View Full Version : Garcia's "Injury" Has Sure Kept Things Quiet
Sleet
08-08-2009, 12:31 PM
The timing of Garcia's calf injury seemed suspecious. I guess its real. In the mean time, it allows JR to get more reps. It also allows the Raiders to see if they want to go with Frye and Grad, and possibly even trade Garcia if a starting QB gets injured (which hasn't happend yet). Just wondering.
CrossBones
08-08-2009, 12:53 PM
trade GarciaI'm for it.
Garcia is a good #2
Keep him. It's decent insurance. He's old, but he's taken Philly & Tampa to the playoffs.
Like the boxer, Livingstone Bramble once said after he crushed Ray Boom Boom Mancini...
"A hungry man is a dangerous man."
CrossBones
08-08-2009, 04:11 PM
"A hungry man is a dangerous man."God don't let JaMarcus see that quote. :pound:
DarkDays
08-08-2009, 04:23 PM
Yes the last thing Jrock needs is hunger ;). On a serious note I am not big on getting rid of Garcia this early in the camp. Maybe after further evaluation of Jrock and a few preseason games. If things worked out well and Fry or grad were capable backups I would get on the phone with Minnesnowta trying to bleed them. Garcia being better than anyone they have would get us a second with a sixth or seventh?
BigTron
08-08-2009, 04:34 PM
Keep Garcia. Start Russell.
Sleet
08-08-2009, 04:45 PM
God don't let JaMarcus see that quote. :pound:
:pound:
Jack's sore libido
08-08-2009, 04:51 PM
If anyone was interested in trading for Garcia, I think someone would have been competing for him as a free agent.
Maybe if McNabb were to get hurt and Philly were leading the division, the Eagles might cough up something for him instead of turning to Kolb and potentially wasting a season.
RaiderNorth
08-08-2009, 05:14 PM
Maybe if McNabb were to get hurt and Philly were leading the division, the Eagles might cough up something for him instead of turning to Kolb and potentially wasting a season.
Or if Brady gets hurt, and the Patsies don't want to turn to Walter and waste a season.
Sleet
08-08-2009, 05:16 PM
I'm not saying trade him, or that anyone would trade for him, I was just pointing out that this calf injury was as secret as Walker's surgery. The timing was odd. It has eliminated any talk of QB controversy. I wonder how good Garcia will look when he comes back.
Yes the last thing Jrock needs is hunger ;). On a serious note I am not big on getting rid of Garcia this early in the camp. Maybe after further evaluation of Jrock and a few preseason games. If things worked out well and Fry or grad were capable backups I would get on the phone with Minnesnowta trying to bleed them. Garcia being better than anyone they have would get us a second with a sixth or seventh?
A wuh? :eek:
God don't let JaMarcus see that quote. :pound:
OMG, all of you guys are so hilarious. :pound:
A HUNGRY MAN IS A DANGEROUS MAN INDEED! ESPECIALLY IF IT'S JAMARCUS RUSSELL! EATING CHITLINS AND CORN BREAD...:pound:
Abelardo
08-09-2009, 08:07 PM
If Russell don't make it, Cable can try him as a NT. With that framebody he can go well beyond 320 lbs.
Yeah, he already kinda favors Grady. Wouldn't take much effort to get there.
Birdwell
08-09-2009, 11:13 PM
Let Garcia light it up in the exhibition games and deal his ass. The better he plays, the louder he'll be clamoring to start. No team neads that, which is why Garcia is on his fifth -- and counting.
Cutting Garcia would be borderline retarded. What other motivation does the tub of goo in the #2 have to improve? It's not as if he's one of those self-driven people.
Without Garcia, Russell won't feel that there's any threat to his spot on the depth chart. I don't want Captain Fat-n-lazy getting that comfortable.
poptart
08-10-2009, 06:10 AM
I agree.
Sleet
08-10-2009, 08:31 AM
Let Garcia light it up in the exhibition games and deal his ass. The better he plays, the louder he'll be clamoring to start. No team neads that, which is why Garcia is on his fifth -- and counting.
With JR's struggles yesterday, if Garcia was playing, there would be a growing call among haters for Garcia. JR better repound, otherwise, no possibility for a trade, unless Al really likes what he sees in Frye, but Frye has never performed to Garcia's level. I think the team likes the idea of Garcia there. It shows the right commitment, requiring JR to play at a certain level. If JR doesn't, Garcia will come in, or at least that's the message. Right now, JR's not consistently playing at that level, so I think it would send the wrong message if Garcia was moved. But it does risk Garcia creating locking room issues, again.
Sleet
08-10-2009, 08:32 AM
I agree.
Its the right point.
Rupert
08-10-2009, 09:07 AM
Cutting Garcia would be borderline retarded. What other motivation does the tub of goo in the #2 have to improve? It's not as if he's one of those self-driven people.
Without Garcia, Russell won't feel that there's any threat to his spot on the depth chart. I don't want Captain Fat-n-lazy getting that comfortable.
