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.
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.
posted by BlandaRocked at 3:46 PM
6 Comments:
That's sound advice BR. I hope Shoop does make it to the sideline. Players should respect him more for it.
I don't know if it's so much because he's not on the sideline or because of how he interacts with the players during practice.
The vast majority of OCs in the league call the plays from the press box(Billick is doing the playcalling from the sidelines as the HC). They don't seem to be having the same alleged problem, so maybe the problem is on the practice field.
raiderrealist: No doubt much of the problem is the way Walsh relates to players in practice. I only suggest the sideline here because I think that's the quickest way to secure the loyalty of the players.
Walsh is tough to figure out. Everything I hear says he's a hell of a guy, and nobody questions how he's earned Shell's loyalty. But I think a combination of things must have occured, involving the Porter, Moss, and other members of the Raider offense who don't exactly have an idea of what to expect from Walsh and what he is capable of. There seems to have been a gap between the OC and the player, but I really don't know why.
BR -
I really like your idea for Shoop to be on the sideline. With one of the other offensive coaches upstairs communicating directly with Shoop, this would seem to be very feasible.
You are very much right about the disconnect (for whatever reasons) between Walsh and the players. This is Ryan's strongest attibute ... being totally connected and in tune with the defensive players. The communication and accountability between Ryan and the D is direct.
As you know, I have been pointing a fair share of the offensive woes on Walsh's shoulders.
The criticism of the Raiders offense and Walsh in particular is warranted and deserved. The ineptitude, lack of productivity particularly in the 2nd half, and statistical data made the change very necessary.
The Bears offense averaged 21.125 points per game with Jim Miller the starting QB. At 21+ points per game the Raiders would be 7-4.
"Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better." - King Whitney Jr
BR - To get more insight into my views on the Walsh/Shoop change, you can go to my post on 10/18.
Best Regards,
Calico Jack
Pete Carroll is one of those classic coaches that is ideally suited for a big time college football program but NOT a good fit for the pros. (other examples Steve Spurrier, Lou Holtz, Terry Donahue, John Robinson).
In order for Carroll to be lured back to the pro ranks, some team will need to make him one of the hightest paid HC in the league (about $9M per year) AND have control over his coaching staff, personnel, draft, etc.
We all know that Al is notoriously cheap when it comes to paying his Head Coaches and would not give up to an outsider that type of control.
Post a Comment
<< Home