Raiders coaching search=wish sandwich

[JC]

I know what some of you are thinking...what the hell is a wish sandwich.

A Wish Sandwich noun-when you have two pieces of bread, but no meat, usually just mayonaise, salad dressing or mustard.

That's how this coaching search feels to me, we have nothing to fill the wish sandwich.

We are looking at all the wrong people, defense wins championships. Black coaches have shown a greater success rate than the white ones in recent memory.

I really like Whisenhunt, but I like Singletary, Tim Lewis, or some other defensive gurus.

[BlueDamsel]

So what you're saying is get rid of the mayo & bring out the Nutella?? ;)

http://www.bulkcarrier.de/media/nutella.jpg

[JC]

I hate the taste of hazelnut and retreaded coaching.

[Angel]

Poor JC!! :( You never know....you might just get a HC you can stomach!! :p

[Crow]

Tim Lewis? The guy who got drummed out of Pittsburgh for being unable to adapt to multiple WR formations? Pass. He'll be a Rooney Rule candidate for the rest of his career, IMO.

I want a defensive guy too, but I can't see hiring a guy based on skin color. That's a recipe for disaster.

[JC]

Hmm...Tim Lewis' defense didn't look that bad as the G-men...with what, two double digit sackers?

I am not saying hire a guy based on skin color, just to not rule out the possibility. That's more a message leaguewide than for the Raiders.

[Angel]

Hmmmmmmm.....Art Shell again? :eek: I'm sure Al has someone great in mind!! ;)

[Crow]

Hmm...Tim Lewis' defense didn't look that bad as the G-men...with what, two double digit sackers?

I am not saying hire a guy based on skin color, just to not rule out the possibility. That's more a message leaguewide than for the Raiders.

I'm gonna have to take Moss' stance on that. I couldn't care less if our next HC is black, white, or pinstriped. If you can coach, bring your ass here.

[Angel]

I'm gonna have to take Moss' stance on that. I couldn't care less if our next HC is black, white, or pinstriped. If you can coach, bring your ass here.
Mike Tice still available? You could have the reunion in Oakland....Tice/Moss/Culpepper? :p

[TommyGirl]

Mike Tice still available? You could have the reunion in Oakland....Tice/Moss/Culpepper? :p
Eeeeyeah. That's very funny.

My guess is Whisenhunt or Haskell, if the Bay Area Press and their wild speculation is anywhere near to accurate.

Of the two, I'd actually lean toward Haskell, believe it or not. I find the idea appealing largely because he's been under the tutelage of Holmgren, whose offense I like. He's also been the position coach for all of the primary offensive positions, save quarterback.

My BIGGEST concern when weighing the pros and cons of these two coaches is that the quarterback situation with the Raiders is...well...everybody knows what I think. Haskell's offensive scheme won't work any better than Norv's did if the Raiders don't get themselves atop the QB quagmire. If Haskell (Holmgren) run an offshoot of the Coryell offense, then you know that it relies largely on precision routes and a smart quarterback. I see neither on this team as it exists. Curry was the best route runner the Raiders had.

On the other hand, Whisenhunt's offense is predicated almost solely on the run. With the O-Line the way it is now and Jordan having proved little to me, I'm concerned. On one hand, I love the offense because of the play action (IMO, only Indy's play action is superior) and because of the opportunities to use the TE (ala Heath Miller). However, the Raiders don't have a Heath Miller.

I guess the bottom line (for me) is that the Raiders are going to have to look at key positions on offense for me to be comfortable with either of these hirings. I'm not saying to go out and draft a runningback, tight end, or quarterback. I am saying that it'd be foolish for anybody to think that the Raiders woes will be solved by the hiring of a coach, no matter how good he might be.

[CrossBones]

Excellent post TommyGirl.

Frankly I hadn't heard the Haskell rumor. And yes that Seattle offense is problematic for opposing defenses.. But then they do have a pretty gpood guy at QB (Holmgren was right). On that subject, I remember Seattle fans wanting to run Hallselbeck out of town. They thought he was the worst QB on earth and up until two yesrs ago they felt the same about Holmgren. Funny what a couple of wins in the playoffs and a trip to the Super Bowl will do for the psyche of the fan!

[Angel]

Excellent post TommyGirl.

