 yards. My math tells me that's 37 passing plays for 180 yards, and 26 rushing plays for 132 yards. If these stats are true, that seems like a fairly well balanced attack to me. Considering Ebell had 21 touches, and our next most used offensive weapon in this game, Gaylor, had only 5 touches, I don't buy the argument that the offensive play calling didn't utilize Ebell enough.

Where did you get the stat of only 7 rushing attempts? Because if that's true, and out of 63 offensive plays, there was only 7 rushing plays and 56 passing plays, I would have to agree with you.

Here's my source:
http://liveplay.cflcentral.com/LPFil...coreboard.html

[Opus]

Re: I hate to say this...

The CFL stats page says Ebell ran the ball 14 times for 69 yards (4.9 yard average, not bad, but not exactly enough to make you want to give him 25+ carries and stop passing). Ray ran the ball 5 times for 39 yards. Lefors ran the ball 5 times for 20 yards. McCarty ran the ball 2 times for 4 yards. My math tells me that's 26 rush attempts by the team for 132 yards. Ebell also had 7 catches for 42 yards (21 touches total). You could argue that these short dump passes to Ebell are basically rushing plays that go in the stats book as a passing play because the ball travels forward in the air. In his limited playing time, Ebell leads all CFL running backs with recieving yards, and you could make the argument that this rush/pass type play has been more effective for the Eskimos than the pure handoff.

As a comparison, Ray had 22 pass attempts and Lefors had 15 pass attempts for a combined total of 180 yards. My math tells me that's 37 passing plays for 180 yards, and 26 rushing plays for 132 yards. If these stats are true, that seems like a fairly well balanced attack to me. Considering Ebell had 21 touches, and our next most used offensive weapon in this game, Gaylor, had only 5 touches, I don't buy the argument that the offensive play calling didn't utilize Ebell enough.

Where did you get the stat of only 7 rushing attempts? Because if that's true, and out of 63 offensive plays, there was only 7 rushing plays and 56 passing plays, I would have to agree with you.

Here's my source:
http://liveplay.cflcentral.com/LPFil...coreboard.html

did you check the date of that post? This thread has been bumped and you're quoting a 3 week old post.

Sep.8.......

We ran the ball a whole 4 times the first half of this game and I doubt we would have got Ebell to 14 carries if Ricky was in the game the whole way.

[eskies_rule]

Re: I hate to say this...

did you check the date of that post? This thread has been bumped and you're quoting a 3 week old post.

Sep.8.......

We ran the ball a whole 4 times the first half of this game and I doubt we would have got Ebell to 14 carries if Ricky was in the game the whole way.

Ahhh... the September 8 game. Ebell only had 17 touches for 144 yards from scrimmage that game. I can see why you were so outraged. Let me ask you this. If your running back is averaging 5.0 yards when you hand the ball to him in a traditional running play, but is averaging 10.9 yards when you let him sneak past the rushing D-line and dump the ball to him, which one would you call more often? In this game, the Eskimos chose the 5.0 yard rush to Ebell 7 times, and the 10.9 yard pass to Ebell 10 times. Probably should have passed to him more often, in retrospect, I guess.

Also, in the Sept 8 game in question, Ebell had 17 touches, and our next most used offensive weapon, Peterson, only had 6 touches. Didn't Ray play that game the whole way?

[Eskimo_RoB]

Re: I hate to say this...

I've been taking allot of heat for saying so from the start. He can cut, Goldie can't. I said Ebell was the man after the first game and I was harshly criticized for it. Goldie had his chances and failed in previous seasons.

Ppl disagreeing with you does not equal harsh Criticism, I can admit when I am wrong, and you were right.

[Numberz]

Re: I hate to say this...

Ppl disagreeing with you does not equal harsh Criticism, I can admit when I am wrong, and you were right.

yup, I was a Goldie supporter and I can say that I was wrong and I am now 100% in support of Ebell.

[Opus]

Re: I hate to say this...

Ahhh... the September 8 game. Ebell only had 17 touches for 144 yards from scrimmage that game. I can see why you were so outraged. Let me ask you this. If your running back is averaging 5.0 yards when you hand the ball to him in a traditional running play, but is averaging 10.9 yards when you let him sneak past the rushing D-line and dump the ball to him, which one would you call more often? In this game, the Eskimos chose the 5.0 yard rush to Ebell 7 times, and the 10.9 yard pass to Ebell 10 times. Probably should have passed to him more often, in retrospect, I guess.

Also, in the Sept 8 game in question, Ebell had 17 touches, and our next most used offensive weapon, Peterson, only had 6 touches. Didn't Ray play that game the whole way?

you're right......by that stroke of genius we should have not bothered running the ball at all.

With that type of mindset you should submit your resume to this regime, you're a shoo in to be our next OC.....

perhaps the most ridiculous post I've seen here in a week, right next to the joker who hit submit on a thread saying we should sign Nylon Queen.....

[eskies_rule]

Re: I hate to say this...

you're right......by that stroke of genius we should have not bothered running the ball at all.

With that type of mindset you should submit your resume to this regime, you're a shoo in to be our next OC.....

perhaps the most ridiculous post I've seen here in a week, right next to the joker who hit submit on a thread saying we should sign Nylon Queen.....

I'm afraid the most ridiculous posts on this thread in a very VERY long time, are the clowns who claim that this offense is being run by a DM/Chapdelaine combo. This is Chapdelaine's offense, 100%.

And I never said that we should not have run the ball at all. Perhaps you want to actually try reading my post and try again, rather than having to put words in my mouth, because you have no other way of making a point. Talk about being rediculous.

What I said was that your critisizm of Chapdelaine's play calling seems a bit misplaced, since our running back did have well over 100 yards from scrimmage, and the majority of his touches were dump passes out of the back field, because that was working alot more effectively than the hand off in that game.

See the difference between what I said, and what you said I said?

[gizmo fan 2]

Re: I hate to say this...

What I said was that your critisizm of Chapdelaine's play calling seems a bit misplaced, since our running back did have well over 100 yards from scrimmage, and the majority of his touches were dump passes out of the back field, because that was working alot more effectively than the hand off in that game.

Was it, though? Yardage-wise, sure, but we all know that yardage doesn't equal points, unfortunately.

A running game pounds on the D and makes them tired. Heck, look at Edwards - our D couldn't stop him very well in the 2nd half. And he had 17 carries.
If we run the ball more, especially early in the game (4 carries in the first half IIRC), the Argo D is just a smidge more tired as they have to swarm the ball more. Maybe Tucker gets free enough to catch that TD. Maybe they have to rotate in more so that someone doesn't jive quite as well with the guy next to them and we open a hole (as the OL would be fresher, not having to pass block as much). Maybe it takes away the blitz a little bit in the 2nd half. etc.etc.
We'll never know for sure until we really try it, and 4 carries in the half isn't enough for that.

Not to mention Opus' fair point that, had we run the ball on that 2nd-and-4 (which isn't too bad of a call, considering how Ebell goes/went), we might still have our starting QB. Personally, I don't think the play called was a bad one, as the chances of getting the yardage aren't bad......but I knew we were going to throw as soon as the yardage was up on the board. How about we run in that situation once or twice and mix it up a bit?

In no way should we take the dump pass out completely, as it is an effective weapon. But I think we definitely oughta run more and throw downfield more...and NOT throw to Ebell as much. When our running back is leading our team in receiving (catches), we are not throwing downfield effectively, which brings the whole defence up closer to the line anticipating that, thus making it harder to find the holes on the medium-to-deep stuff and also making it tougher to get good yardage running and on short passes.