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.
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.
posted by BlandaRocked at 9:10 AM
36 Comments:
Sorry BR, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I believe the system Walter operated in college was far more dynamic than the Raiders current system x 10. I don't think his rants about the playcalling were unmeritted. He's more or less saying the reason we can't make adjustments in the second half is because more plays don't exist in the gameday playbook. He has nothing else to draw upon.
His argument seems to revolve around the speed of the game and giving him an opportunity to get rid of the ball, which our coaches resist by using deep-step playcalling (despite poor O-line play).
Honestly, I'm surprised to hear you endorse Brooks. In my mind, that solves nothing. Brooks and his inflated salary should be gone next year. We need to study the Walter project to completion. That means working him through the O-line problems etc. Remember, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Using Brooks is a waste of your time and mine. Let's see now if we need to hire another gun, or draft one next year.
nyraider:
Before this season, Walter hadn't played or practiced in over a year, and he's shown every bit of it. If he's starting now to make excuses by blaming his coaches, I'm not buying in.
I'll give you a for instance. On that last snap that Walter fumbled the play called, according to Shell, was supposed to be run out of the shotgun. Shell says he has no idea why Walter decided to line up behind center. What does Walter do? He goes to the press and complains that it's Walsh's fault for being predictable. He didn't come up with that word on his own. A member of "our media" asked if it was because Walsh was "predictable." So Walter says, "eh, yeah, that's the ticket." Meanwhile, from the Bronco locker room, those guys were saying nothing was predictable. The Raider offense caught them off guard the whole game and they felt lucky to get out of here with the win.
This is not the mark of an NFL QB. I don't believe that Brooks is either, but I'd like to see how Walsh's offense is SUPPOSED to work. Currently the OL is doing better, but the QB isn't. And if he's now making excuses for himself, his current development may have been arrested. I don't think drafting a rookie is the answer. I'd like to find out what will be on the open market come March.
I will say this...on the opportunities in which Walter was able to stand upright for longer than two seconds, he often either overthrew the ball or held on to it too long (probably because he was making the most of the opportunity).
Right now I could go either way on Walter or Brooks. Part of me wants to see what Brooks can do and whether or not his mobility will help revitalize this offense.
On the other hand, the Raiders are 2-7 and are nowhere near a playoff spot. If Walter is the future...something I'm still not sold on mostly because of Al Davis' past resistance on developing QBs internally...then he should play every snap so that he gets more experience under his belt and can make strides for next year.
Being as this is a history blog, I'd like to bring up a reason why it's not the media that says Walsh can't run an efficient NFL offense, it's history...
http://www.raidernews.com/article.php
?story=20060929050548480
Whaddya think, Blandarocked? Was it the players that made this offense mildly successful in the past? Sure sounds like it...And right now, the Raiders don't have the talent to cover for Walsh's flaws.
BR: there's definitely a case for Walter being responsible for his own mistakes, but we don't need to be football experts to see the lack of dynamic offered in the second half. As I mentioned on RT, some of us watching the first half were amazed at the quality playcalling, but also dumbfounded by the lack of adjustment in the second half, when clearly the Donkeys were bringing more pressure.
BTW, I read somewhere that Grove was injured late in the game and that Treu was at center during the fumbled snap. Treu is by trade a long-snapper, so there may be a valid reason why Walter was not in the shotgun.
I think we need to stick by our guns and fully commit the remainder of this season to R&D. That means leaving Walter in there and perhaps playing other young guys more so that they may gain experience. Regardless of whether or not Walsh stays, this team can be ready for prime time next season.
horsecollar:
I've read Westsidepirate's article, but I don't happen to agree with it, or his recollection of history. Yes, I agree that Hostettler and Brown said those things about Walsh's offense in 1994. But the fact is that the Raiders didn't have the horses to run this offense in '94 either. In fact, we didn't have the horses (the same guys) to run the WC that White instilled in '95 and '98 (when White went 8-8 & 7-9). The fact just is - we didn't have the horses. Just like now. We didn't have the horses in Turner's first year when he went 5-11, nor his second year when we went 4-12.
The problem with this team isn't Walsh. The problem with this team is we.don't.have.the.horses! We can replace Walsh, just like we replaced Shell, White, Bugel, Callahan, and Turner. But we still won't have the horses!
We ran the same offense in 1993 and made it deep into the playoffs - losing to the eventual AFC champions.
sorry - '95 & '96.
BR: So that gives Tom Walsh two options. 1. Adapt to your personnel and play a system that maximizes their ability, or 2. continue to ram that square peg into that round hole.
So far, it appears Walsh is going with #2.
Why not just ditch the whole "Commitment to Excellence" and go with "Commitment to Stubbornness"?
