PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on the game



Sandy - Edmonton
06-19-2004, 08:17 PM
1) No doubt about it, Jason has to improve - greatly. Basically, he gave away 14 points to Montreal, and took away potential points by fumbling in the Montreal red zone.

Also was inaccurate on some of his throws....needs to rebound.

2) Darell Mitchell better improve his game - you can't take 4 penalties when you're a receiver...2 of them brought back first downs

3) Marsh looked lost.....hopefully Harold Nash will be back next week.

4) D-line doesn't look the same without Albert Reese and Kelvin Kinney - both will be back next week

5) Don't count out AJ Gass - he could end up replacing Powell soon.

6) I'm willing to cut Jason some slack - that Montreal defence is tough when the put 7-8 guys on the line.

7) Pringle didn't look happy at all - can't blame him, the Esks never called his number.

8) Winston back at it again - has a great pre-season as usual, but doesn't show up in the regular season.

9) How did Carson look?? I'll be honest - I didn't pay much attention to him.

Esks4ever
06-19-2004, 08:22 PM
oline sucked

fbs sucked...

Maas had no time...

October sucked...

Esks4ever
06-19-2004, 08:26 PM
the good thing is that its only the first game..

Ricccky
06-19-2004, 08:31 PM
sigh....I won't even make any comments, I wouldn't even know where to begin. :confused: :scratch: :madani:

Esks4ever
06-19-2004, 08:36 PM
I know what yer saying...

MEEZY
06-19-2004, 08:45 PM
I agree with most of your points, Sandy.

3. There were a couple of plays where Marsh didn't look too bad. He stayed stride-for-stride with Copeland on one occassion to break up a deep ball pass by Calvillo.

7. The reason Pringle hardly got used is because every time he did get a call, he got stuffed at the line of scrimmage. That blitzing D is brutal to run against.

8. I have no clue why the hell October is still out there...

Maas was rusty, but I expected that. Calvillo didn't look sharp, either. He was missing throws he usually completes, and his long ball attempts were brutally inaccurate. As Don said at half time, the defences are usually sharper out of the gate than the offences.

Angelus
06-19-2004, 08:52 PM
I'm going to reserve judgement on Maas. Ray's performance last year against the Als in game one was nothing to write home about.

Good news is he didn't get injured despite being hit time and time again...

Give him 3-5 seconds back there, and that receiving corps will help him look great.

MEEZY
06-19-2004, 08:57 PM
I'm going to reserve judgement on Maas. Ray's performance last year against the Als in game one was nothing to write home about.

That's a good point, especially considering all of the Esks Fans that may be screaming for Maas' head right about now.

wildwest
06-19-2004, 09:15 PM
1) No doubt about it, Jason has to improve - greatly. Basically, he gave away 14 points to Montreal, and took away potential points by fumbling in the Montreal red zone.

Also was inaccurate on some of his throws....needs to rebound.

2) Darell Mitchell better improve his game - you can't take 4 penalties when you're a receiver...2 of them brought back first downs

3) Marsh looked lost.....hopefully Harold Nash will be back next week.

4) D-line doesn't look the same without Albert Reese and Kelvin Kinney - both will be back next week

5) Don't count out AJ Gass - he could end up replacing Powell soon.

6) I'm willing to cut Jason some slack - that Montreal defence is tough when the put 7-8 guys on the line.

7) Pringle didn't look happy at all - can't blame him, the Esks never called his number.

8) Winston back at it again - has a great pre-season as usual, but doesn't show up in the regular season.

9) How did Carson look?? I'll be honest - I didn't pay much attention to him.


I can accept #1 although I am going to cut Jason some slack. I think he looked better than Ricky looked in last season opener.

Completely agree with #2. Mitchell was a liability. We would have been far better off using a Canadian decoy that can stay onside. He better get it together.

#3 I am not that upset with Marsh. He will get better. It looks like he will have to as Crutchfield is out at least a month.

#4 I agree that Jeanty is no where near the force that Kinney is, and I think we missed the fresh rotating D-Line.

#5 I totally disagree with this (although I missed the last quarter) I thought Powell looked good and he was totally held on that long hitch pass to Denson.

#6 agree

#7 agree, you also can't run much when you are playing catch up.

#8 totally agree. Winston should be history. It is bad enough that he goes nowhere, he can't keep dropping the ball.