The motivation angles is not too important in my opinion. I think Russell is motivated all by himself.
But even though I think Charlie Frye would be a decent backup option, if we want to be credible in case of injury, there's no way you cut Garcia unless you really think Gradkowski is worth something.
Maybe it's meaningless this season, but remember Gruden and Hollas? What about Callahan and the MASH unit? If you don't have a viable backup and a reasonable facsimilie 3rd the whole damned thing can fall apart fast.
Our defense prevented the Hollas season from dropping below 8-8, but we've currently got a defense more along the capabilities of Callahan's. So if the offense struggles, the defense is going to need some couch time with a shrink.
The motivation angles is not too important in my opinion. I think Russell is motivated all by himself.
That would be new for him.
But even though I think Charlie Frye would be a decent backup option, if we want to be credible in case of injury, there's no way you cut Garcia unless you really think Gradkowski is worth something.
I thought Grads looked better than awful in Tampa, but apparently those few games were all he had.
I think Frye could be an alright clipboard guy. We've seen some good things from him...and we've seen some "Wow, you're not very good, are you?" throws. But, he's got the arm. Maybe a run first offense with a passing game predicated on getting the ball to your backs and TE would suit him.
But, yeah. Garcia remains the best option by far at this point, and I'm not exactly a huge Garthia fan.
Maybe it's meaningless this season, but remember Gruden and Hollas? What about Callahan and the MASH unit? If you don't have a viable backup and a reasonable facsimilie 3rd the whole damned thing can fall apart fast.
See how you do me? I laughed a little when you brought up Donald "FFFFFFFUUUUUUUU!!!" Hollas, then shivered thinking about all the garbage they called in during the Raider QB jinx season. You playin' wit mah emotions, Smokey!
Our defense prevented the Hollas season from dropping below 8-8, but we've currently got a defense more along the capabilities of Callahan's. So if the offense struggles, the defense is going to need some couch time with a shrink.
I think Kelly and Warren spend enough time on the couch. I swear I can see Cheetoes dust on their fingers and jerseys when they're on the field. :D
They definitely need to employ the "Run, run, run some more, and when in doubt, run." offense. That will help mask some of Carlisle and Green's deficiencies. It'll accentuate Henderson's weakness, but that's alright. They can work around him. How Satele does works out is going to be huge.
Now, if Green goes into his "Lead the league in false starts" style of play, they're in trouble.
I want to see Oakland lead the league in rush attempts. Is that asking for too much?
Sleet
08-10-2009, 12:27 PM
Garcia mentoring young Raider WRs?
I read this summer about Schilens working with Garcia in San Diego. Now this report on DHB, where Garcia speaks positively about the young WR, who came out as a junior. Garcia may not be in camp practicing, and certainly may want the starting QB job (and be frustrated when he doesn't get it). That said, there's plenty of good he can do, if he chooses to, and it appears that he might be choosing to.
Heyward-Bey's rookie woes a drop in the bucket for Raiders
NAPA, Calif. — Murmurs of disappointment could clearly be heard from silver-and-black-clad fans at Radio City Music Hall last April when the Oakland Raiders took wide receiver Darrius Heyward-Bey with the seventh pick in the NFL draft.
With higher-profile receivers such as Michael Crabtree and Jeremy Maclin there for the taking, the Raiders opted to go with the University of Maryland product?
Many draft analysts were vehement in their criticism of the choice, finally prompting NFL Network's Jon Gruden, the former Raiders coach, to chuckle and say that Raiders owner Al Davis couldn't care less about their analysis.
Was Heyward-Bey aware that the Raiders were being pilloried for their pick, and that he, by association, was similarly being ripped?
"Of course I was," he says with a laugh after a recent Raiders training camp practice. "I watch TV just like everybody else.
"Does that stuff bother me? No, not at all. I mean, coming out of high school, people said I couldn't play football at the D-I level, and it's the same thing now."
Yet one of the primary knocks against Heyward-Bey was that although he has sizzling speed, as he demonstrated by running the 40-yard dash in 4.30 seconds at the NFL scouting combine, his pass-catching ability is suspect.
And sure enough, holding onto passes has, at times, been difficult for the genial, soft-spoken rookie during the first week of camp.
Not that he hasn't had some great grabs. He has. But it seems that nary a session goes by that Heyward-Bey doesn't drop passes he knows he should have caught.
He nods his head when asked about the numerous drops.
"To me it's just every day coming out here (and) working," he says. "I play receiver, and a lot of balls come my way. I have to concentrate on the tough ones and the easy ones — gotta reel 'em in.
"Yeah, it's been an up-and-down camp so far."
His teammates, including quarterback JaMarcus Russell, acknowledge as much but also are strongly supportive of the rookie receiver.
"I think the more practice he gets, it's gonna be a lot better for him," Russell says. "Each and every day you can tell he works on something different, and when it's time for him to be that guy, I think he will.