BR: I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but shouldn't good coaching be able to identify and exploit the strengths of its players? Case and point: Rob Ryan on defense. His first year was a bust with the 3-4, playing DE's at LB, etc. He rather quickly adjusted back to 4-3 and even over-playing nickle and dime packages in order to compensate our then glaring weakness at LB. Talk about adjustments on the fly.
At the end of the day, it's the responsibility of the coaches to make necessary adjustments to compensate for player weaknesses. I'm just not seeing that with our offense.
If the players are to blame exclusively, then that goes right to the top. 1-800-Al-Davis.
Exactly!
And by the way, in case anyone's wondering, 1-800-Al-Davis appears to be a porn number.
Doobie and NY Raider:
First, I don't believe that Al Davis selects every player. I don't even know why people believe that. The coaches make their selections based on what they need and Davis has veto power. No coach has ever said different. Only the media has. If you guys have inside knowledge somewhere that says different, I'd like to see it.
The Raiders have made the decision (which I agree with) to go back to their signature offense (which is not outdated or unused). It is true that this offense expects more from the OL than the WC, but that means you get better players. It doesn't mean you compromise the system.
I'd remind you both that Ryan did attempt to fit square pegs in round holes. He tried to make LBs out of Irons and Brayton, and a DE out of Sapp. It's true he adjusted from that after his first year when he went to a 4-3 that still didn't work, but it improved. It didn't go well until he had the horses.
When a QB with 7 starts under his belt has the knowledge to critize ANY coach in the NFL, I'll show you a prodegy - a genius! Andy Walter ain't it.
We have one wide receiver who thinks that even though he's never even had a 1000 yard season, he should be consulted on which coach the owner hires. We have another WR who doesn't want to play when he gets pouty. We have two tackles who look like swinging doors. We have a TE with bricks for hands. We have running backs who can't block. We have QB with a total of seven starts who didn't even take part in practice last year.
This is obviously all Walsh's fault. Get rid of Walsh, and we're back in the playoffs! Please.
Sorry, I disagree. The problem does lie mostly with Walsh and the coaching staff in my eyes.
We don't have the horses? Well, how stupid is that excuse. If Walsh doesn't have the "horses" to run the offense he's running, then duhhhh....change it to fit the personnel until you do get the horses. It's stubborn idiocy to keep running this limited offense AND LOSING.
And the rest of the coaching staff is supposed to teach and prepare these guys every week. They're just not doing a good job of it.
And your analogy to Ryan running the 3-4 in the past? Well, that was stubborn and idiotic as well. They should have adjusted and switched to the 4-3. Instead, they just kept allowing massive yardage and LOSING until they finally did switch to the 4-3. The horses didn't change much at all on the defensive line....as a matter of fact, Brayton is still a major weakness at RDE in that 4-3. If the Raiders can pick up a strong RDE that can put some pressure on the QB and Schweigert learns to tackle and play the ball better at FS, this D will really be special.
Walter finally spoke the truth. I admire him for that. And I don't think he was prodded by the media. He was mum until now. I think these crap game plans he's being given have finally got him fed up. Nine out of ten Raider Nation members agree with him. For Pete's sake, this shite is happening week in and week out through nine weeks. Make adjustments. Play your best players. Get more short passes in. Run the ball more against teams when you can (e.g. only 11 rushes at Seattle) and run less against teams that are strong versus the run (e.g. why the 26 rushes vs Denver?). Get a clue!
Granted, Walter missed some open guys and had those fumbles, but I feel for the guy and the beating he's taking every week. For his health's sake, perhaps Brooks should start a game or two. His mobility might help.
"Meanwhile, from the Bronco locker room, those guys were saying nothing was predictable. The Raider offense caught them off guard the whole game...."
Yeah right...off guard to the tune of a whopping 13 points. A whole 240 offensive yards. Are you kidding me?
Bro, you're over-analyzing the situation and giving the OC way too little or no blame.
I disagree with BlandaRocked about not having the horses. The last time Walsh and crew were here started in the middle of the season in '89. '90 on, we had Bo Jackson for awhile, with a stud offensive line, a hall of fame offensive line.
We also had good core of receivers with Tim Brown, Willie Gault, and Mervyn Fernandez. We had Jay Schroeder who became KFC incarnate, and Steve Buerlien who became Marques Tuiasosopo incarnate, at QB. In '93, after Schroeder left, is when we picked up Hostettler, who only played with us 3 years.
So don't tell me that we didn't have the horses, because we did. We had above average talent offensively and defensively. And when Bo went down to injury, Walsh was forced to use Allen, but wanted him to run over people the way Bo did, when Marcus was a cut and slash guy.
We have the talent now, and I agree with Doobie, Horsecollar, X, and NYRaider that this is a Walsh issue.
No "horses" my ass! It is a offensive coordinator problem. Lack of ingenuity, creativity, and adjusting from a guy who's never played a snap; but spent his life as an "analyst and coordinator".