#9 I don't pin this on Carson or the O-Line. We completed a fair number of passes. I saw the receivers drop 3 or 4 totally catchable balls. Maas also totally over or under threw some makable passes.

Esks4ever
06-19-2004, 09:19 PM
Marsh looked good and bad.. espically on the touchdown pass to the corner.. all he had to do was turn around and he had a knock down...

I , as well, have no clue why October is still here...


and I agree about maas....i'm not blaming him a bit.. i'm blaming the Oline more..so I hold judgemnt on him as well...


I can imagine how many Esks' fans want Jasons head on a stick right now... but he got that in 2001.. its just that this year will be worse beacause we , as fans where spoiled with Ricky Ray last year.... I for one am not one of those fans calling for his head... he hasn't played for 2 years.. he is going to take some time to get into 100$ game condition

Esks4ever
06-19-2004, 09:26 PM
how about the Injuries to Crutch and Lezi ? any word on how bad they are/are not ?

MEEZY
06-19-2004, 10:18 PM
Wildwest, I disagree re: Jason playing better than Ray did in last year's season opener. Not that it was wholly his fault, but Jason turned the ball over three times. Ricky had no turnovers in game one last year. And he managed 250 yards and two TD passes. So overall, his numbers were much better than Jason's. And don't forget that Ricky also had to deal with being yanked twice... :mad:

Sandy - Edmonton
06-19-2004, 11:59 PM
When did Crutchfield get injured?

Touchdown Vaughn
06-20-2004, 08:13 AM
First of all, I don't have a problem with the way the defence played. Marsh looked better than Grant did in his debut last year. The d-line was not dominant like last year and we didn't cause any turnovers, but holding their O to 17 points is certainly acceptable.

I don't think we should be passive about the way the offence played. The o-line was pathetic. Receivers dropped 3 or 4 passes. Maas was inaccurate at times. Yes, we started with a loss last year, but this is not last year's team.

One thing we are going to have to accept:

Jason Maas is not as good as Ricky Ray.

Sure, Maas will have games as good as Ray's best games. But there were plays that failed on Saturday that were solely Maas' fault.

Think of it this way:

In a typical season, Ray will have 10 great games, 6 average games, and 2 stinkers.

Maas will have 5 great games, 9 average games, and 4 stinkers.

Nealon Greene will have 6 great games, 6 average games, and 6 stinkers.

I think the record of each QB backs up that thought.

Maas can do 90 percent of what Ray did, but it's that 10 percent that makes all the difference. To have a great team, you need a QB that can consistently make great plays. We now have a QB that is less adept at doing that.

Why didn't we try to go deep more? It seems Maas was reluctant to chuck it when he did get protection. Under 10 yards a completion is pathetic.

Winston October continues to deprove. I'd like to see Bradley on kick returns. He runs full throttle and gets 2 or 3 extra yards when he's tackled just from momentum. Landry should be put in for punt returns.

Things can only get better. But will they?

Diesel
06-20-2004, 10:02 AM
Mtl did what I expected them to do which was exploit our early season liability in protecting our QB.

Esk Reporter
06-20-2004, 05:33 PM
Why didn't we try to go deep more? It seems Maas was reluctant to chuck it when he did get protection. Under 10 yards a completion is pathetic.


You cannot go deep when you are only getting 1.5 to 3 seconds of protection! The reason Ray was able to go long in the Grey Cup was because they had the protection...

Beerfish
06-20-2004, 05:54 PM
You cannot go deep when you are only getting 1.5 to 3 seconds of protection! The reason Ray was able to go long in the Grey Cup was because they had the protection...


I disagree, you can go deep even with 1.5 to 3 seconds but you have to do it on faith, fire it up there knowing you are getting 1 on 1 coverage and have faith that your receiver is going to be where he is supposed to be. Ray did not have tons of time on two of his long passes to Tucker in that game. He heaved it up high early and let Tucker run under it.

In my opinion you have to go deep against that style of defense at times, if for no other reason that to back off the DB's who are cheating up on the slants and quick hitters. I predict that the rookie corner for Montreal who looked so good against the Esks will get seriously torched when teams actually go deep against him.

Esk Reporter
06-20-2004, 10:51 PM
Ray did not have tons of time on two of his long passes to Tucker in that game. He heaved it up high early and let Tucker run under it.


Ray had more time than Maas was getting on Saturday night...I have the tape!!




