Walsh out, Shoop in.

Folks understand that I don't hold Walsh as responsible for the Raiders' offensive production (or lack thereof) beyond the efforts of the players. And, as Shell has stated in the past that he doesn't believe in firing people midseason, I doubt that this was entirely Shell's decision. My feeling is that Walsh was generating so much criticism that he was becoming a distraction, and inadvertently providing non-energized players with an excuse for the lack of player performance. Shell had no choice but to take the focus off of Walsh and place it back where it belongs. However Shell makes that decision with some danger. If the Raiders fail to improve on their record over the final five games of the season, the cross-hairs might well take new aim in Shell's direction.

Having spent much time defending Walsh, I'd now like to offer this criticism. Of note to me is the camaraderie on the defensive side of the ball. The defense plays as a cohesive unit, guided by Rob Ryan who the players respect as a leader and a colleague. It has always seemed to me that Walsh has played it somewhat aloof, distancing himself from his players and spending game time high up in the press boxes. Ryan, on the other hand, has been on the sideline, encouraging and congratulating his players as they go on and off the field. This isn't helped by the fact that Walsh has been out of the NFL for 11 years, so most players know nothing of him but what they can find in the NFL archives.

Shoop has been an OC before for the Chicago Bears. While he did help direct a 13-3 season, he was well criticized for being overly conservative (a complaint leveled at Tom Walsh in 1994), and was run out of town by the fans (much as Tom Walsh was here). Walsh, however, is not fleeing town. He's staying on the staff, accepting a demotion. May I say I respect Tom's style, and I think his input regarding the Gilman offense will be invaluable.

I have a couple of pieces of advice for John Shoop. First, don't hesitate to pick Tom's brain. Whether or not Walsh was an effective OC, his experience in the Gilman style offense is vast, having worked many a year in that system. From what I'm led to believe, Walsh is also a constant student of the tendencies of the Defensive Coordinators throughout the league. Second, take a page from Rob Ryan's book. Talk to Art Shell and see if he has a problem with your presence on the sidelines instead of the press box. Show investment in the progress of the players. If you want to become the leader that Tom Walsh could not become, experiencing success and failure in real time with your boys will take you far. This is true at all levels of management in every occupation. If the players feel that your success is their success and their failures are your failures, they will never let you down.

I wish you, John Shoop, success and good luck.

Let's talk some Raider football…

When he was hired in the off season, Art Shell said that he understood that his responsibility was to return to Raider tradition on the playing field. I've been watching Raider football since the late 1960s and I understand the Raiders game day traditions to be these:

1. Run a North/South offense that constantly threatens to attack with the deep ball.

2. Setting up that long ball requires smash-mouth, straight at you running, requiring the defense to adjust by bringing up the LBs and safeties to stop the run. The Raiders expect that opponents will attempt to stop the running game first. The Raiders don't care. They will continue to run into the line to wear down the defense by the end of the game. When the D is tired, that's when we'll strike deep.

3. "We don't take what you give us, we take what we want." This Raider mantra is largely misinterpreted. It doesn't mean that if you attempt to stop us from running, we'll run anyway. It means that to "just win, Baby," we will make you pay a price for doing that. You may hold our HB to only a few yards, but it will wear you down until you're defenseless or make you vulnerable to the long strike. We will do whatever it takes to win.

4. We will keep the game close, allowing our opponents to use up their emotion early. We might play a little "rope-a-dope" on the part of our offense while our defense punishes your RBs, WRs, and your QB.

5. We will always be prepared to win it on the last drive of the game!

I'd been trying to think of when, exactly, was the last time I've seen this tradition implemented by the Raiders. And then it finally occurred to me. I saw it just last Sunday between the Raiders and the Chiefs. It is true that Brooks made a difference with this offense. Many have said that Brooks is the only thing that worked, and his magic gave the Raiders a chance to win. I disagree.