BR: Common sense dictates that Al Davis has more than a little say in the draft. Otherwise, why do we keep drafting the same position every year, despite different head coaches from year to year. And we consistently draft speed over other tangible attributes, which is a trademark of Al Davis.
When it comes to player acquisitions, Al Davis is your man.
We all want the offense to be successful under whatever program will work, but the coaches (and we as fans) have to be able to separate theory from reality. In theory, we should be able to implement the program being placed on the table with the players we have. In reality, we cannot. Therefore, the coaches need to make adjustments, even if only over the short-term until the "correct" personnel can be acquired.
To your comments on specific players, I don't think anyone would argue with you that these players are not performing on a professional and personal level, regardless of the offensive system.
There is an incredible irony that Moss, with all his rants, is still on the field (and a Captain of the offense), but Porter, who has had minimal if any media exposure, is on the sideline (in Shell's doghouse).
To this point, Shell is a hypocrite... talking about accountability and putting the best players on the field for this team to succeed. That's BS!
Interesting. I remember at the beginning of the season, most members of the Raider Nation were glad that Shell was here, and tired of the "lunitics running the asylum." Now that the team is 2-7, it's time to put the lunatics back in charge. I guess we've had a lot of success with that... 4-12, 5-11, 4-12.
BR - As usual, you write a very thought provoking post. However I respectfully disagree with your basic premise that it isn't Walsh's fault for the poor offensive production.
I'm not suggesting that the offensive woes are completely, 100% Walsh's fault. There is plenty of blame to go around. And I'm certainly not an apologist for Walter. He needs to be more accurate with his passess, have a better sense of the pocket and have a timer in his head to get rid of the ball.
As has been said earlier by some of the other posters, the 1st half playcalling was fine. The problem has been when it comes to the 2nd half. In the 2nd half, the opponent adjusts to what we are running and the Raiders have no answer.
Is it a mere coincidence that the Raiders have scored only 19 points in all of the 2nd halfs combined? To put this number in perspective, consider the following; The Chargers scored more points (21) in the 4th Q vs. Cincy last Sunday than the Raiders have scored (19) in all of the 2nd halfs combined which is the equivalent of 18 quarters of play. We have been shut out in the 2nd half in 4 games. We average less (2.1 pts) than a FG per 2nd half.
I also come at this problem with the offense from a slightly different angle or perspective. Assuming we "don't have the horses", isn't this an even more compelling reason for Walsh to adapt and modify his schemes, personnel groupings, and playcalling? Wouldn't this be another reason for Walsh to open his mind (and playbook) to accomodate his current personnel?
It's been suggested that Jimmy Johnson be brought in, to do for the Raiders what he did for Miami. Johnson was able to take Dallas to two Super Bowls. Interesting how that came about. After a decade of having the first pick in the draft, Johnson came to Dallas, looked around, and realized he had some pretty good athletes. And he used them. After winning the Super Bowls, Johnson figured it was time to take over ownership responsibilities. Jones sort of objected to that and fired Johnson.
Johnson looked for an opportunity to take over all authority for some NFL team, promising to make them a dynasty. Don Shula, at the end of a glorious career was struggling in Miami, so Miami made Johnson supreme dictator of their organization. He quickly turned the prior Shula season (9-7) around and went 8-8. He didn't do any better the next year. He claimed it was because he burned out. I guess all of that responsibility can do that to you. In 1999, he said he'd had enough and retired. Miami hadn't had enough so they begged him to come back, and hired Wannstedt to act as his assistant head coach. Wannstedt would take over the defense to make Johnson's job easier. Indeed, Johnson took the Dolphins to the Divisional Playoff game. But since Johnson's relationship with the players, and particularly Marino, had turned to crap, the Jaguars eeked out a victory over the dynamic Dolphins, 62-7. That was both Johnson's and Marino's last game.
Since then, Johnson has stated that he'd love to do the same thing for the Raiders as he did for Miami, if Al Davis would only agree to completely step aside. I'm almost certain we could convince Al to let that happen. Aren't you?
Calico:
I have no answer to your questions. I'd have to be on the inside to give you an answer to that. I agree that blaming Walsh is the easiest answer, but I'm not sure it's the right one. In the Raiders' earliest games they fell behind early, and their pass offense is their weakest link. They didn't score much in the 2nd half of those games because they had to throw. In the later games, where they took a half time lead, they've been focusing on just not turning the ball over and playing very conservative. Opening up the offense in the 2nd half might make them win... But it also might make them lose by even bigger scores.
However, Walter is still giving up the turnovers when they're playing conservative. In light of that, I would expect to see Walsh begin to open up the playbook. They might even bring Brooks back in.
Oh, and about Johnson. I forgot to mention how superior his draft choices were to Al Davis'. John Avery and Yatil Green! Yummy!
