Strasser and the offence have some explaining to do IMO...

[gizmo fan 2]

9.7 points per game in three games at Calgary this year.

The offensive execution was poor, no doubt...but I have my doubts about the scheme as well. We've seen this defence plenty this season. What adjustments did we make? Seemingly, not many.

-A 2nd-and-goal from the 3 is what a fullback is for. As much as I like Whitlock, why aren't we using a heavier back (like Bertrand, or even McCarty) to get those tough yds?

-This is something that's been there for a couple of weeks now IIRC. Do we have any plays designed to go to the back of the end zone when we're inside the 10? We have 20 yds of real estate. We aren't using it. Look at the TD we scored...throw to Stamps at the goal line (ish). Throw to Hill at the 1 yd line. Last week, the only TD we threw was Hill - 1 yd inside the end zone. How hard is it to have a receiver slant in at the goal line and RR to hit him 10 yds deep? If done properly (quickly enough) the DB shouldn't have time to react, I figure. Use the space.

-We didn't do a very good job of establishing the run...but Whitlock was defended well today, too.

-KP, and other receivers too, you gotta catch the ball. End of story.

-Our yards per catch today was the 2nd-lowest it's been all season (behind @ WPG). I know we tried some deeper stuff and it didn't work...but it has to.

-They read that hitch to Bertrand like a book the first time...and so we try it again? No gain on it the 2nd time, either. Granted, RR shouldn't've thrown it, to be fair...guy was practically double-covered.

Maybe I'm being harsh...but we've seen this movie THREE TIMES in the SAME BALLPARK this year.
The defence holds us in the game...and holds...and holds...and cracks...and still holds...and then they finally break and we're behind by a bunch because our offence can't find the end zone in the first seven-eighths of a football game.

We got hosed on some calls, again, (like usual, it seems), but failures on 1st-and-goal from the 5, only 160 passing yds, and 16 first downs are not going to win you playoff games in this league, I don't care who you play or who refs.

[writfiler]

Re: Strasser and the offence have some explaining to do IMO...

Hell, it was 1st and goal from the 5 and the next 2 plays were handoffs to Whitlock from the SHOTGUN FORMATION!! Give me a break. Get RR under the center and hand it off to a power runner like Bertrand or even CMC, with double tight ends in for blocking. Stupid call(s) by Strasser and poor execution as well.

[mattdunigan]

Re: Strasser and the offence have some explaining to do IMO...

I am also disappointed in the result but I thought the plan was pretty good. basically they used last week to make the stamps think they would run every play, then they threw long a few times challenging the stamps vertically. they used last week to set this week up. Isn't throwing long what everyone on this thread wanted them to do?
The problem was the execution. The throw to Hill and the first to Stamps should have been caught. The second long throw to Stamps in the end zone was underthrown by Ray. Catch two of those and this game, as well as the stats, change quite a bit. Who knows what those catches would have set up for underneath routes and more success running??

For whatever reason, the stamps defence has our number.

Let's hope that Strasser figures out some new ideas for next year.

[Esks4ever]

Re: Strasser and the offence have some explaining to do IMO...

Maybe I'm being harsh...but we've seen this movie THREE TIMES in the SAME BALLPARK this year.
The defence holds us in the game...and holds...and holds...and cracks...and still holds...and then they finally break and we're behind by a bunch because our offence can't find the end zone in the first seven-eighths of a football game.
.

Hell no Matt, you are not being harsh. Heck I'd say you're not being harsh enough. The Offense has been a bitter disappointment this season.

Like you touched on with the RBs, why did we resort to not using CMC? I dont get why we pretty much ignored him, after his season last year. A combo of him and Whitlock would have been great. Why on the short yards did we not use Berty or CMC?

As for the endzone throws - I've not been a fan of them for awhile. Its its not a throw to the 1 or goal line it'll be the Tucker route - aka the corner. Every damn time its this.. Why? Why?


Does Ray not trust his arm/throws to actually get the ball to a guy deep in the endzone (outside of the over used corner route) instead he relies on the receiver to make the catch and get into the endzone himself ?


One thing is for sure.. there is a big amount of ??? surrounding this offense.

[Nanookster]

Re: Strasser and the offence have some explaining to do IMO...

On the 2nd and 3 I didn't understand why we didn't have Ray fake the hand-off and run it in wide. The field was open and every man and his dog was expecting Whitlock to get it again.

[Sectionq]

Re: Strasser and the offence have some explaining to do IMO...

I put a lot of the blame on the receivers. Like I said before, the Esks lack a true play maker. For all the Fred Stamps lovers out there, in a big game, I feel he had a bad game and crumbled. How many deep balls did Ricky throw to him that were right there? At least 3 if I remember and he didn't come up with 1? They all were right in his hands. Yes the coverage was good but a top, play making receivers comes up with at least one of those don't you think? I know Copeland sure as hell would of.
E. Hill had a deep one that he had in his hands but couldn't hold on to it. Barnes had one in the end zone he couldn't hold on too. There were at least 5 or 6 deep balls that Ricky put in there perfectly and not one was caught. Even if they had of caught 2 out of the 6, that would of resulted in at least 2 more field goals and probably at least a TD.
Then there was sure handed KP dropping balls. Bertrand dropping easy balls. The Esks receivers plained SUCKED in my opinion yesturday.

[Party Time]

Re: Strasser and the offence have some explaining to do IMO...

On the 2nd and 3 I didn't understand why we didn't have Ray fake the hand-off and run it in wide. The field was open and every man and his dog was expecting Whitlock to get it again.

Heck even their cats knew it and we all know how stupid cats are...

*runs and hides from DDS*


I am starting to get the impression that Ray simply can't take a snap from under centre unless it's going to be a sneak. Maybe the play book doesn't have any pages the QB right behind the C, or Ray needs to be off the LOS so he can properly read the defence?

In any case, this needs to be changed, with the riches the Esks have in the backfield it would be a shame if all the running plays have to be designed to operate out of the shotgun.

[Diesel]

Re: Strasser and the offence have some explaining to do IMO...

This was the case where the pass would have set up the run had receivers made plays early. We put ourselves in second and long too often

[stamphater]

Re: Strasser and the offence have some explaining to do IMO...

I think the Eskimos came out with a pretty good game plan. The execution simply wasn't there. Hill, Stamps, KP, Bertrand and Barnes all had a drop. That is embarrassing considering three of those guys I consider to be veterans and leaders on this team.

Ricky certainly played his best game in Calgary but still looked hesitant to throw the ball at the slightest sign of pressure. And he rightfully should've had three of his throws picked off including one that would have gone back for six.

And I have to say that Chris Jones deserves some credit. The ability he has to adapt to what other teams are doing offensively is quite a thing to watch. Calgary ran some beautifully disguised blitzes later in the game that obviously confused our line and RR. I wish we didn't telegraph our blitzes as much as we do...