Brooks is no different, as a QB the week before he was injured, when many fans were calling for Walter to replace him. The only difference in Brooks, between then and now, is that the OL is playing a little better and Brooks has had plenty of time to learn this offense from the book and light practices. Brooks didn't do anything exceptional. He only did the things that this offense requires a veteran, starting QB to do.

There is a hidden message contained in the Raiders assertion that they will do whatever it takes to win. When they say that, think of the "Holy Roller," think of the "Sea of Hands." It means that Raider football has improvisation built into it. The Raiders expect the QB to call audibles liberally. The Raiders expect a QB to buy time with his feet by rolling to the corner when rushed up the middle or by stepping up and finding a lane when being attacked from the sides. The Raiders don't want their QB to just stand tall in the pocket. The Raiders want their QB to do whatever it takes. Particularly, the Raiders want the QB to move around, keeping blockers between himself and the pass rushers. While the QB is moving around, the Raiders expect the WRs to break off their routs, if necessary, and move into holes vacated by blitzing DBs or LBs. If a ball is thrown low, the Raiders expect the WR to run toward the ball, thereby reducing the possibility of an interception. If the WR has completed his rout, and the QB still has the ball, the WR is expected to come back to the QB - placing the WR between the DB and the QB - giving the QB a target coming toward him instead of running away. The Raiders expect that the WRs will talk to the QB in the huddle to let him know which routs are working, and which DBs are beatable. The Raiders expect that the QB will adjust routs within a given play simply by telling the WRs in the huddle. (i.e., "Instead of cutting toward the middle, cut toward the sideline.")

These are also typical adjustments made during halftime, but the Raiders have often had the tradition of making the more minor adjustments on the fly. Halftime adjustments don't mean bringing in a different playbook, they mean adjusting the plays you brought. For instance, the coaches might have noticed that whenever the #1 WR cuts from the sideline toward the middle, the FS comes up to meet him from the other side of the field, and as an adjustment they'll inform the WR to go below the FS instead of over the top. This is an adjustment that a WR should remember to make. And this is the adjustment I believe was given to Randy Moss at halftime on Sunday. This is the adjustment that Brooks expected Moss to make when the FS came across to intercept the last Raider pass of the day.

On Sunday the Raiders played smash mouth football and kept the game close throughout. They gave up the lead, but they had the ball on the last drive of the day with all three timeouts. Brooks, adjusting to what he'd learned during the game, moved the team smartly and quickly down the field the KC 8 yard line with time to run four plays to get into the end zone. Brooks fired at Moss, expecting him to drop in front of the FS. The rest is what it is. Take away the earlier part of this season, and take away the player attitudes that have showed up in force this season, take away the negativity from the mainstream media, take away players who are more concerned with the success of their fashion line than winning the game in front of them, and you'd have a traditional Raider victory.

Would I call this team a disaster. Not hardly. To call them that is to look at the W/L record and to disregard all other information available. What I see is a team with a myriad of locker room problems and short on players at a few positions. But I also see a team on the potential cusp of greatness. Without the problems I've just identified, this team would be at least 5-4 and in the playoff hunt. Enthusiastic participation by Moss and Porter could have had this team at 6-3, or maybe even 7-2. On its current course, if Shell stays determined, I see this team in the playoffs next year. Don't think so? Well, I'll wait with you. We'll see.

The talented loser…

Do you want to know why Jerry Rice is a far greater WR than Randy Moss? Take a look at the Raiders’ 2006 season. I will acknowledge that Randy Moss is the more gifted of the two. Throw the ball up and Randy has the skill to get underneath it, fight for it, escape with it, and score with it. But will he? Sure – if he feels like it. If you keep Randy “happy” and constantly tell him that he’s the best there ever was, he’ll show up several times a game. I’ve leaned from Randy that his attitude is, “Keep making me look good so that my line of clothing and my other ventures do well, and I’ll help you win some games.”