"I know what he's destined for. It's coming."
Veteran quarterback Jeff Garcia, who arrived to the Raiders from Tampa Bay via free agency, is here to serve both as a backup to Russell and a mentor to younger players. He sees plenty of potential in Heyward-Bey.
"He's really working extremely hard, and the attitude that he has brought into camp, the physical conditioning that he has brought into camp, has all been positive," Garcia says. "The catching thing is just something that's he's going to have to continue to work on.
"That's something he realizes he needs to get better at, and he has shown signs of improvement. The thing about it is he has a great attitude. He doesn't get frustrated, he doesn't hang his head. He keeps battling and keeps moving forward, and that's what he has to do. He's taking the right approach."
Raiders coach Tom Cable is preaching patience.
"I'm really not worried about it. He's just pressing. He just wants to impress you."
That he's getting the chance to do just that means the world to Heyward-Bey.
"This is the NFL," he says. "It's the best of the best. I'm getting to know my teammates (and) I'm competing at the highest level. It gets no better than this."
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/raiders/2009-08-09-darrius-heyward-bey_N.htm
RaiderJF
08-10-2009, 12:47 PM
Garcia has been a non-issue from day 1. Yes, the injury has quieted the press that didn't have anything else to write about and the typical hair-brained fan that always seem to fall in love with the #2 qb almost regardless of who he is (at least until the guy actually hits the field and then they find out why he was second string...). But this 39 year old on a one year contract in probably his last year in the league was never going to take the starting job over from a guy getting paid $60 mil who is just developing as a pro QB in his second year of starting and represents the hope for this franchise going forward. Sure having Garcia out there (on the practice field) helps in creating competition and providing some mentorship for JRuss, but that is about it. Seriously, would it make sense to waste our #7 pick this year on a wr speedster if we were going to use an old noodle-armed QB that can't throw deep?? Come on now.
About as much sense as it made to spend the #1 overall pick on a QB with a giant arm when they're building a run heavy, "west coast" style offense.
Abelardo
08-10-2009, 08:19 PM
About as much sense as it made to spend the #1 overall pick on a QB with a giant arm when they're building a run heavy, "west coast" style offense.
That's an overstatement, anyone who knows the Raiders, or should I say, Al Davis, knows he's always gonna try to include the long passes in the strategy, it doesn't have to do precisely with a system, the long pass is an element which can be inserted into many playbooks, vertical, run & shoota, west coast, or ivory coast or whatever fuckin coast. The Raiders can run a lot, but they always will have in mind the long completion threat. Since I started watching them, they already loved going deep. We're not successful no more, but still The Raiders will try again and again. Puke on it if you want, but that's the way things are in Davisland.
The only exception was the Jon Gruden system, which was a pussy offensive system, and still seems to me, Gruden agreed to call some long yardage passing plays to appease Al Davis, attempts which of course, Gannon rarely completed. but that's just a perception.
Russell and DHB makes a lot of sense in Al Davis' system, no matter the current ground game approach. In Al Davis mind, vertical is more a philosophy than a system. But who the hell really knows what the old man has in mind?
The only exception was the Jon Gruden system, which was a pussy offensive system, and still seems to me, Gruden agreed to call some long yardage passing plays to appease Al Davis, attempts which of course, Gannon rarely completed. but that's just a perception.
So we're dogging the only real offensive success the team has had in a quarter century? Wow.
Abelardo
08-10-2009, 09:32 PM
So we're dogging the only real offensive success the team has had in a quarter century? Wow.
It was a successful team indeed, who can deny that? except the long pass wasn't his best weapon by any means, and that made even a greater difference with conventional Al Davis' systems. There were other flaws, but that doesn't affect the results. But you tend to see things in black and white. It was not really a comparison or measurement of success. The point was the long pass is very important for Al and its a constant in his strategy.
Who cares what's important to Al, though? Save for Al, of course.
Sleet
08-10-2009, 09:48 PM
Who cares what's important to Al, though? Save for Al, of course.
You're here, aren't you? :D
Without Al, you'd have far less to do. ;)
Birdwell
08-11-2009, 02:58 PM
So we're dogging the only real offensive success the team has had in a quarter century? Wow.
Here's a term: vertical stretch.
What does it mean? Is it primarily about the pass? Failure to understand this also explains why the O Gannon ran got destroyed in the debacle that was SB XXXVII.
The vertical stretch is about the running game. In fact, the entire premise of the vertical stretch requires a strong running game. The idea is that a strong running game, which is how you win in this league, will result in the opposing D stacking the box. Once that happens, your chance to gain 4+ yards per carry goes down, no matter who your O-linemen are. Having a WR who can beat anyone deep, and a QB who can complete the deep ball, forces the D to defend the entire depth of the field, which gets the 8+ guys out of the box.
Watch the performance of the O in the last SB we played in, if you can stomach it. What you'll see is that the Bucs stacked the box, because they had no fear of the deep ball. They jumped inside routes because when the receiver started setting to plant and cut, you knew he was going inside because Gannon didn't have the zip to throw it outside.