Frankly I hadn't heard the Haskell rumor. And yes that Seattle offense is problematic for opposing defenses.. But then they do have a pretty gpood guy at QB (Holmgren was right). On that subject, I remember Seattle fans wanting to run Hallselbeck out of town. They thought he was the worst QB on earth and up until two yesrs ago they felt the same about Holmgren. Funny what a couple of wins in the playoffs and a trip to the Super Bowl will do for the psyche of the fan!
What rock you been sleeping under Cross? How did the Haskell rumor slip by you? ;)

[TommyGirl]

Funny what a couple of wins in the playoffs and a trip to the Super Bowl will do for the psyche of the fan!
*Sigh* No kidding. Weren't we in the same boat 'round about 2000, 2001, 2002?

My psyche needs healed. I hope the Raiders pull it together. And soon.

[gst8]

I don't see Haskell in Oakland for the very reasons that TommyGirl stated. That type of offense usually takes at least 2-3 years to implement and we all know about Al's aversion to waiting. On the other hand, Whisenhunt's offense is more a matter of attitude than personell and can be instituted rather quickly with the addition of a couple FA OL'men.

[Rupert]

TG hits all the major points. Any offense that requires a smart QB won't work immediately in Oakland. We could get away with the softer routes with a smarter QB, but soft/freelance routes and a dumb QB is the recipe that killed the offense last season.

Part of the reason Indy and Pittsburgh had great play action was the fact that they had dangerous running threats. Defenses had to react to that threat. Kerry Collins has as good a play action move as Roethlisberger, but he didn't have the running game to support the fake.

One of the reasons the Raiders rushing attack was limp was the transition to an Indy-style blocking scheme. It relied heavily on outside zone blocking and cutbacks. The O-line, while being essentially the same line that was decent in the running game previously, wound up not knowing how to consistently execute the scheme.

And you're right, a new coach will have to make a lot of tough decisions. Continue the work started last season implementing the zone blocking scheme on O or go back to what worked better in the past? That will really decide how effective the offense will be next season. Will they continue to improve with the defensive scheme from last season, or will the HC ask Ryan to go in another direction? Those two things and some key personnel decisions will determine whether we improve or remain bogged in the mire.

[TommyGirl]

On the O-Line...I found myself puzzled at why there were key pieces missing to this purported Norv Turner offense. When in Dallas and Washington (and to a lesser degree, Miami), Norv's O-Lines always had a tremendous amount of guard pulling, largely for misdirection. That enabled more options for fullback traps, etc. That simply didn't happen last year.

As for zone blocking...You're right. The new coach will have to make a lot of tough decisions, not the least of which is to decide whether or not they're ready to ask the guys to start cut blocking. There is no better way to seal pursuit from the backside. Is the staff ready to join the ranks of the Falcolns and Broncos (who run the most effective zone blocking schemes out there)?

What I hate most about zone blocking is that it's so frickin' lateral. It's not a forward enough push for a power running game and Jordan has shown the frustrating propensity to dance around instead of hitting the hole quickly. Those holes open quickly and they close quickly. Compare the running styles of Mike Anderson, Warrick Dunn, and then look at Jordan. That's the best illustration I can give.

Plus (and I haven't taken the time to look at player size), it seems to me that the guys we have on the O-Line are more physically suited to man blocking. Seriously. They just look gargantuan and like teenagers just figuring out what to do with their maturing bodies. I'd wager twenty bucks (without looking) that Oakland's O-Line is huge compared to Denver and Atlanta. Players have to be taught, sure, but schemes have to be built around their individual physical strengths and abilities. I don't think zone blocking is doing it for these guys.

So, this is the long way of going about saying that if I ruled the Raiders, I'd go back to a man blocking scheme. It's more suited to Jordan's running style, as well as to individual players on the O-Line. Plus, I don't wanna see that crap cut blocking on my team. It's dirty.

[CrossBones]

On the O-Line...I found myself puzzled at why there were key pieces missing to this purported Norv Turner offense. When in Dallas and Washington (and to a lesser degree, Miami), Norv's O-Lines always had a tremendous amount of guard pulling, largely for misdirection. That enabled more options for fullback traps, etc. That simply didn't happen last year.

As for zone blocking...You're right. The new coach will have to make a lot of tough decisions, not the least of which is to decide whether or not they're ready to ask the guys to start cut blocking. There is no better way to seal pursuit from the backside. Is the staff ready to join the ranks of the Falcolns and Broncos (who run the most effective zone blocking schemes out there)?