BR: The Walsh issue aside, let me clarify that I am a huge Art Shell fan... always have been always will be. However, I don't understand the hypocrisy of his assertion that the best players are being put on the field, while Jerry Porter sits. And, Shell continues to deny it's a disciplinary thing. IT MAKES NO SENSE.
OK, there's a 99.99999% chance Porter is gone next year. In the interim, Raiders are paying him a lot of money for nothing (also see Moss example). Raiders are actually doing Porter a huge favor. He gets to sit and protect his assets, while getting paid major bling$$$
Why not put him on the field and abuse him. Let's place him in harms way... throw to him over the middle and often. He's not dumb enough to intentionally sabotage his career, and there's no reason to believe he would.
Meanwhile, I believe Art Shell has a great capacity to be a "big picture" guy (e.g., head coach), but he needs his coordinators and position coaches to micro-manage. Art probably shouldn't be held accountable for the week-to-week discombobulations of the offense, but certainly should be held accountable for their long-term performances and ineptness.
The sad thing is that Shell is being made a fool by inexperienced o-line coaching (HOFers don't always make good coaches), unimaginative and ineffective playcalling, poor individual and (offensive) team execution, as well as his own stubborness to play his best players.
Somebody has to tell the emperor he's not wearing any clothes... and stop the bleeding.
BR - A couple quick points of clarification;
You said the following in one of your comments "We can replace Walsh, just like we replaced Shell, White, Bugel, Callahan, and Turner. But we still won't have the horses!"
Replacing an OC and replacing a HC are entirely 2 different and distinct propositions. We might not have all the horses on offense but that doesn't excuse Walsh/Shell's inability to adapt a sensible plan for 06.
The answers to my rhetorical questions below which I posted previously are "yes" and "yes".
("Assuming we "don't have the horses", isn't this an even more compelling reason for Walsh to adapt and modify his schemes, personnel groupings, and playcalling? Wouldn't this be another reason for Walsh to open his mind (and playbook) to accomodate his current personnel?)
When I mention opening up the playbook, I am not implying a risky type offense. I mean to include a greater variety of short pass plays and being more creative with the play calls.
Calico:
This is where I'm having the problem. I don't see anything substantially deficient in the playbook. What I see is a limited, first year offense, which will expand as the players become familiar with it. This is the same as any team installing a new system. Gruden went through it the first year, and expanded it each year thereafter.
I don't see anything particularly "unimaginative" in Walsh's play calling. You call plays, generally, to meet the situation. You come into a game with about three or four plays designed to meet a particular situation, and you chose between them based on what the defense is doing. This makes sense to me because Walter has started 7 games. Walter didn't practice last year after the first week. You don't hand him the same playbook that you'd hand to Rich Gannon. And whatever is in the playbook, about a third of the time you can't decern what play was called because the OL didn't even give it time to develope into anything.
It's not as though Walter is being asked to do a 5 or 7 step drop on every pass play. Even when he takes a 3 step drop, he holds onto the ball for too long. He doesn't seem to have any kind of handle on the idea that after the first read, only check down if you have the time. If the primary receiver isn't open, over throw the field.
Trust me, Walter is every bit as aware of the deficiencies of this OL as Walsh. It's not Walsh who's telling Walter to hold onto the ball until somebody comes open. Walter's making that decision all on his own, and I assure you that Walsh is telling him just the oposite.
Walsh didn't lose the 2nd half of the game against Denver. Walter, again, did that all on his own. He had the time to throw, and he had people open, but he badly misfired on several occasions. He was told to work out of the Shotgun toward the end of the game, yet he went under center and fumbled the snap, ending the game.
I understand that folks view Walter as a rookie and they want to give him some slack. But Walsh has to rely on the rookie. Don't we owe him a little slack as well?
BR - I'm sure we could go around and around on this forever. Here are a few counter-points to consider:
- You say "And whatever is in the playbook, about a third of the time you can't decern what play was called because the OL didn't even give it time to develope into anything."
THAT IS MY POINT EXACTLY! You just made my point for me. If your OL is only able to give Walter 3 seconds, then give him plays that develop quickly.
- You say that the playbook isn't deficient but Walter said otherwise.
The guy made comments to the effect that he wants more quick developing plays, outlets, slants, shorter passes etc called. He was literally begging for a more complex offense to combat the pass rush and adjust to what the defenses has been doing in the 2nd halfs.
This makes perfect sense to me on a lot of different levels. Clearly the protection hasn't been good which we can all agree upon. The 2nd half production has been non-existent. This isn't an accident or fluke. It gives credence to the fact that the Raiders offensive playbook doesn't have an answer to the adjustments made by the defense. Making adjustments in the 2nd half is done by being able to call on a variety of offensive sets/plays that can be run successfully. We all know that the slow developing, read and react plays are for the most part doomed from the snap because the O-Line cannot sustain their blocks long enough.