See, whether it's dink and dunk passes, power runs, or zone runs, if the D only has to defend sideline to sideline 10 yards from scrimmage, the O isn't going to get much done. This was as true when Al Davis was HC as it is now.
Dogging the only real offensive success in the past 25 years? The only success that ultimately matters is a champrionship. Putting up gaudy stats is nice. Scoring lots of points is nice. And if you can't run the ball, none of that matters. If the bad guy D stuffs 8 in the box and dares you to beat them deep and you CAN'T, your O is critically flawed. And once that flaw gets pointed out in film, everyone knows, and that O is done.
For example, in the seven games after the SB blowout, the Raider O that Gannon had so succesfully orchestrated did almost nothing. Gannon himself had only one good game, in a win against the Bolts. The Bucs D had diagnosed how to beat that O, and it was over.
WK 1 v Titans, LOSS: Gannon 24-38 for 264, 2TDs/0 picks
WK 2 v Bengals, WIN: Gannon 13-28 for 103, 0 TDs/0 picks
WK 3 @ Donks, LOSS: Gannon 14-29 for 149, 0 TDs/0 picks
WK 4 v Bolts, WIN: Gannon 26-43 for 348, 3 TDs/0 picks
WK 5 @ Bears, LOSS: Gannon, 17-35 for 187, 0 TDs/2 picks,
WK 6 @ Browns, LOSS: Gannon, 21-33 for 165, 1 TD/0 picks
WK 7 v Chefs, LOSS: Gannon 10-19 for 58, 0 TDs/1 pick
Yes, Gannon went down in the Chiefs game. He came back the following year and posted these numbers:
WK 1 v Steelers, LOSS: Gannon 20-37 for 305, 2 TDs/2picks
WK 2 v Bills, LOSS: 13-24 for 198, 1 TD/1 pick
WK 3 v Bucs, LOSS: 2-4 for 10 yards, 0 TDs/0 picks
No, the loss to the Bucs was not Gannon's responsibility. But in the 2003 season, following the SB, his QB rating was 74.3. For the 2+ games he played in 2004, it was 76.0. In 2001 it was 95.5, in 2002 it was 97.3. Sure, other factors played into the declining performance, and it's not specifically Gannon's fault -- but Gannon's limitations were also the limitation of the O. With everyone in the box, his completion percentage was down, and guys weren't taking short passes to the end zone.
Vertical stretch. That's why you draft DHB, pick up Murphy when he's sitting there, bring in a guy like Nick Miller. And that's why having a rocket arm QB capable of throwing downfield helps even the running game.
QED
Jack's sore libido
08-11-2009, 03:05 PM
Um, the Raiders beat the Bucs in 2004. And the Bills.
Another huge wall of text I'll never read. :D
CrossBones
08-11-2009, 03:24 PM
Another huge wall of text I'll never read. :DWhy are you being rude? You don't need to comment if that's all you have. And yes, I'm telling. :D
hawaiianboy
08-11-2009, 04:06 PM
The only exception was the Jon Gruden system, which was a pussy offensive system, and still seems to me, Gruden agreed to call some long yardage passing plays to appease Al Davis, attempts which of course, Gannon rarely completed. but that's just a perception.
Yeah those 13 and 14 play drives that had so many defenses sucking wind late in games aren't for real men...
So rather than play to the strengths of the only QB we've had worth a damn lately, we should have been throwing it deep so the stuck in the 70's Raider fans can get their jollies?...
It always amazes me the lack of appreciation people had for what Gruden and Gannon did... People seem to forget that after the disastrous decisions to hire Mike White and Joe Bugel that we were headed ass first into the same kind of stir fried crap hole we've been living in the last 6 years... People forget that before Gruden came along with his pussy offensive system, that the entire team practically quit on Bugel the last two months of the previous season... That that last pre-Gruden Bugel year was the most embarrassing season we had until Al decided to bring back the vertical game with Shell in 06...
Jack's sore libido
08-11-2009, 04:09 PM
It always amazes me the lack of appreciation people had for what Gruden and Gannon did...
Well, all due respect, you were one of those people who, during that time, made snarky comments about the Gannon offense.
CrossBones
08-11-2009, 04:09 PM
I don't have a lack of appreciation for what Gruden and Gannon did 'anymore'...
I've seen the light.
Yeah those 13 and 14 play drives that had so many defenses sucking wind late in games aren't for real men...
So rather than play to the strengths of the only QB we've had worth a damn lately, we should have been throwing it deep so the stuck in the 70's Raider fans can get their jollies?...
It always amazes me the lack of appreciation people had for what Gruden and Gannon did... People seem to forget that after the disastrous decisions to hire Mike White and Joe Bugel that we were headed ass first into the same kind of stir fried crap hole we've been living in the last 6 years... People forget that before Gruden came along with his pussy offensive system, that the entire team practically quit on Bugel the last two months of the previous season... That that last pre-Gruden Bugel year was the most embarrassing season we had until Al decided to bring back the vertical game with Shell in 06...