What I hate most about zone blocking is that it's so frickin' lateral. It's not a forward enough push for a power running game and Jordan has shown the frustrating propensity to dance around instead of hitting the hole quickly. Those holes open quickly and they close quickly. Compare the running styles of Mike Anderson, Warrick Dunn, and then look at Jordan. That's the best illustration I can give.

Plus (and I haven't taken the time to look at player size), it seems to me that the guys we have on the O-Line are more physically suited to man blocking. Seriously. They just look gargantuan and like teenagers just figuring out what to do with their maturing bodies. I'd wager twenty bucks (without looking) that Oakland's O-Line is huge compared to Denver and Atlanta. Players have to be taught, sure, but schemes have to be built around their individual physical strengths and abilities. I don't think zone blocking is doing it for these guys.

So, this is the long way of going about saying that if I ruled the Raiders, I'd go back to a man blocking scheme. It's more suited to Jordan's running style, as well as to individual players on the O-Line. Plus, I don't wanna see that crap cut blocking on my team. It's dirty.Rep!

Great post TommyGirl. All that just makes a lot of sense to me. I wish we get this Whiz guy...he looks to be just the ticket to figure out the direction to point the bus (no pun intended).

[JC]

Everytime someone talks about how great zone blocking is...all I can think is that the Houston Texans run it? That doesn't say much for it being the end all O-line scheme, it's like WCO or the 3-4 defense, if you don't have the personel, it will not succeed.

I think man blocking is a great idea, Jordan is not a slasher, he's pretty north/south, alot of his issues with happy feet seemed to be in the cut back lanes.

[TommyGirl]

I think man blocking is a great idea, Jordan is not a slasher, he's pretty north/south, alot of his issues with happy feet seemed to be in the cut back lanes.
That's the thing: Jordan has not been a north/south runner. North/south runners hit the hole hard and fast.

One question: WHAT cutback lanes? Ain't none in Oaktown! :D

[CrossBones]

That's the thing: Jordan has not been a north/south runner. North/south runners hit the hole hard and fast.

One question: WHAT cutback lanes? Ain't none in Oaktown! :DThis was my thought too.

I was actaully disappointed with the lack of North/South running Jordan did last year. Now it may have been because there was just no place to run but I was frustrated how many times he tried that little jitter bug move to the outside (especialy running to the left) and he'd usually get stuffed for no gain. Stop that damn it. :mad:

[Rupert]

TG: The one difference I would point out is that Mike Anderson is pretty similar to Jordan, not a dancer like Dunn.

Why did Anderson seem more effective than Jordan? Both he and the line knew what they were doing. Jordan came from a man scheme and so did his line. Now he's running behind them thinking, "Is that the hole?" and they're thinking, "Is that the guy I lock up?" Because you're definitely right it's lateral first and then downfield for the blockers.

Also, there was plenty of pulling to start the season, but all I can figure is they wanted to stick with the zone scheme to get it tuned under fire because they weren't getting it in practice. I remember one of those infamous holding calls when Walker pulled around the horn and had to crouch down for a safety and got called for holding him. 6-8 trying to block 5-10 looked really odd.

Without looking I'd say you're right. Denver has perpetually had the smallest line in football, so with Gibbs advising Atlanta I'd expect the same direction for their line. Al Davis has always liked the big bruisers, and except for Grove, they're big guys.

[Rupert]

That's the thing: Jordan has not been a north/south runner. North/south runners hit the hole hard and fast.

One question: WHAT cutback lanes? Ain't none in Oaktown! :D

Now now. We had the cutback lane that the outside zone play often has against defenses that overpursue, the one around the backside of the line. The problem Jordan had was working too hard to find the original hole to read the backside pursuit. When he finally started looking for it, it started working a little.

The play can really get working well (ask Indy or Denver), but the RB has to know how to read it. It's pretty simple though, just look for the backside backer to turn his shoulders and shuffle inside the backside DE, in that position he's less able to react to the cutback. If he comes upfield or holds position outside the backside DE you accelerate to the hole. Jordan would typically get too far playside to make an effective cutback even though his hard charging made the backside backer bite hard.

The problem with this play is that several teams are using it successfully and discipline for the backside backer is improving league-wide. Since this is happening you need to establish the playside blocking, and we were shitty at doing that last season.