A simple example of a common sense play would be to use a 2nd TE as a release valve or safety outlet. 1 TE blocks while the other releases. Walter can look down the field for his primary receiver. If this primary receiver isn't open, he knows that the TE will be there for a short gain.
I realize that Walter does tend to hold the ball too long and has been inaccurate at times. Give him a short outlet and watch as his accuracy rises and there isn't a need to hold on to the ball waiting for an open receiver.
Lastly, it is true Walter is in no way near the stage of his career where he can run a super complicated, thick playbook like a veteran (Gannon). However I would venture to say that his playbook at ASU was more complex than his current book. ASU had a very sophisticated, complex passing offense while Walter ran it. Let's not forget, he did set the Pac 10 record for most career TD passes.
As a team, when you have given up 47 sacks, have a 2-7 record, and our dead last in offense, the least you can do is accomodate your QB's needs and tailor the playcalls to negate the leaky pass protection.
Yeah I get it PantyRaider.
Shell was brought back to implement the "Raiders O" come hell or high water. I can be patient in waiting for the development of the players and acquiring new players to fit the system as long as there are demonstrated and tangible improvements along the way.
Like any good business plan, Shell/Walsh should have a willingness to alter, massage, tweak, and fine tune the original blueprint to get the best results. It is not constructive or practical to have such a strict, iron clad plan that can't be altered to meet the current challenges.
The team's fortunes rest on Shell/Walsh's ability to adapt, change, evolve with the goal of improving.
Also, the so called Raiders O, vertical offense, stretch offense, Gilliam offense or whatever you want to call it has many layers, textures, subtleties, and nuances to it.
It might be known for the long pass plays and power rushing but that should never exclude all of the other options and offensive plays available that can be incorporated and run in a successful offense.
For example, since when did the committment to "Raiders O" include using the RBs and TEs so infrequently in the passing game? Since when did the committment to the "Raiders O" include using the short to intermediate comebacks and square-ins so infrequently?
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a whole range of offensive plays that are being under-utilized but would have a better chance for success under the current circumstances ... The current circumstances meaning a leaky O-Line.
The old "Playcalling vs. Execution" argument is futile. It is never should come down to an either/or type debate. The playcalling should enhance the execution. If you've got O-Linemen that can sustain their blocks long enough to consistently run long, developing, read and react type pass plays, why run it? To prove a point? To get your QB killed? If and when we get an OL unit that can wall off solid protection for the QB then you use these types of plays. In the meantime, why continue to shoot yourself in the foot? Why not dial up the plays that gives your personnel the best chance to succeed.
At the end of the day, all anyone (players, coaches, and fans) cares about is the end result...a "W".
BR,
You said the Donkeys were quoted as seeing nothing predictable with the Raiders offense. Where's the source of that? I don't see it anywhere.
I found this snid bit directly out of the Donkeys' mouths on their website:
"We all said we were going to make a play," said defensive tackle Kenard Lang, who had two sacks and a forced fumble. "Everybody on their own is trying to do the best they can."
Safety John Lynch said Coyer and the defensive staff made some changes at halftime that helped spark the strong finish.
"You always make subtle adjustments but it's not like we came out blitzing the house or anything," he said. "I think when they started releasing the tight end we thought we could get there with our front four… Finally we made some plays. We had to create some turnovers because they played some outstanding defense today, as they have been."
This tells me that the Raiders had a good first half plan, but had no adjustments for the second half! IF the defense can make an adjustment to what the Raiders are doing in the second half, and look for them to do certain things; they create turnovers. If the Raiders make adjustments to capitalize what they did in the first half, then those "opportunities" do not happen. This is Walsh's fault! He is the OC that needs to understand this. Is his system flawed? NO! Not in the first half, but what is he trying to accomplish with this system? How is he setting his system up to succeed? Bottom line, he's not doing anything to help his system succeed. Trying to do the same thing over and over, and expect different results is the definition of insanity.
"It's been suggested that Jimmy Johnson be brought in, to do for the Raiders what he did for Miami."
Why is everyone continuing to bring up Jimmy Johnson as Head Coach? I don't understand this. Al approached Jimmy after Callahan was canned. Jimmy said he doesn't want to coach; on Fox Sports. At the time he said it, nobody knew who or what he was talking about. He said h e was approached by a friend to coach for him, and in turn he suggested Norv to be the coach.
Everybody was guessing different teams at the time, but when Al hired Norv, nobody expected that it was Al Davis who approached Jimmy until the announcement was made that Norv was the Head Coach.
Jimmy doesn't want the job.
In the argument of Davis picking his players, and coaches don't have a say. I disagree that coaches don't have a say. I also disagree that Al doesn't have his players.