Lotta gospel being preached tonight. Halle Looyah.
SoCalRaider
08-11-2009, 04:16 PM
The only exception was the Jon Gruden system, which was a pussy offensive system, and still seems to me, Gruden agreed to call some long yardage passing plays to appease Al Davis, attempts which of course, Gannon rarely completed. but that's just a perception.
Ya know... we really didn't have problems moving the ball in Gruden's pussy system. It kept our extremely pussy defense off the field, while it took a ton of time off the clock. That pussy system was also the foundation of the spread offense in 2002 that shattered every offensive record in Raider history. After we abandoned that pussy system... we never won more than 4 games in a season. While I don't think anybody of sane mind or awakened consciousness can argue that it was a smart decision to flush the pussy system down the toilet like we did.... I do think you could make an equally strong argument that until this team fields an NFL caliber front 7 on defense, it will never win more than 4 games in a season again until it moves back to that pussy system that kept our defense off the field....
Goal to go...
Three TEs...
Crockett lines up behind Ritchie...
Players screaming from the sidelines "You know what's coming!"
Fans screaming from the Black Hole "You know what's coming!"
Linebackers pointing, yelling. They know what's coming.
Robbins with the snap...
"14 Blast"
Touchdown, Raiders.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/36839872_53e4be383d.jpg?v=0
Fuckin' pussies. I hated that play.
hawaiianboy
08-11-2009, 04:27 PM
Well, all due respect, you were one of those people who, during that time, made snarky comments about the Gannon offense.
Yeah, I did... I never claimed the offense was perfect and couldn't have been improved on, but I never claimed it was pussified either... and yes I made snarky comments about St Rich because apparently in some people's eyes it wasn't okay to actually like someone and criticize someone at the same time... I criticized Gruden for lack of game day management skills, but that doesn't mean I didn't have an appreciation for what he did well and where he managed to take us... I also made snarky comments about Fat Mo and Fat Middleton, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't give my left nut for some dominant O-linemen like them... In light of the crap we've seen from coaches and QB's the last six years, I would gladly apologize for not having more appreciation of what we had then...
Hell I don't know if there has ever been a Raider player or coach I haven't made snarky comments about...
Jack's sore libido
08-11-2009, 04:35 PM
Cinderella was right.
"Don't know what you got ... til it's gone ..."
Birdwell
08-11-2009, 05:20 PM
Um, the Raiders beat the Bucs in 2004. And the Bills.
Uh, agreed. My bad. Too many windows, too little brain.
Birdwell
08-11-2009, 05:27 PM
Goal to go...
Three TEs...
Crockett lines up behind Ritchie...
Players screaming from the sidelines "You know what's coming!"
Fans screaming from the Black Hole "You know what's coming!"
Linebackers pointing, yelling. They know what's coming.
Robbins with the snap...
"14 Blast"
Touchdown, Raiders.
Fuckin' pussies. I hated that play.
Yeah, Chuckie had a beast of a running game with Wheatley and Crockett and Ritchie. So he went out and got Charlie Garner so he could dink and dunk instead.
And, since you can't be bothered to read things youv don't already agree with unless they're really short, here's the Golden Books version just for you:
The vertical stretch is about running, not passing.
Can't run against 8 in the box (or dink and dunk, either).
So you have to get D players out of the box.
You do this with a WR who can beat any CB deep, and a QB who can make that pass.
This is all the more true against 3-4 Ds, which are very good defending the width of the field at 10-12 yards of depth.
That better?
Rupert
08-11-2009, 05:32 PM
Yeah those 13 and 14 play drives that had so many defenses sucking wind late in games aren't for real men...
So rather than play to the strengths of the only QB we've had worth a damn lately, we should have been throwing it deep so the stuck in the 70's Raider fans can get their jollies?...
It always amazes me the lack of appreciation people had for what Gruden and Gannon did... People seem to forget that after the disastrous decisions to hire Mike White and Joe Bugel that we were headed ass first into the same kind of stir fried crap hole we've been living in the last 6 years... People forget that before Gruden came along with his pussy offensive system, that the entire team practically quit on Bugel the last two months of the previous season... That that last pre-Gruden Bugel year was the most embarrassing season we had until Al decided to bring back the vertical game with Shell in 06...
You do realise White ran a WCO. He was just pretty damned stupid.
The on thing I really disliked about the Gruden/Gannon era was the lack of a real deep threat.
In my opinion, it is best to be able to threaten EVERY area of the field. The fact we couldn't threaten deep with Gannon bothered me. Eventually, no-one respected the deep pump fake. Not even rookie corners twitched when he did it. When he pumped deep, they tightened the screws on the short routes.
In my book, you've got to have all elements in your play book. That way, you've got the ability to adjust if someone has your number that day.
