Game Thread: Montreal Alouettes @ Toronto Argonauts - September 19, 2025

[paulwoods13]

Why kick the FG when down five? The offence was finally moving the ball at that point, and the possibility of getting the lead -- especially the way the defence was playing -- should have been top of mind. Instead, they had to have two things happen -- get another stop after the FG, AND move the ball into field position to try another field goal. Too many opportunities for something to go wrong.

Now on to B.C., where the Argos almost never win, especially late at night. We're fortunate that the Bombers appear to be without a viable QB. (Now that I've said that, watch Streveler go out and have the game of his life.)

[AngeloV]

I agreed with the FG down 5. You still had a timeout and were having a hard time getting on the end zone. They got the 2 and out they needed and were in position to win with the FG.

[Stevoman]

Great game by the D, not a great game by the refs, and an unfortunate mistake by our third string qb at the end.

Sorry, just saw the replay and yes, that was definitely interference. That interception is not on Doege as I thought it was. Tough loss.

[paulwoods13]

I agreed with the FG down 5. You still had a timeout and were having a hard time getting on the end zone. They got the 2 and out they needed and were in position to win with the FG.

A case can definitely be made that you take the FG and then hope your defence gets the ball back in time for a winning FG. But if that's the strategy, why did they go for it on third down three plays earlier, thereby costing themselves about 45 seconds of game time? Wouldn't you take the FG as soon as it was available, then kick off and rely on your defence?

[argolio]

Even a 2 yard gain instead of a pick makes it even moreso makeable. Dumb / sad

What if they lose a yard or two as they often did tonight?

So what - strong leg FG kickers make 60 yard kicks often now; i guess you liked the dumb pick better ?

Often? There has been one made all season.

I agreed with the FG down 5. You still had a timeout and were having a hard time getting on the end zone. They got the 2 and out they needed and were in position to win with the FG.

A case can definitely be made that you take the FG and then hope your defence gets the ball back in time for a winning FG. But if that's the strategy, why did they go for it on third down three plays earlier, thereby costing themselves about 45 seconds of game time? Wouldn't you take the FG as soon as it was available, then kick off and rely on your defence?

Argo strategy worked, but I would have gone for it on the theory that we had them on their heels and there's no guarantee we'd get another shot at it.

[AngeloV]

I agreed with the FG down 5. You still had a timeout and were having a hard time getting on the end zone. They got the 2 and out they needed and were in position to win with the FG.

A case can definitely be made that you take the FG and then hope your defence gets the ball back in time for a winning FG. But if that's the strategy, why did they go for it on third down three plays earlier, thereby costing themselves about 45 seconds of game time? Wouldn't you take the FG as soon as it was available, then kick off and rely on your defence?

I thought he should have kicked the first time too, but 48 isn’t a gimme either. Maybe he thought he’d be pressing his luck on a 2nd third down conversion. The way the D was playing, I thought it was the right call to kick, and in the end, the extra 30 seconds between the gamble and eventual kick didn’t make a difference.

[RichK]

I think it’s a bit silly for anyone to imply Dinwiddie played it too conservatively, when minutes before that he made the very bold and brave onside kick call that could have possibly won us the game had Edouard been able to hang onto the effing ball.

[paulwoods13]

It's not that he was too conservative, it's that he was inconsistent with his thought process. Either get the FG as soon as the opportunity arises, conserving time for a second possession, or keep going for it on third down in an effort to score a TD. Changing from the latter to the former seems to make little sense.

[gilthethrill]

It's not that he was too conservative, it's that he was inconsistent with his thought process. Either get the FG as soon as the opportunity arises, conserving time for a second possession, or keep going for it on third down in an effort to score a TD. Changing from the latter to the former seems to make little sense.

The chances of the offence converting 2 3rd Down Conversions on the same drive especially with an inexperienced QB making his first starts of the season were slim. The strategy worked. They got the ball back with plenty of time and with good field position.

[ArgoRavi]

It's not that he was too conservative, it's that he was inconsistent with his thought process. Either get the FG as soon as the opportunity arises, conserving time for a second possession, or keep going for it on third down in an effort to score a TD. Changing from the latter to the former seems to make little sense.

The chances of the offence converting 2 3rd Down Conversions on the same drive especially with an inexperienced QB making his first starts of the season were slim. The strategy worked. They got the ball back with plenty of time and with good field position.

I agree. All you can ask for is a chance to win the game at the end and Dinwiddie gave his team that opportunity.