Riders "get aggressive" with demotion of DC Richie Hall, but will that get them anywhere?

Reports of the Saskatchewan Roughriders staying patient (unlike fellow first-round playoff losers B.C.) following a disappointing season turned out to be exaggerated. The Roughriders didn't go full Lions and fire their head coach, but they axed offensive coordinator George Cortez shortly after the Grey Cup, and they also announced this week that defensive coordinator Richie Hall won't return in that role (he's been offered a lower yet-to-be-determined position).  In fact, head coach Corey Chamblin said he took over defensive play-calling responsibilities from Hall before the team's playoff game. It's not clear if it will be Chamblin or someone else acting as a DC next year (Chamblin said he'd prefer the latter, but is willing to do the former), but it won't be Hall. Chamblin's cited reasons? He said that the team's 10-8 record wasn't good enough, and that he wants the Riders' defence to be "more aggressive."

Whether a 10-8 record and a playoff appearance is in fact good enough, especially in a season where you lost your starting quarterback and wound up starting 41-year-old Kerry Joseph (who proved to be better than the other options!), is a matter of debate, but at least that's an accepted debate. A debate that should be held much more is whether "getting aggressive," often used as a buzzword by defensive coordinators and head coaches, is always a good thing. The way it's often used seems like a strawman; just as it's uncontroversial to advocate for world peace or being tough on crime, who doesn't want their defence to be aggressive? Certainly, no one's going to describe their defence as "passive." However, a more nuanced look at what "aggressive" actually means in football terms suggests it's not universally positive. In fact, many of the best CFL defences out there have been anything but overly aggressive, and some of the worst ones have been defined by their aggressiveness.

One of the defences that was most frequently described as "aggressive" was former Hamilton and Winnipeg defensive coordinator (and current Toronto linebackers coach) Casey Creehan's. When the Ticats hired Creehan in 2012, Cortez (then Hamilton's head coach) said "I know that Casey is capable of leading an energetic, aggressive defence here in Hamilton.”  Creehan himself told Drew Edwards then that "I see my style as high energy and aggressive," and Steve Milton wrote at the start of training camp that "If aggression had a face, he would be the one shaving it." How'd that work out? Creehan presided over one of the worst defences in CFL history, a unit that was at the bottom of the league in 11 of the 25 statistical categories the league tracks week to week (and was worst in 21 of those 25 at one point), a unit that gave up more passing yards per game and points per game than even the league-best Tiger-Cats offence was recording, a big part of why the team finished 6-12. Of course, he still managed to become Winnipeg's defensive coordinator that offseason, but that didn't exactly work out well either; the Bombers gave up a league-high 585 points and finished a CFL-worst 3-15. So, that whole aggression thing isn't always the best.

Meanwhile, what about the guys who have been known for "bend-but-don't-break" defences, which would appear to be the reverse of the "aggressive" trend? Well, one of the most notable is Rich Stubler, a defensive coordinator in this league for over three decades. Stubler won the Grey Cup with Calgary this year, and his defence was a big part of the Stampeders' league-best 15-3 regular-season record too. "Bend-but-don't-break" often implies giving up a lot of yards, but that's not always the case either. That mentality is more about sound coverages, especially deep, and challenging offences to make plays, whereas an aggressive unit is about trying to make plays themselves and force the issue rather than reacting to what offences do. If a bend-but-don't-break approach is executed well, that can lead to defensive units that give up very few yards as well as points and are dominant statistically. Look at 2012 again, where Stubler's B.C. defence was the polar opposite of Creehan's Hamilton unit, leading the CFL in 19 of 25 categories (including points and yards allowed). No one's calling Stubler "the face of aggression," but his methods certainly have worked out well over the years.

The overall takeaway here shouldn't be that aggression is always bad, or that a bend-but-don't-break strategy is always good. Both have their merits, and they can even be useful when combined. 2014's most dominant defence statistically was Edmonton's, which was led by head coach Chris Jones (known for his aggressive unconventional blitzes) and defensive coordinator Greg Marshall (often famed for a bend-but-don't-break approach), and managed to combine the best elements of both philosophies. The issue is just more that "getting aggressive" is universally seen as a positive, and it shouldn't be. As for the Riders, they've demoted a guy who's spent 23 years with the team and won three Grey Cups with them (including last year's, as DC) in favour of "getting aggressive," even though Hall's unit led the CFL in sacks in 2014 and did well in most statistical categories. That's certainly an aggressive move in its own right. We'll see if it pays off for them.