Go back to what Gruden said when he left as coach. He said, "I'm tired of trying to prove my point all the time. Whether it comes to play calling, drafting a player I want, the system I want to run. I'm tired of having to prove myself to Mr Davis. I think my record the past 3 years speak for itself." He went on to describe a draft situation, that Al goes in with an idea of who he wants to draft. If you have someone different, you have to show him why you want your guy over his; and why it makes sense to your system. Then you have to show him why you want to run your system, even though it had been successful the prior season.
Bottom line, Al Davis doesn't trust anyone. You have to win his trust, and when you do, it's short-lived.
PR: I can certainly appreciate your loyalty, and regularly agree with many of your points, however, I find it difficult to not question what is going on right now.
Any system needs constant adaptation in order to succeed. Today's defenses are so adept at making adjustments that it is pure stubborness and perhaps arrogance of the coaches to believe any singularly concentrated offensive scheme can be successful. Add to that a refusal to adjust to their own players strengths (and weaknesses).
Remember the old days when Raider receivers would come back to the ball (Stabler and Plunkett regularly under threw their receivers). That worked in man coverages, but not so much in today’s zone coverages, nickles and dimes.
I admire Art Shell as a leader and respect what he stands for... Raider tradition and excellence, however, if the Raiders offense doesn't adapt, we may never see a successful program again under the current regime. I know that's a bold statement, but so far it's based on the facts. 10 weeks into the season, it's time they gave us a taste of what they're capable of. Right now, I’d settle for a touchdown in the second half of a game?
Good points, all.
Calico says this: A simple example of a common sense play would be to use a 2nd TE as a release valve or safety outlet. 1 TE blocks while the other releases. Walter can look down the field for his primary receiver. If this primary receiver isn't open, he knows that the TE will be there for a short gain."
Calico, quick hitting plays are fine, and the Raiders do use them. But you can't use them all the time because quick hitting plays, generally, are designed to catch the defense off guard. Without the surprise factor, these plays will average about 3 yards per play.
But then look at what Raider Nate says: "I found this snid bit directly out of the Donkeys' mouths on their website:
'We all said we were going to make a play,' said defensive tackle Kenard Lang, who had two sacks and a forced fumble. 'Everybody on their own is trying to do the best they can.'
Safety John Lynch said Coyer and the defensive staff made some changes at halftime that helped spark the strong finish.
'You always make subtle adjustments but it's not like we came out blitzing the house or anything,' he said. 'I think when they started releasing the tight end we thought we could get there with our front four… Finally we made some plays. We had to create some turnovers because they played some outstanding defense today, as they have been.'"
Let me just repeat one sentence here: "'I think when they started releasing the tight end we thought we could get there with our front four…" Is this what you had in mind Calico?
Raider Nate, "started releasing the tight end" is an adjustment. And an effective one as Williams was the leading receiver.
I saw that discussion about Denver saying the Raider offense was working on one of the blog links (I think) in yesterday's Raidernews posts.
NYRaider: This is part of what I don't understand. When new coaches have been hired in the past, we've all accepted that the first year will likely be delegated to installing the new system and trying to make it work with the inherited personnel. Shell comes in and the D is night and day better than the past two years (this is because Shell got Ryan the horses, and D is always going to be the first focus), and so are ST. The O has not yet had the opportunity to upgrade the personnel. When the O comes together, this is going to be a deep playoff calibur team.
I disagree that coming back to the ball doesn't work as well as it used to. Zones have always been the best defense to the WR returning to the ball. It's when the coverage is one on one that coming back is crucial. It puts the WR between the QB and DB. The DB then has to go through the WR to make the play. But Raider WRs don't have time to finish their routs, let alone come back to the ball.
Some things to consider:
The players on offense did not change this season. They were all here last year.
The offensive coaches have all changed since last season(except for Freddie B., and we know he's not going anywhere).
We are getting the same results as we did under Norv Turner.
The players brought in under Shell (Huff, Howard, Boothe, etc.) seem to be doing well. Obviously better than the previous draft bozos like Gibson and Buchanon, anyways.
So, I just ask folks to consider the possibility that they MIGHT give Shell the benefit of the doubt until he gets a chance to bring in his own players to run his system. We all like the players he has brought in so far.
If nothing else, Art has tried to keep player problems in house and started to hold players accountable for their play.
This has been a HUGE problem in the past couple of seasons, as the drama has unfolded in the newspapers; the players have been running things and publicly whining when they don't get their way.
You don't have to agree with me, but I for one am glad to see Art sticking it to the players. Now, if next season all the malcontents like Moss and Porter are still here, I will wonder why Shell still has them around to poison the team.
But for now, this season is lost. Play Walter and see what he can do. Have Walter toss the ball to everyone except Moss and Porter, and see what they can do. Run Fargas and see if he can be durable enough to be the RB.