There was never a “Jerry ratio.” Jerry Rice earned his respect on the field by learning how to get open, focusing on the catch, and moving the ball toward the goal line. Jerry’s talent wasn’t always God-given, very often he just worked hard to achieve it. I learned from Jerry that his attitude was, “I’ll do whatever it takes to give my team a chance to win.” Jerry didn’t complain because his team wasn’t making him look good. Jerry complained only when he was open but the ball went to others who weren’t. Jerry understood that as long as he was on the field, giving his best, that the ball would come to him because he was the QB’s best choice.

At the start of this season, my biggest fear was Randy Moss. That sounds odd when you say it, considering that Randy plays for my team. What I viewed as absolutely the worst case scenario has come to pass. Back then I worried that if the team did not start well because of the weakness of the offensive line (causing QBs to dump the ball early, and making the deep pass difficult), Randy would begin to pout and brood that he wasn’t getting the ball enough and the team wasn’t making him look good enough. I worried that the lack of leadership on this offensive unit would come home to roost, unable to battle the fact that the teams’ most talented player refused to show up. You think I’m wrong? Randy says I’m right. It comes right from the horse’s mouth.

Sunday afternoon, without the help of Randy Moss, the Raiders were on the cusp of winning a major victory (not for the season, but for the organization). The Raiders were seven yards from scoring the winning touchdown after leading most of the day. The heavy lifting by WRs on Sunday came from Curry and Whitted. But on what turned out to be the Raiders last offensive play of the day, Brooks looked to “the man” for the win. Running the ball was fairly out of the question because the Raiders had no time-outs and only a few seconds. Brooks made his one bad call of the day and fired the pass to Randy Moss strolling in the back of the end zone. A defender stepped in front, in full view of Randy, and intercepted while Randy watched with limited interest. One could almost hear Randy mutter under his breath, “If I’m not getting my touches all game long, don’t be lookin’ for me at the end of the game.”

And this, I maintain, is what’s been wrong with the Raiders this year. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t believe this team was destined for the playoffs, but I do believe that they would have done better than last year had they not had the attitude problems on offense. The defense started this year on shaky ground. But they have come together as a unit with the on-field leadership of Sapp and the side-line energy of Rob Ryan. The offense has been burdened by Jerry Porter and Randy Moss, the two players most counted upon in the off season to provide life and spark. The Raider organization did these two players the honor of saying openly and publicly that the organization’s success this year would depend on these two talents. The organization has been rewarded for that public identification with blackmail and indifference. I hereby dedicate this Raiders’ season to the league’s two most talented losers.

Just a quick one:

We're hung up on Tom Walsh because the media tells us to be. "Walsh has been out of the NFL for years, and he's been mayor of a small town and the general manager of a bed-and-breakfast. Obviously the man's a loser. He's… [wait for it]… PREDICTABLE." The reason I've argued against that meme from the beginning is the danger it represents to accountability. Now, ineffective QB Andrew Walter has latched on to it as his new EXCUSE. Walter needs to understand that nobody expected anything from him but a struggling rookie. When Walter has started more than seven games, and has learned how to fake a hand off, and has developed a sense for pressure, and can take a snap during the climax of a game without fumbling, he can criticize coaches who have forgotten far more football than he will ever learn. As far as I'm concerned, that goes for the national and local media as well.

According to the Broncos, there was nothing "predictable" about the Raiders' offense on Sunday. The Raiders' offense kept them off balance all afternoon, and the Broncos were glad to win it. Imagine how much more effective the Raiders would have been if Moss hadn't decided to go "pouty" on Sunday.

When Shell came back to the Raiders he said one thing that was definitely right. The lunatics had taken over the assylum. We have one WR who told Shell during their first meeting, "I don't want you to be the coach, I want Mike Martz, so trade me." We have another WR who tells us he's just not happy enough, and until he's happy he'll continue to have alligator arms and make half assed attempts. We have tackles who look more like swinging doors. These same players were on Turner's team, which only managed 9 wins in two seasons. But now that they have returned for 2006, these players are a product of Walsh's "predictable" play calling. As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with Walsh's play calling that sound execution couldn't fix. Just, as it turned out, there was nothing wrong with Ryan's play calling that sound execution couldn't fix. I suggest that we now give Shell and Walsh the same chance to fix the problems on the other side of the ball.

