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.
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.
posted by BlandaRocked at 2:28 PM
13 Comments:
I've been waiting to make the playoffs since the Super Bowl season of 2002. Its tough stomaching another loss, but at least with this team I have hope, I can see progress on a weekly basis. The best we can do this season is play spoiler to other teams with playoff hopes. As such, I'm already looking towards next year's draft. Here's what I think the Raiders need in order of priority:
1. A left tackle that can protect the QB and help spring running plays.
2. A TE that can CATCH as well as block.
3. A linebacker to help stuff the run. Something is wrong when the DBs in the secondary are the leading tacklers on the team.
4. A WR that runs great routes and CATCHES the balls thrown his way.
5. Possibly a QB depending on how Walter plays the rest of the year.
Have you thought of any players yet the Raiders might want to target? That LB Posluszny(might have misspelled it) at Penn State looked pretty good, I think he comes out this year. What would you think of getting Troy Smith if we have a shot at him? I'm not sold on Brady Quinn just yet. Smith definitely would fit your description of buying time with his feet. Have you seen enough of Walter yet to make a decision either way? I would like to see him make at least 4 more starts to make a decision.
I wish we could cut Moss, Porter, and maybe even Gallery. Of course the salary cap would proclude such action. They say players usually show how far they can go by their third year, and this is Gallery's third year. Would you give him another year at left tackle, or go with someone else(Slaughter)?
raiderrealist:
I have considered what we need, and to add to your list at #1 should be a valid RB, then we should spend the rest of our picks, on Offensive Linemen, a TE, LB, and DT. We could trade Moss for a few picks and a vet DT. Porter for straight picks (which isn't going to happen unless he forks over some cash).
The first choice of the draft this next year should be one of these names (in the order of my top choices):
Adrian Pederson, RB Oklahoma (my top pick)
Mike Hart, RB Michigan
Marshawn Lynch, RB Cal
Antonio Pittman, RB Ohio State
Troy Smith, QB Ohio State
RN 75: I’m in agreement with your assessment and draft priorities. What many don’t realize is that we have no real depth at RB, and Jordan has been less than advertised. That’s why other teams in the AFC West always seem to have great RBs? They regularly draft them. Skill positions are difficult to get and/or very costly through free agency, so it makes sense to draft.
BR: Excuse my obsession with this topic, but RN 75 makes a good point about Porter. Based on his contract and bonus structure, there is a high probability that he will be a Raider next year. Can’t the Raiders see the nose in front of their face? Art Shell and whomever else is involved in this fiasco need to straighten it out. Give Porter 50 lashes, tie heavy weights to his balls, something.... just get him back on the field.
Between Moss and Porter, the Raiders will be fortunate if they can dump even one during the offseason.
BR - No doubt Shell was rehired to restore some of the great Raider traditions including the Gilliam offensive system. I realize that it is going to take some time to accomplish this worthy goal.
The basis for being able to check off your points 1 through 5 is a dominating offensive line. I think it is fair to say that the Raiders have one of the worst offensive lines in the entire league.
I would disagree with your point about the Raiders doing any of the 5 points mentioned in your post vs. KC.
1. KC was not threatened by the deep ball. Throughtout the game, KC stuck with the base cover 2 D. There was absolutely no need to adjust their defensive scheme.
2. The safeties weren't needed in run support and KC's D was hardly worn out.
3. When you score only 1 TD, it is very difficult to say "We take what we want". The Raiders only completed 1 deep pass the entire game which came with less than a minute to go (Brooks to Curry; 39 yards)
4. We kept the game close but we didn't "punished KC's RBs, WRs, and QB".
5. Yes we were in position to win it at the end but came up short. The last order of business in the fine Raider tradition is "Just Win Baby" which essentially means find any way possible to come out on top.
I am very hopeful that we will make the O-line priority #1. In order to truly restore the great Raider traditions, we will need to have dominating O-Linemen. We currently don't have 1 single OL that is above average.