Then next for season, draft offensive players with a good attitude - like we did in '06 on "D" - and see if we have made some progress.
While I am not a Walsh defender and don't really want to see 'em back, I do agree with Blanda that these players would still suck this season with a different OC in place.
Until we find some players on "O" with HEART, we are going to keep getting the same results we have been getting: 4-12 seasons.
Art is trying to establish a new attitude. He may have to clear the field of scrubbery whiners before this happens. Time takes time.
My 2cents.
BR - Let's be real. Comeback routes work whether a D is in man to man or zone coverage. If the D is in zone, than the WR sits down in the open ("soft") spot in the zone. Also, your comment "But Raider WRs don't have time to finish their routs, let alone come back to the ball." is pretty silly when you think about it. A comeback (or button hook route) can be 5 yards, 10 yards, 20 yards,etc. Are you implying that a Raider WR would be unable to finish a 7-10 yard comeback?
Stickem:
I agree 100%. However, I feel Shell may now feel pressured to bring back Brooks in an effort to show some potential to this offense.
Calico:
I think we're talking about two different things. I'm not talking about designed comebacks. When a WR finishes his rout (at least in the old days) he was taught to work his way back to the QB if he hadn't gotten the ball off yet. The idea was to give the QB a "flat" target, with the DB behind the WR. Most importantly this was true with fly patterns. When a WR has out run the range of the QB, he's not supposed to just keep going. He has to come back to maintain himself as an option.
BR, so far this season, the majority of the time the Raiders have dropped back to pass, the lone TE has released in the mix, leaving Jordan or a RB to block the bullrush of the DE. View the tapes.
An adjustment would be to keep the TE from releasing, sending the RB/FB out of the backfield to run a route the TE would if he were released.
The Raiders ran this style of offense when Art was an O-lineman because they had the likes of Todd Christianson; and a strong O-line.
I know our O-line is young and inexperienced right now, and maybe that is something for the future, but again, it all points back to utilizing the talent you have now; putting them in a position to win and succeed. You can implement for the future while doing this as well.
Again, I agree that the system is not the problem; it is how Walsh is utilizing the system. That's a big difference than what some other people are saying.
If you look closely at Walter's apology too, you will see that he said he was sorry for spilling things outside the house, instead of taking care of it in house. He also said, "Everybody obviously is feeling that way, including the coaches. We're all in this together." (taken from Foxsports). Meaning that the coaches agree with how he feels, but needed to take it in house. In the same article, he recognizes that too with this statement, "My public call for more screens, quick passes and shorter drops was not much different than what I have asked the coaches for in private. I spoke from the heart of a frustrated 24-year old basically in his rookie year. I'll be smart about that in the future as far as saying things of that nature in future opportunities."
Randy Moss' comments echoed the same sentiment in a different way. Raider Take has a new blog about it. But he's said it before too, "Nobody else is trying, so why should I?" I agree with this to a certain extent. Think of yourself at work, and your co-workers and management around you don't care about the work being done. Eventually, you will have the same attitude.
Granted, he is the "Captain" and his attitude should be, "Despite coaching and players around me not caring, I'm going to play my hardest day-in and day-out because that will give me security and raises in the future."
He's only hurting himself with his comments, espeically when it comes to free agency. Other teams are going to look at that, and think, "Cancer."
I heard someone comparing Terrell Owens and Randy Moss being the same person. I interrupted and said, "I disagree. TO plays hard and tries every time he's on the field. Moss doesn't." To me, Moss' attitude is as much of the problem as Walsh not making half-time adjustments to utilize his game plan more effectively.
On the point of "WR's not being able to finish their routes" goes back to the long development of the offensive style of plays; and not utilizing quicker plays to set those long developments up. Walsh has this backwards, he is having Walter 5-7 step drop too much, and going shorter routes too little. It needs to work the other way around.
The quick passes, and strong runs sets up the long ball. The long ball has never set up anything else because it should be utilized as the "trap play". Meaning you have got the defense thinking short passes, run, and adjust to stop those; then you hit them long, and then you hit them long to take the wind out of their sails. The shorter passes and strong runs is what knocks down the sails.
Walsh is trying to take the wind out of their sails, but has not done anything to knock their sails down.
Now when I say short passes, I'm not just talking about the TE running a route. I'm talking about mixing the plays up, where the TE stays and blocks a few drives, then runs a pattern. The RB/FB's running routes a few drives, then staying in the backfield to block. Play action, swing routes, quick slants, quick outs, reverses, shovel passes. All of these plays are designed to keep the defense off balance, but you have to mix them up.
Walsh is not doing that. He's using the same patterns to set up other aspects of his game plan. Defenses easily recognize what the Raiders are trying to do offensively, and shut them down.
This is why John Lynch said what he said about the TE releasing, which was killing them in the first half because they were blitzing Walter. The simple adjustment of not blitzing, but staying in a zone coverage, took away the TE from being open; and helped the defense naturally collapse the pocket with pressure.