[TommyGirl]

Now now. We had the cutback lane that the outside zone play often has against defenses that overpursue, the one around the backside of the line. The problem Jordan had was working too hard to find the original hole to read the backside pursuit.We part ways here a little bit. To me, this comes back to the fact that the Raiders didn't do a whole lot of cut blocking. Cut blocking is, IMO, the best way to seal off the backside pursuit of your back. The implications of that reluctance are limitless.
The play can really get working well (ask Indy or Denver), but the RB has to know how to read it. Everybody has to know how to read it, particularly the center. What's more, they have to react in concert.
It's pretty simple though, just look for the backside backer to turn his shoulders and shuffle inside the backside DE, in that position he's less able to react to the cutback. If he comes upfield or holds position outside the backside DE you accelerate to the hole. True, but this works only if everyone has made the appropriate reads and if the center isn't getting his ass kicked by the NT. There's no cutback in the world that's going to work if guys are peeling off their initial blocks and misreading the linebackers, which happened quite frequently last year. In the scenario you give, there's potential success, but what happens if the DE is on the outside (like you say, if I'm reading you correctly) and the guard tries to pick him up instead of the tackle? That leaves your linebacker unaccounted for, and we haven't even thrown stunting into the equation.
The problem with this play is that several teams are using it successfully and discipline for the backside backer is improving league-wide. Since this is happening you need to establish the playside blocking, and we were shitty at doing that last season.Amen. The Raiders SUCKED at playing outside zone last year. Ugh.

[Rupert]

Now now. We had the cutback lane that the outside zone play often has against defenses that overpursue, the one around the backside of the line. The problem Jordan had was working too hard to find the original hole to read the backside pursuit.We part ways here a little bit. To me, this comes back to the fact that the Raiders didn't do a whole lot of cut blocking. Cut blocking is, IMO, the best way to seal off the backside pursuit of your back. The implications of that reluctance are limitless.That's assuming that the DE goes upfield instead of trying to cross the OL's face. If he's lined up as a 7 yeah he'll chase from behind and the cutback is lost unless you cut or hinge. In either case, with a backside 7 you'll have a tougher time fooling the backside backer too, especially if the DE goes upfield instead of crossing the OT.
Everybody has to know how to read it, particularly the center. What's more, they have to react in concert.
Without question. Did you see the jagged line we tried to use and the blocks we let slip? Hiddeous.
It's pretty simple though, just look for the backside backer to turn his shoulders and shuffle inside the backside DE, in that position he's less able to react to the cutback. If he comes upfield or holds position outside the backside DE you accelerate to the hole.True, but this works only if everyone has made the appropriate reads and if the center isn't getting his ass kicked by the NT. There's no cutback in the world that's going to work if guys are peeling off their initial blocks and misreading the linebackers, which happened quite frequently last year. In the scenario you give, there's potential success, but what happens if the DE is on the outside (like you say, if I'm reading you correctly) and the guard tries to pick him up instead of the tackle? That leaves your linebacker unaccounted for, and we haven't even thrown stunting into the equation.
I'm assuming you mean playside. A 7 DE should never be passed up by the playside OT. I remember seeing Sims pass up a 5 technique that Walker or Badger wouldn't reach and then the whole playside thought was moot. But if the OT reaches the playside 7 there's going to be a big hole that both playside backers will be in if they're off the line. The responsibilities all shuffle down the line to reach the next guy over, and we just weren't any good at it. STUNTING! Stunts usually come off when the blocker comes at you, but a reach block works to get width instead of working downfield. Still I think most stunts would come off in this case. But I think I know what you mean with the case of defenders taking different gaps (a DT shading the B gap and working the A gap with the MLB taking the B) that guy would likely blow right upfield without resistance against our line, and often did.
Amen. The Raiders SUCKED at playing outside zone last year. Ugh.

[Rupert]

BTW TG thanks for grinding the X's and O'x with me. I dig this stuff.

[Rupert]

Now I see what you mean about a guard taking the backside 7. Would you even think of doing that if the LB's and other 3 linemen weren't rolled playside? I can see sending the OT to stuff the backside OLB as long as the MLB was at least over the playside guard and the NT head up on the center. And then the play would almost be an automatic cutback read unless you were just that good at the point. With the NT in a backside 1 you're asking him to take the straight line into the backfield. And with a MLB over the center he can do the same if the center takes the NT.

Of course, that's what teams were doing to the Raiders, and our guys were confused as hell.

[TommyGirl]

Oh...Here's an observation that goes back to the topic of this thread and relates zone blocking, too. We've come full circle.