It's time to let Brooks back in there to see what he can do.

Slow improvement...

First, let me say that I haven’t joined the “the problem is Tom Walsh” crowd. I’ve never felt that, and I still don’t. The reason has always been that I’ve never seen an offensive scheme carried out with the exception of the first quarter against Arizona. And then it worked fine. I saw a hint of it in the second game against Denver.

I don’t feel I can second guess Walsh regarding whatever play he calls in a particular circumstance. Any situation has a dozen possibilities, and Walsh has more information from the sideline than I do (bimbo sideline reporters not withstanding).

Many argue that Walsh should call more screens and short passes to slow down the rush. Screens and short passes were not designed to substitute for a weak OL. I see these plays called in almost every game, but a screen doesn’t look much different than a deep pass if the QB still gets sacked. Some screens and short passes take longer to develop than a deep pass so the line is still required to maintain blocks. Quick hitting plays weren’t designed to sustain a drive. They were designed to catch the defense off guard. If you make them a regular staple, you don’t catch the defense off guard and you are continually stuffed at the line of scrimmage. It is crucial, in this offense, that the OL pick up their assignments and maintain their blocks to the whistle. The Raiders have not had a player do that well since “the Wiz.” Added to that is the fact that each player is playing a new position, using a different technique, and I think that might just be a bigger problem than questionable play calling.

Andrew Walter is a man with too much weight on his shoulders, and I’d like to see Shell give Brooks another shot. Under the category of things that are suddenly crystal clear, saying that AWal is just like a rookie because he didn’t play his rookie season understates the issue. Walter didn’t play in his college post season because he was injured. He was injured early in 2005. So not only didn’t he play, he didn’t practice. AWal is a rookie who hasn’t practiced for a year before this season. Now he feels he’s being told, “Lead the Oakland Raiders to victory against their most storied rivals.” When looking at it in that light you begin to understand the fumbled snaps and the sacks.

There is no refinement in Walter’s game. His fakes are almost unnoticeable, he makes poor decisions, and he has, again, developed happy feet. What Walter should be doing (and I’m sure he’s being so coached) is to only use as much time as he has. If he only has time for his first read, he should make the throw or throw it away. Instead, Walter will stand there and wait for receivers to come open, knowing that there is no pocket, because he thinks the onus is on him to pick up positive yardage on every play. He’s stood up admirably, but one wonders if he is nearing the breaking point.

There are those who argue that Walsh and Shell should be working in plays from other offensive systems which these players are more familiar or capable of running. I’d agree if what we were trying to do was to find an offense to fit these players - as Bill Walsh did with the 49ers. But we are attempting the opposite. We have a system, and we are invested in finding players to fit it. This has been described to me has attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole. On the contrary. The round hole is now the Gilman system, and we are looking for round players.

A missing ingredient on offense (until this week) has been that of a leader. The defense has benefited by the guiding personality of Sapp, with all of the players on that unit submitting themselves to his game day leadership. Moss is not a leader, and no other player on offense has been established enough to make a difference. How that is beginning to change I will explain below.

The argument regarding Walsh seems misplaced. Where the argument squarely sits is whether the Raiders are doing the right thing by emphasizing the Gilman without the players capable of running it. To me that is the one and only controversy, and I currently am on board with what the Raiders are attempting. I think we will succeed, but I think it will take a significant amount of time.

But there are some good things happening here. Against Denver, the Raiders' OL played significantly better, even without Sims, Gallery and, for a time, Grove. Why would the line play better with three injuries? I have two theories.

The first is that it has been reported since training camp that the defense, well ahead of the offense, virtually stymies the offense in practice. This is like a 98 pound athlete trying to learn to wrestle against a 300 pounder. The second team OL takes on competition that allows them to see how plays are supposed to look when they are carried out correctly. Each unit on this team improves once they witness what success looks like.
With the surviving players on the line playing with extra attention to detail in order to accommodate the second teamers during the game, and the second teamers with a visual understanding of their goal, the line plays more solid, but still out of sync.