In my opinion you have to go deep against that style of defense at times, if for no other reason that to back off the DB's who are cheating up on the slants and quick hitters.


Do you really believe that if the Esks had gone deep a few times things would have been any different? The QB's and the receivers have to be on the same page for that to occur and it was crystal clear that was not the case Saturday night. Dropped passes...illegal blocking penalties...offside calls...they were on another planet and the outcome was predictable in that sense. If you play that bad against the Al's, you are going to get crushed.

Touchdown Vaughn
06-20-2004, 11:39 PM
You cannot go deep when you are only getting 1.5 to 3 seconds of protection! The reason Ray was able to go long in the Grey Cup was because they had the protection...

You make a good point, but certainly you can get some air under it and let the receivers run to it, especially if they are in one-on-one coverage. If Maas has 1.5 seconds of protection and the ball is in the air for that long, that should allow for a pass that travels 35 yards in the air. Most of our passes did not even go 7 yards past the line of scrimmage.

Opus
06-21-2004, 09:49 AM
You have to make them give you the time.......and you can run the ball against that defense, but you have to use mis-direction, let them come, but have your blocking lanes set up where you just let the D go by, the Esks just didn't do it......and didn't even try it. IMO the offensive gameplan was poor & looked like it was very generic and would be the same against any other team playing any other system.

sectionw
06-22-2004, 06:16 PM
You cannot go deep when you are only getting 1.5 to 3 seconds of protection! The reason Ray was able to go long in the Grey Cup was because they had the protection...
And in the GC we were missing Robert Brown, that guy is awesome, last season for every game he missed we lost.

Beerfish
06-22-2004, 07:42 PM
"Do you really believe that if the Esks had gone deep a few times things would have been any different? The QB's and the receivers have to be on the same page for that to occur and it was crystal clear that was not the case Saturday night. Dropped passes...illegal blocking penalties...offside calls...they were on another planet and the outcome was predictable in that sense. If you play that bad against the Al's, you are going to get crushed."

You have to go deep a few times a game. If you don't the other teams DB's like the rookie for Montreal will look all world. All they have to do is charge up on the slants and hitches. Whether you are on the same wave length this time of year or not you still have to at least scare the DB's a bit by having a Hervey blow by the guy and be open even if you don't hit him. That's the risk part of Montreals defense, they are going 1 on 1 in the seconday, you have to burn them deep. The Eskimos were counting on hitting the 3 yard pass and hoping the DB would miss a tackle but they were coming so hard our receivers could barely turn around before getting hit. If you are in the shotgun formation you can toss the deep ball even if they bring the house. (You just have to do it on faith)

Esk Reporter
06-22-2004, 09:46 PM
"Whether you are on the same wave length this time of year or not you still have to at least scare the DB's a bit by having a Hervey blow by the guy and be open even if you don't hit him."


I saw Eskimo receivers get behind Montreal DB's on Saturday night...it made no difference!! The only way that you are really going to scare them is to complete passes. There is nothing to be gained by throwing a long ball and having it fall harmlessly to the ground with no receiver nearby!




That's the risk part of Montreals defense, they are going 1 on 1 in the seconday, you have to burn them deep.


In the Grey Cup you saw Ray start off by hitting those quick slants and picking up the 7, 10, 12 yard gains. Completing those patterns caused the Al's to change the way they played the Eskimo receivers. The completion of those quick slants is paramount to the success of the game plan. The Eskimos learned that last year and Maas has to learn how to do the same thing, or else!!




If you are in the shotgun formation you can toss the deep ball even if they bring the house. (You just have to do it on faith)

Did you not see Maas line up in the shotgun during that game?? All it allowed him to do was see the onslaught coming!! Maciocia knows what needs to be done...make the quick read and get rid of the ball to the correct receiver. Maas was not doing that and until he does, the Eskimos are not going to have much success against the Al's defense!!

Diesel
06-22-2004, 10:17 PM
Love that exclamation point dontcha?

Esks4ever
06-23-2004, 07:28 AM
Love that exclamation point dontcha?


:lol: :lol: :lol: Thats funny :) :thup:

Beerfish
06-23-2004, 09:05 AM
The more one thinks about the Montreal game the less of a problem it is. When you think about it we have gotten rid of the very toughest game on our schedule, on the road against Montreal. Alot of things will become apparent in this next game. If our offense does not look good against BC's carousel rookie corners there might be a reason to worry.