Jump to content

Featured Replies

  • Replies 207
  • Views 13.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • So Cato with zero cfl experience can pick up a blitz and throw for a td on his first drive ever... Yet. We can't put Marve on the field despite Brohm havinga a fair amount of play time over the course

  • Arnold_Palmer
    Arnold_Palmer

    Riders 0-2 is music to my ears.

  • Fatty Liver
    Fatty Liver

    But this is not supposed to be possible.  Don't the Als realize the damage they are doing to young Cato's career by playing him???  Where is the humanity?

comment_131661

Calgary @ Montreal

I suppose there are really 2 stories here. The impressive starting performance by 23 year old Rakeem Cato and the very average performance by BL Mitchell and the Stampeders.

Cato 20-25 for 241 yards in his debut. A very simple and effective game plan drawn up for Cato. Run the ball with Sutton and short, easy passes for Cato. These were executed very well by everyone involved. And he had help. SJ green 7 catches, Nic Lewis - only 3 catches but they were vintage Lewis. And Sam Giguere - 4 catches, 39 yards. There was nothing flashy in Montreal's offence but they used, and protected Cato, and he played the position flawlessly.

If you stop Cornish, you have a good chance to stop Calgary. Montreal's defence did just that. Combine that with Mitchell's 19-31 passing, and you get the opportunity to knock off the Champs. And Montreal did that big time. Good on them.

And I agree with JBR on a similar game plan for Marve, if the Bombers should so choose. The question is..could Marve execute in the same manner?

Everything you described is about taking a decent quarterback (Cato) and quickly devising a game plan to make the most of his abilities and take away Calgary's strengths. We are going to find out whether our brain trust can do the same, and that will be against Montreal. Brohm's experience ought to offset Cato's apparent superior skills, so if we lose, its all on the coaches. And rightfully so..
comment_131741

I think if they're going to call that one incidental PI then we should see a lot more incidental PI calls. Problem is, as always, consistency.

 

Ya, to be honest if a guy is at least making a play for the ball I'd always be fine with the PI being a 10 yard penalty and first down.  It's the ones like the PI's O'Shea had to challenge vs Hamilton where the guy doesn't even know where the ball is and is just trailing the receiver and then stopping him from working to the ball that should be spot fouls.  Could go to "intentional" (not playing the ball) and "unintentional" (at least making an attempt on the ball) PI.

comment_131743

 

I think if they're going to call that one incidental PI then we should see a lot more incidental PI calls. Problem is, as always, consistency.

 

Ya, to be honest if a guy is at least making a play for the ball I'd always be fine with the PI being a 10 yard penalty and first down.  It's the ones like the PI's O'Shea had to challenge vs Hamilton where the guy doesn't even know where the ball is and is just trailing the receiver and then stopping him from working to the ball that should be spot fouls.  Could go to "intentional" (not playing the ball) and "unintentional" (at least making an attempt on the ball) PI.

 

 

That's the thing, I've just seen too many plays similar to what we just witnessed being called PI and given the spot on the goal line. If you want to call unintentional PI more frequently I'm all for it but in this one instance, it strikes me as a ref wanting to avoid putting the ball on the one yard line.

Create an account or sign in to comment