Second is that there is leadership emerging from the RB position. In recent weeks, because of injuries, Art Shell has been going with a committee at that position. That means stepping up the playing time for Crockett, the natural leader on the Raiders' offense. The small unit of RBs is starting to mirror the attitude of the successful defensive unit. Part of the reason that Walter had more time on Sunday afternoon was because the RBs are picking up their blocks! Hopefully Shell will recognize and nurture this seedling, and help it grow throughout the offensive unit.

In the long run, it looks like there are still significant attitude problems on the offensive unit, and I estimate that 3 to 5 players will need to be replaced through free agency and the draft. The Raiders should spend their off season retaining all of their starters on the defensive side of the ball, and seeking improvements on the OL, at TE, and possibly at QB. These pickups should be made looking for maturity and leadership.

Ultimately, however, the final Denver game of the season was decided by an inability to finish the game. Finishing the game is usually the last accomplishment in the development of an NFL unit. Once the skills are learned, players begin to play the whole game. We won't see this unit finish games until the OL has solidified its skills.

I think this team will finish better than it finished the previous two years. The last two years finished on a downward spiral. This season will finish on the rise, but the team won't start winning in streaks until next season.

Note: Are the booth officials now looking at replays that the TV audience doesn't see? On two occasions, the booth officials made calls on instant replay that were contrary to what I saw on TV.

I thought there would be a game on ESPN...

I don't know that I will be able to post on Tuesday, so I'm writing in the 4th quarter during the game. I likely will add some thoughts during the week.

Is there nobody who can broadcast a football game on Monday night? I tuned in expecting to see the Raiders play the Seahawks. But there wasn't anything on but an interview and highlight show with some idiot named Tony Kornheiser.

The OL still is... well, not very good. But I've lost my faith in Andrew Walter. Tonight he showed a combination of skills ranging from Drew Bledsoe to Mark Wilson. He has no mobility and negates his quick release because he holds the ball too long. In order to avoid incompletions, he takes sacks. He has absolutely no sense of where the pocket is. Granted, with this OL whatever pocket exists is ragged, but the QB needs to find it none the less. Walter steps up, but he doesn't step up into anything and keeps moving without looking for someplace to unload the ball. He is not helping this OL. For some reason he decided this was his night to pass when the running game would have set the stage. I'd like to see Brooks get another shot.

This is not a Walsh problem. This is a bad QB problem. Walsh pulled out everything tonight - shotgun formations, screens, short passes, screens - Walter had all of it to use but used none of it effectively.

Moss is still dropping passes. I don't think it's lack of effort, he's just dropping passes.

One criticsm for Rob Ryan. Caveman, when you're confronted with a young running QB you need to employ a spy. The QB is going to run whenever he's unsure. You have to cut that lane off, discourage him from doing so and force him to throw or be sacked.

There will be no turn around this season. The best option for Shell is to keep on keeping on, and then find what tools become available in the off season. He will certainly have a good idea what he needs and the test for Shell will be whether or not he finds it. I think reintroducing Brooks would be a good idea. It might give us a chance to see if this offense can be more effective, and it might light a fire under Walter. If he is "the real deal" he'll respond to the pressure.

And one more thing... I've found that there are play action passes in this offense. It's just that, apparently, neither Walter nor Jordan know how to fake a hand off. So there are play action passes, they are just difficult to pick out. One of the crucial elements of the Gilman is that you have to sell the play action, and this is a skill that players learn early and often. Between Walter and Jordan - they couldn't sell a bottle of water to a man dying of thirst.

What will it be?

"'When I looked at it on film, it was like, Wow ... that was a pretty nice play,' [Kirk] Morrison said. 'But it happened so fast. In the game it seemed like the ball was in the air forever. It was like it all happened in slow motion.'"