Now Walsh should of ran this the first 2 drives of the 3rd Quarter, and at halftime, should have utilized a game plan that attacked the zone coverage of the defense. But he has failed to adjust to the zone coverage of the defense.
The reason we were successful against Arizona's defense, is because they ran a 3-4, and nickel back blitzing defense. But the Raiders offensively have failed consistently attacking a 4-3 non-blitzing zone; because Walsh has not used plays that attack that scheme. This is what Walter complained about, and this is a big example of what I'm talking about, when I say that Walsh is not putting us in a position to win.
Think about what some are implying: we should continue to play in a scheme that we know can’t be successful with our current player personnel, all the while knowing that in a year or two, after we get the “right personnel” in place, the system will work. I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous.
Stick’em: I disagree, we’re not getting the same results as we did under Norval. The current offense is about five steps behind Norv’s system. I do, however, strongly agree with your points about playing Walter and mixing in some young talent to see what’s up.
BR: I want to believe in Walsh (and Shell) but it’s almost impossible to see beyond the facts, i.e., we can’t score. The scary thing about the assertions being made that we don’t yet have the player personnel is that would imply Grove, Gallery, Sims, and Walker (I’ll give Boothe a pass) are all busts, which they might be. OUCH!
P.S. Raider Nate 75: I think in the "old style" Raiders vertical attack the long ball was used to stretch defenses, keeping corners and safeties from cheating in too far. Of course completing a long pass now again was ideal, but not requisite to make the system work.
Raider Nate:
We all seem to be working around the edges, but nobody is quite putting their finger on it.
First off: "Granted, he is the 'Captain' and his attitude should be, 'Despite coaching and players around me not caring, I'm going to play my hardest day-in and day-out because that will give me security and raises in the future.'"
Nobody is going to convince me, under any circumstances, that this coaching staff doesn't care. I'm afraid we're going to have to stick to either competence or incompetence. The only person you could convince me that he actually doesn't care, is Randy Moss. I think even Jerry Porter cares.
Also, the Raiders history with the Gilman is that they use the long ball to open up the running game and the short to medium range passes. Approaching the strategy this way requires that the long ball is a constant threat. If the opposing defense believes that you can't complete a deep pass, they're going to stack the box, pin their ears back, and come after you.
This is the problem that Tom Walsh is confronting. Openents don't fear the deep ball. How many times have you seen a deep pass this season dropped. Other times the OL can't protect Walter against a four man rush. So without the deep threat, teams are stacking the line against the run, and keeping their safeties in to protect against the shorter passes. And therein lies the mystery. Under these conditions, the Raiders shouldn't be able to do anything - yet they're running the ball effectively when they focus on it. Beyond that, the Raiders move the ball very well as long as they don't make mistakes. But whenever they get something going, the dropped passes, the turnovers and the penalties start. I firmly believe that even as ineffective as the OL has been, and even with a QB with only 7 starts under his belt, if they got rid of the stupid penalties, and if they merely caught the passes they are capable of catching, this team would have no worse than a 4-5 record, and we would all be discussing the obvious improvements this year.
Raider Nate:
We all seem to be working around the edges, but nobody is quite putting their finger on it.
First off: "Granted, he is the 'Captain' and his attitude should be, 'Despite coaching and players around me not caring, I'm going to play my hardest day-in and day-out because that will give me security and raises in the future.'"
Nobody is going to convince me, under any circumstances, that this coaching staff doesn't care. I'm afraid we're going to have to stick to either competence or incompetence. The only person you could convince me that he actually doesn't care, is Randy Moss. I think even Jerry Porter cares.
Also, the Raiders history with the Gilman is that they use the long ball to open up the running game and the short to medium range passes. Approaching the strategy this way requires that the long ball is a constant threat. If the opposing defense believes that you can't complete a deep pass, they're going to stack the box, pin their ears back, and come after you.
This is the problem that Tom Walsh is confronting. Openents don't fear the deep ball. How many times have you seen a deep pass this season dropped. Other times the OL can't protect Walter against a four man rush. So without the deep threat, teams are stacking the line against the run, and keeping their safeties in to protect against the shorter passes. And therein lies the mystery. Under these conditions, the Raiders shouldn't be able to do anything - yet they're running the ball effectively when they focus on it. Beyond that, the Raiders move the ball very well as long as they don't make mistakes. But whenever they get something going, the dropped passes, the turnovers and the penalties start. I firmly believe that even as ineffective as the OL has been, and even with a QB with only 7 starts under his belt, if they got rid of the stupid penalties, and if they merely caught the passes they are capable of catching, this team would have no worse than a 4-5 record, and we would all be discussing the obvious improvements this year.
Post a Comment
<< Home