I really liked when Norv had Gannon pump short and throw deep. It was pretty effective because everyone was sooooo used to him throwing short that they bit and bit hard on those short pump-fakes.
Just like on defense, you've got to mix it up, and you've got to be able to execute.
Gruden? Pfft, Jonnie freaking Spreadseet.
Yeah, Chuckie had a beast of a running game with Wheatley and Crockett and Ritchie. So he went out and got Charlie Garner so he could dink and dunk instead.
And, since you can't be bothered to read things youv don't already agree with unless they're really short, here's the Golden Books version just for you:
The vertical stretch is about running, not passing.
Can't run against 8 in the box (or dink and dunk, either).
So you have to get D players out of the box.
You do this with a WR who can beat any CB deep, and a QB who can make that pass.
This is all the more true against 3-4 Ds, which are very good defending the width of the field at 10-12 yards of depth.
That better?
Relevant to anything I've said how, exactly?
Birdwell
08-11-2009, 05:43 PM
You do realise White ran a WCO. He was just pretty damned stupid.
The on thing I really disliked about the Gruden/Gannon era was the lack of a real deep threat.
In my opinion, it is best to be able to threaten EVERY area of the field. The fact we couldn't threaten deep with Gannon bothered me. Eventually, no-one respected the deep pump fake. Not even rookie corners twitched when he did it. When he pumped deep, they tightened the screws on the short routes.
In my book, you've got to have all elements in your play book. That way, you've got the ability to adjust if someone has your number that day.
I really liked when Norv had Gannon pump short and throw deep. It was pretty effective because everyone was sooooo used to him throwing short that they bit and bit hard on those short pump-fakes.
Just like on defense, you've got to mix it up, and you've got to be able to execute.
Gruden? Pfft, Jonnie freaking Spreadseet.
Quoting this because it's worth reading again, and the system refuses to let me rep people when I wanna.
The O-D comparison is very well made. It is odd how so many of the people who think it's more important for our D to be deceptive than simply gap-sound are the same people who disparage the deep pass and idolize the Chuckie dink and dunk O. Kinda like the "pro-lifers" who are also pro-death penalty.
Trickery is find, but the easiest thing to actually pull off is to go counter-tendency. If people expect you to run a particular play out of given offensive set, when you really need to succeed you call a play that uses the D-reaction to what they expect against that D. If in a given down and siatnce the D typically shows a certain coverage and makes a particular line call, changing one or both of those allows youto use a strength of the O against it.
Running around at the line of scrimmage is unneccesary and, in the case of the Raider D personnel carried over from last year, something that has worked out badly.
CrossBones
08-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Running around at the line of scrimmage is unnecessary...Ted Hendericks says "hi".
Birdwell
08-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Relevant to anything I've said how, exactly?
When you skip things that look too hard, you miss, stuff.
RaiderJF wrote: Sure having Garcia out there (on the practice field) helps in creating competition and providing some mentorship for JRuss, but that is about it. Seriously, would it make sense to waste our #7 pick this year on a wr speedster if we were going to use an old noodle-armed QB that can't throw deep?? Come on now.
You replied: About as much sense as it made to spend the #1 overall pick on a QB with a giant arm when they're building a run heavy, "west coast" style offense.
You also wrote: So we're dogging the only real offensive success the team has had in a quarter century?
I countered, in a post you ignored: Dogging the only real offensive success in the past 25 years? The only success that ultimately matters is a champrionship. Putting up gaudy stats is nice. Scoring lots of points is nice. And if you can't run the ball, none of that matters. If the bad guy D stuffs 8 in the box and dares you to beat them deep and you CAN'T, your O is critically flawed. And once that flaw gets pointed out in film, everyone knows, and that O is done.
Then I added some comparative numbers to back up that argument. The Buc D showed exactly how to defeat the dink and dunk Gannon ran so well the prior two years, and once that happened he had two good games in two years.
With all the posting you do, maybe you could read a little, too.
Birdwell
08-11-2009, 05:53 PM
Ted Hendericks says "hi".
Decent call, XB, but I would suggest that unneccesary isn't the same thing as pointless. Kick'em played rush LB in a 3-4, which is inherently more about moving around to create favorable matchups than the 4-3 that we're playing now. And he played on one of the smartest Ds the league has ever seen. Those cats were almost always where they needed to be, even when they were't really supopsed to be there.
I'd love to see our D totally baffling and confusing the hell out of QBs and OCs. Until this one can execute the Pop Warner stuff though, that's like asking a freshman in college physics to build and H-bmb, and then plan your entire strategy around it being successfully produced.
Jack's sore libido
08-11-2009, 05:55 PM
I never bought the idea that the Raiders lacked a deep threat in Gruden's time.
James Jett had 882 yards in Gruden's first year.
And Brown/Rison/Rice all had enough wheels to get behind defenders for long passes. Having a deep game doesn't necessarily mean throwing it 60 yards downfield.