And this is why the defense is playing so well. This is the third year Rob Ryan has been building this defense, and it appears that the players have finally gotten it. Several have reported that when they are on the field, the game slows down for them. This is the dynamic conflagration of knowledge and athleticism.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the ball, the players have been introduced to their third offense in four years. Every member of the offensive line has been asked to change position. Some, like Gallery and Grove, have changed position three times. At the same time, the Raiders have also had numerous changes at Quarterback. We started in 2003 with Gannon, but finished with Mirer. We started 2004 with Gannon, and finished with Collins. We started 2005 with Collins and, unfortunately finished with Collins. We started 2006 with Brooks, and we're currently working on Walter (who never took an NFL snap before this season started).

Shell and Walsh (and the assistant coaches) are attempting to teach a style of blocking that has been largely discarded in the NFL in recent years. The style of blocking the Raiders are instilling is a straight up, confrontational style, as opposed to a misdirect/redirect method preferred by the West Coast offense. It seeks to blow a hole open for a running back rather than to trick the Defensive Lineman/Linebacker into vacating the hole. It seeks to create a wall around the Quarterback on passing plays until the whistle is blown, as opposed to keeping the Defensive Lineman/Linebacker off balance and directing him away from the Quarterback. The footwork between the two is vastly different. The difference between the two styles is on a par with the difference in style between Mohammad Ali (West Coast) and George Foreman (Gilman). But don't kid yourself into thinking that one is finesse and the other is brute strength. Both require solid foundational skills. They just use leverage for different ends. Perhaps the reason no teams commit fully to the Gilman now is because they anticipate the problems that Shell is going through, attempting to retrain linemen used to a not-so-different technique, but different enough.

One can expect that virtually every member of the Raiders' Offensive Line has practiced the modern style, if not his whole football career, the last many years. They can understand it intellectually, but in the heat of battle memory motors cause them to react as they have in past games. This is accentuated when defensive linemen and linebackers attack against the modern technique.

Most of the change is required to be performed by the tackles. This is why the center of the Raider line finally seems to be solidifying, while the tackles are still giving up sacks. The West Coast doesn't worry as much about the tackles. If the WC tackles can just push their assignments to the outside, the Quarterback gets the ball off so fast he won't have to worry about the Defensive Ends. In the Gilman, where the Quarterback must hang onto the ball a little longer, the tackles have to worry about the DEs, the OLBs, and the CBs. The tackles must learn to "pass off" assignments to an inside lineman, TE, or an RB, and move to another man. The inside linemen, the TEs, and the RBs must also learn to receive assignments passed off to them. This is very likely why Shell and Walsh are attempting to keep the offense as simple as possible ("vanilla" in the vernacular of some).

We haven't noticed so much that Ryan has been running a "vanilla" defense while linemen have been learning to play like linebackers, and linebackers have been learning to play like defensive backs. Ryan said just recently that he's now getting comfortable enough with the way the players are responding that he can begin to add some complexity, which will make the defense even more dynamic.

We are impatient with the offense, and rightfully so. We've waited three years for this team to win more than five games in a season. But learning something this different will take time. Perhaps more time than this season can provide. However, as the defense is playing so well, the Raiders understand that they can win more than they lose if they can just put up 17 points per game. This is both the goal and the dilemma for the Raiders. If they want to continue to rebuild the Gilman as the foundational Raider offense, they must continue what they've started. If they mix in a little West Coast with their Gilman in order to squeeze out an extra TD or two in the short run, how will it damage what they are trying to do in the long run. The fastest way to teach someone Spanish is to only allow them to speak Spanish, and the same is true with football fundamentals.

My hope is that there are so many years of football knowledge on this coaching staff that the coaches will put their heads together and come up with a creative solution that will satisfy both needs before the season is lost. What is needed here is a uniquely Raider solution. Undoubtedly, three years from now (the same amount of time taken by the defense) the game will slow down for this offense. But will Raider fans wait three years? I'm sure that Shell does not expect them to, so I expect to see the beginnings of a solution when the Raiders play the Seahawks. What will it be?