Raiderrealist:
I haven't given much thought yet to who will be available in the draft. Brady Quinn is not likely as the Raiders don't like using their first pick on a QB. More likely that the draft a WR or a RB with their first pick. I think the Raiders LBs are set, but I think Thomas will beat out Williams next year.
The Raiders will try to trade Moss, but other teams might believe that if they just wait it out, the Raiders will have to cut Moss, and then they can sign him without giving up anything. And I'm certain that nobody will trade for Porter. Porter is likely just going to get cut.
As for Gallery, in each year he's been either asked to play a different position, or change his technique. Gallery's problem seems to be that he can't convince his body to do the new things he's learned. I think we need to pick up a good tackle, preferably through free agency, and table any decisions on Gallery until training camp.
NYRaider:
My take on the situation is that Porter is just going to be gone. I think the Raiders will just eat his contract if they can't trade him, and if I were another team and I wanted Porter, I'd just wait for him to be cut.
Calico, you make good points. But don't underestimate one deep pass. Sometimes that's all you need. In the NFL, you can't beat up on somebody every week no matter how good you are. Sometimes your opponent is stronger than you. As was the case this last Sunday. The Raiders played KC straight up, and would have won without that INT.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
BR,
I don't quite agree that the Raiders expect their QB's to make audibles and improvise. They haven't effectively audibled since Gannon was QB.
My other problem with this statement is again coaching. Again, people may disagree with this next statement, but audibles are designed plays. They are designed for the QB to read how the defense is going to come at them (with putting a TE, WR, or RB in motion; blitz recognition, defensive shifting, etc); and audibles become "reactive" plays to how the defense shifts. 9 out of 10 times, audibles do not change the play that was called in the huddle, it's changing the route patterns, or run patterns. There are only a few times in a game where an audible changes the play called in the huddle. Anyone who has ever played or coached will tell you this. But to say audibles are improvisions? No, they are reactive route/run pattern changes to defensive shifts and sets, that puts our offense in a position to succeed.
This is why I have blamed Walsh for how our offense does. It is another exploited area he is incompetent in; and a number of multiple reasons why he should not be OC at the end of the year. I know we disagree on this, but I'm looking at this from the experience I have as a HS football player; and desire to be a Pop Warner OC. This is Football 101, the basics of offense, and Tom Walsh amazes me with his lack of fundamentals.
The comment that we "don't have 1 single OL that is above average" is so, unfortunately true.
Can't buy into your excuse for Gallery regarding the different positions he's played. He was a LT for 4 years in college, and besides....how much training camp, pre-season action, and practice at a position is deemed sufficient? It's all about blocking fundamentals....and if you can do it, you shouldn't have to worry if you're on the right side or left side. Lame excuse.
"But don't underestimate one deep pass. Sometimes that's all you need."
uhhh...maybe true...but not if that ONE deep pass is on the second-to-last play of the game.
X, that one deep pass, on the second to the last play of the game, would have won the game were it not for the INT.
What I was referring to was the notion that a successful deep pass could open it up for the running game or short-to-midrange passes. That strategy doesn't work if that deep strike happens with less than a minute to go in the game.
BR - Wouldn't you agree that in order to "constantly threaten to attack with the deep ball" that you have to attempt to throw the deep ball more than just once?
Until we assemble a dominating O-Line that can sustain their blocks for 4-5 seconds and protect the QB, there isn't a viable deep threat to force a D to adjust their scheme.
Further, because our O-line is a sieve, once the safeties identify that it is a pass play, they can actually cheat inwards. The whole notion of stretching the field is based soley on this "constant threat to strike deep".
Most of the Raiders defensive opponents this year don't even need to bother putting an 8th man in the box to negate our rushing attack or make any real adjustments whatsoever to their regular base defense to stop either our run or pass. Why?
Because the Raiders offense isn't able to establish the run, strike deep, or effectively implement a short to medium passing attack. This stems primarily from the incompetence of OC Walsh, a lack of talent, and a below average O-line.
Post a Comment
<< Home