Sleet
08-11-2009, 05:55 PM
Another huge wall of text I'll never read. :D
Ignorance is bliss. :shrug:
Jack's sore libido
08-11-2009, 05:58 PM
Dogging the only real offensive success in the past 25 years? The only success that ultimately matters is a champrionship. Putting up gaudy stats is nice. Scoring lots of points is nice. And if you can't run the ball, none of that matters. If the bad guy D stuffs 8 in the box and dares you to beat them deep and you CAN'T, your O is critically flawed. And once that flaw gets pointed out in film, everyone knows, and that O is done.
My only problem with your argument here is that the Raiders didn't even try to run the ball on the Bucs.
And they didn't try because Barret Robbins got himself effed up in Tijuana.
That game is wildly different, IMO, if Robbins plays. The Raiders don't throw enough for Gannon to throw 5 picks. They run right up the gut on the smallish DTs the Bucs were sporting (remember, Booger was out, so Chartric Darby was starting).
hawaiianboy
08-11-2009, 06:02 PM
It is odd how so many of the people who think it's more important for our D to be deceptive than simply gap-sound are the same people who disparage the deep pass and idolize the Chuckie dink and dunk O.
Guess this was meant for me.... Though I think it's pretty obvious that a defense can give the offense pre-snap and multiple looks and still be gap sound, why the two have to mutually exclusive is beyond me... and choosing to not disparage the Gruden years does not equate to being averse to the occasional 9 route... but whatever...
Sleet
08-11-2009, 06:04 PM
My only problem with your argument here is that the Raiders didn't even try to run the ball on the Bucs.
And they didn't try because Barret Robbins got himself effed up in Tijuana.
That game is wildly different, IMO, if Robbins plays. The Raiders don't throw enough for Gannon to throw 5 picks. They run right up the gut on the smallish DTs the Bucs were sporting (remember, Booger was out, so Chartric Darby was starting).
Heavy forbid people actually point out that Robbins absence mattered. A few years earlier, with Gruden coaching the Raiders, the Raiders set an all time rushing record running behind Robbins with Wheatley right up the gut, right at Tampa's speed defense. Without Robbins, it was a different ball game.
Yes, I'm assuming Callahan would have been smart enough to run the ball more with Robbins. As it was, I think we had 3rd and short 3 times early on in the SuperBowl, and we went 0-3.
Jack's sore libido
08-11-2009, 06:24 PM
A few years earlier, with Gruden coaching the Raiders, the Raiders set an all time rushing record running behind Robbins with Wheatley right up the gut, right at Tampa's speed defense. Without Robbins, it was a different ball game.
True, true, true.
The irony is that they happened to match up in the playoffs against the ONE TEAM they had absolutely no business trying to run against -- the Ravens. That 2000 team was probably the best the Raiders fielded under Gruden. Early on, they forced the run and got jacked up. Then when they were forced to pass (with and without Gannon), they threw picks, but actually had a TD throw called back for a penalty on Rison.
Sleet
08-11-2009, 07:17 PM
True, true, true.
The irony is that they happened to match up in the playoffs against the ONE TEAM they had absolutely no business trying to run against -- the Ravens. That 2000 team was probably the best the Raiders fielded under Gruden. Early on, they forced the run and got jacked up. Then when they were forced to pass (with and without Gannon), they threw picks, but actually had a TD throw called back for a penalty on Rison.
Two of the Raiders' biggest games, and the match-ups were 100% against us. A running team v. Raverns that couldn't throw deep. And a passing-team v. Tamba, that got nuttered right before the big game.
SoCalRaider
08-11-2009, 07:56 PM
Robbins went AWOL the day before the Ravens AFC Championship game as well. Gruden admitted making a house visit to get him to show up the next day.... but it's anybody's guess if he was even 100% for that game.
Raider Bill
08-11-2009, 08:35 PM
If the goddamned Eagles didn't choke the Raiders would have that ellusive 4th Lombardi.
Last game ever at home, at the Vet, vs a team that plays poorly in the cold historically.
Raider Bill
08-11-2009, 08:38 PM
Then I added some comparative numbers to back up that argument. The Buc D showed exactly how to defeat the dink and dunk Gannon ran so well the prior two years, and once that happened he had two good games in two years.
With all the posting you do, maybe you could read a little, too.
The Buc defense was susceptible to the run. Philly/Duce Staley gashed them in the regualr season IIRC.
That and they knew all our audibles. Remember how good we looked vs Indy when Biekert sussed out all the audibles?
Birdwell
08-11-2009, 10:12 PM
My only problem with your argument here is that the Raiders didn't even try to run the ball on the Bucs.
And they didn't try because Barret Robbins got himself effed up in Tijuana.
That game is wildly different, IMO, if Robbins plays. The Raiders don't throw enough for Gannon to throw 5 picks. They run right up the gut on the smallish DTs the Bucs were sporting (remember, Booger was out, so Chartric Darby was starting).