Didja notice that the Steelers were in and out of zone and man blocking? This tells me that if the Raiders hire Whisenhunt, we may not have seen the last of the zone scheme for the O-Line.

[Rupert]

I wasn't really paying attention to the SuperBowl in any kind of detail, but it is nice to see Jim Colletto shuffle off to UCLA (even though I like UCLA) so we don't have his poor coaching to thank for a shoddy OL play.

Honestly though, I blame the decision to go that way more than the coach or the linemen. It was asking gorillas to dance a ballet, no surprise they did poorly.

[TommyGirl]

Honestly though, I blame the decision to go that way more than the coach or the linemen. It was asking gorillas to dance a ballet, no surprise they did poorly.
Niiiiice! :D

[Crow]

My, don't you two make a cute couple. :p

[Angry Pope]

Mike Martz Named Lions Offensive Coordinator

Martz joins the Lions After his Long and Successful Tenure with the St. Louis Rams

February 8, 2006

Martz led the St. Louis Rams to four playoff appearances in five seasons - including Super Bowl XXXVI - in his time as the Rams' head coach. (Photo by Kevin Terrell/WireImage.com)

ALLEN PARK, Mich. -- Detroit Lions head coach Rod Marinelli has announced the hiring of former St. Louis Rams head coach Mike Martz as the Lions offensive coordinator.

For the past week, there has been much speculation regarding the hiring of Martz as the Detroit Lions' next offensive coordinator. Marinelli announced his desire to add Martz to his coaching staff in a media session (Feb.1) in Downtown Detroit at the Renaissance Center. The recently appointed head coach talked about what Martz would bring to the table in Detroit and how he would improve the young Detroit Lions offense.

“That man has won and he knows how to move the football,” said Marinelli. “The thing that is really impressive when he was with the Rams was his ability to run the football. If you look back; three of his years, 1999, 2000 and 2001, they led the league as far as yards-per-carry, net total yards, but when you carry; they did a great job with that.”

Since he has been named head coach, Marinelli has devoted as much time as he can to finding the right coaching staff to lead the Lions in 2006. With the hiring of Martz, Marinelli has completed the task of placing his two coordinators as he named Donnie Henderson (New York Jets) the Lions defensive coordinator earlier in the week.

“Obviously we know what [Martz] can do with the football, but he is a winner,” said Marinelli. “He has won and he is a champion. These guys bring a presence to them in terms of winning and I think that is something that I am looking for. Like I said in my press conference, ‘this is a still a ‘show me’ game.’ These are good coaches and we have come back and we have to show and do what we do in terms of getting better."

Martz's Coaching History

Last season, the Rams finished 6-10, but they played the majority of the season without Martz. It was announced on Oct. 10 that Martz would be going to the hospital for treatment of a disease called endocarditis and would be leaving the team for an indefinite period of time. Eventually, it was confirmed Oct. 24 that Martz would not return for the remainder of the season.

Martz had served as the Rams head coach since the 2000 season, holding the position of offensive coordinator one year prior (1999). After one successful season in that capacity, Martz moved into the head coach’s role and stayed there for the next five seasons putting up record-breaking numbers over his time as an offensive coordinator (1999) and head coach (2000-2005). He led the Rams to four postseason appearances (2000-01, 2003-04) over five seasons, including a Super Bowl berth after the 2001 season (Super Bowl XXXVI).

From the time Martz was offensive coordinator in 1999 through 2004 when he was head coach, the Rams sat on top of numerous offensive categories: NFL point differential (+576), scrimmage yards (404.3), points per game (27.6), yards per play (8.14), completion percentage (64.9) and yards per touch (8.4). Over that time period, St. Louis placed second in third-down conversions per game (44.6) and placed third in percentage of first downs rushing (24.8). The Rams also placed first in plays of 20+ yards from 2002-04.

Martz has spent the last six consecutive seasons with the Rams, but his time with the franchise began in 1992 when he was an unpaid assistant with the then-Los Angeles Rams. After his role began to expand over his first four seasons, he spent two years with the Washington Redskins (1997-98) before coming back to the Rams to serve as their offensive coordinator.

Prior to his time with the Rams’ franchise, Martz coached at the collegiate level for 18 years with eight different schools, acting mainly as an assistant coach. He spent his last nine seasons at the college level coaching at Arizona State, serving as the quarterbacks and wide receivers coach (1983, 1986-87) and as offensive coordinator (1984, 1988-91).