Maybe. But Treu was always a decent run blocker -- never the beast that Robbins was, but good enough. The reason we couldn't run had more to do with the fact that M. Kiffin stuffed eight and nine in the box, and dared Gannon to beat his D long. On the one or two passes he tried, down the seam, it worked. But Callahan was a fucking moron and Gannon believed too much in what wasn't working.
Birdwell
08-11-2009, 10:18 PM
Guess this was meant for me.... Though I think it's pretty obvious that a defense can give the offense pre-snap and multiple looks and still be gap sound, why the two have to mutually exclusive is beyond me... and choosing to not disparage the Gruden years does not equate to being averse to the occasional 9 route... but whatever...
Not really, HB.
A D can indeed be deceptive and gap sound. But this really isn't a chicken and egg question, more a sort of how do I get paid question. It is more important to be gap sound than to be deceptive, if there has to be a tradeoff between the two. For a D that has made a mediocre Pop Warner team look disciplined, gap control is essential, and has to come before you can worry about being deceptive. As Rupert keeps pointing out, if your gap discipline sucks, and you don't win your one-on-one battles, it really doesn't matter how deceptive you are because the O knows it will move the ball on you anyway, no problem.
And, as I used to tell the students who came to see me after getting a C- or worse on a paper how they could get an A, I told them not to worry about it. If you got a C-, the goal for your next paper is a B, and you need to do X, Y, and Z, as well as doing A, B, and C better. I didn't tell them, but implied that getting an A would also require that they do Yuzz and Phloob, because that would have been too much to take in and work on all at once.
Once the Raiders are gap sound, then it's time to worry about being tricky.
Maybe. But Treu was always a decent run blocker
He really wasn't very good at run blocking. Pass blocking, yes. He was crap in the run game, though.
Raider Bill
08-12-2009, 06:30 AM
Friggin Treu.... we got the one guy from Nebraska who couldn't run block for shit LOL>.
Raider Bill
08-12-2009, 06:32 AM
Once the Raiders are gap sound, then it's time to worry about being tricky.
A lot of these guys have been on this team for years now
Are we ever going to get beyond "defense for dummies" level. ?
CrossBones
08-12-2009, 07:28 AM
..."defense for dummies" Are they ever going to come out with the 4th edition of that book? We could use some help here!
Maybe they should hire someone from GLB. Some of those guys design some really effective defenses.
:(
Rupert
08-12-2009, 09:11 AM
Friggin Treu.... we got the one guy from Nebraska who couldn't run block for shit LOL>.
Sorry Bird, gotta jump on the wagon here. Treu was average at the point, and had zero ability to get to the 2nd level. We lost about 2 YPC when Robbins went down.
Robbins developed pretty consistently. At first he was like Treu, stuck at level 1. Then he learned to get to level 2, but never was able to hit someone, he kinda stood there with his head on a swivel. Then it all clicked and he started punishing 2nd level defenders. When he did that, we turned 2-3 yard runs into 4-5 yards runs on a consistent basis.
So I'm looking forward to Satele being a guy who can get to the 2nd level. Grove, though more powerful than Treu, was stuck at level 1, just like him.
Rupert
08-12-2009, 09:13 AM
Maybe they should hire someone from GLB. Some of those guys design some really effective defenses.
:(
It ain't hard when you don't have to worry about facing real offenses. :eek:
Rupert
08-12-2009, 09:22 AM
A lot of these guys have been on this team for years now
Are we ever going to get beyond "defense for dummies" level. ?
We'd have to start drafting something other than dummies for the front 7 (and back 2 too).
Jeez! We can find them in free agency. It really looks like we don't even try in college. It's all about the physicals. And I understand the reasonsing, "you can teach size and speed", but... damn!
If you know what brains look like at the NFL level, why NOT look for it when scouting college?
Size and Speed are easy things to see. Look for the brains. That's what we should be scouting. Cross-referencing the phsyicals is easy. Scouting the brains is the trick. Do the tough work FIRST! ESPECIALLY if we're not going to bring in and KEEP teaching coaches.
If you're just going to draft athletes, then you need to RETAIN teachers that consistently develop players. And then you need to RETAIN the guys you've taught.
I'm not saying many of the guys we've cast off recently were worth much, BUT we have let guys go that went on to moderate success elsewhere. So we suffer through their worst years while they learn the game, and someone else gets a couple years of success out of them. :shakehead:
It ain't hard when you don't have to worry about facing real offenses. :eek:
So you're saying it could work against KC and Denver...
Birdwell
08-12-2009, 11:00 AM
Average is pretty much equivalent to decent, yeah? What the hell else did I write?
Rupert
08-12-2009, 02:41 PM
So you're saying it could work against KC and Denver...
LOL! Probably would. :pound:
Rupert
08-12-2009, 02:43 PM
Average is pretty much equivalent to decent, yeah? What the hell else did I write?
Alrighty then. Too many terms masquerading for the same meaning.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.