Art Shell Press Conference

[RaiderIVlife]

For those that care to hear it.

http://cbs5.com/sports/local_story_255144238.html

I guess I'm the Mother Of All Kool-Aid drinkers. What he says basically makes sense to me. (shrug)

 

[hawaiianboy]

I actually enjoyed this interview... He sure sounds like a guy that believes he'll be back next year... I can't say I've seen much out of the coaching decisions on the offensive side of the ball that would make me the Kool Aid drinker I was in the past though... What might help is Al going out and getting a dynamic OC to team with him...


I gotta admit jealousy though when I hear of the Giants possibly planning a teaming of Scott Pioli and Charlie Weis next year....

 

[Banter]

Did he even see the axe after the 1994 season?

I'm just wondering if the health thing with Al might have thrown a gawd damn monkey wrench into our off-season. I can easily see this paralyzing the organization while they wait for Al to get back on his feet.

 

[RaiderIVlife]

I actually enjoyed this interview... He sure sounds like a guy that believes he'll be back next year... I can't say I've seen much out of the coaching decisions on the offensive side of the ball that would make me the Kool Aid drinker I was in the past though... What might help is Al going out and getting a dynamic OC to team with him...


I gotta admit jealousy though when I hear of the Giants possibly planning a teaming of Scott Pioli and Charlie Weis next year....

Coaching decisions in regard to the offense? It's called "talent" my man. It's all about the players and we don't many of them - on that side of the ball. Our best player is a possesion WR (Ronald Curry) coming off back-to-back major injuries and our best HB (Justin Fargas) is a guy that most wanted released from the squad.

John Shoop has gone to the horizontal scheme that many clamored for and the results, at least in terms of points, have actually been worse.

Hate to use the "E" word, but it still applies. The players are not "executing", whether it's under Walsh, Shoop, or Mike Martz IMO.

I will blame coaching, if you will, in one area however. That area is continuity, we haven't seen it since Gruden left. Constant changing (Callahan, Turner & Shell) coupled with guys not panning out to this point have ruined the offense more than anything else.

In the end, it's simply a matter of the Raider coaching staff trying to make "chicken salad out of chicken shit".

This whole thing will look markedly different in 2007........

 

[hawaiianboy]

? It's called "talent" my man. It's all about the players and we don't many of them - on that side of the ball.

I'm about ready to agree to disagree on this subject because it's apparent you and I see it entirely different and that's unlikely to change... Yes we don't have all world talent, but we don't have 2-13 talent either... I think with a fair coaching job, this is a .500 roster...

We pretty much had the same basic core group last year under the guidance of Turner/Raye in a vertical based offense...

A current backup QB Kerry Collins posted almost 4,000 yards and about a 2:1 TD to INT ratio...

Our WR's had almost 1,000 yards each...

The same Lamont Jordan who can't get untracked this year posted 1,000 yards and 70 catches in 14 games...

The O-line consisting of the same basic core group went from middle of the pack in sacks allowed to leading the league...

We went from being a pretty average offense as far as the NFL goes to being compared with the most inept offenses of all time... Every returning offensive player saw a drop in performance level from the previous year...

That kind of across the board drop in production can't all be blamed on talent level or execution... Lack of execution could be attributed to every unsuccessful play on both sides of the ball... That's not a free pass I'd give any coach...

Maybe I just expect too much from coaches, but I believe that kind of dramatic drop in production from 'like' players should be placed right at their feet... I'm the first one to admit that I'm hard on coaches and QB's in general just because they are such a huge part of what shapes the success/failure of your team...

Any coach can draw a scheme up on paper... Good coaches will put the players they have on their roster in the proper position to succeed... Great coaches will get players to play beyond their talent level...

I saw an offensive scheme that didn't account for the speed of NFL defenses, a pass pro scheme that wasn't very user friendly to blitz pickups and offensive linemen in general, and a scheme that did very little to create mismatches or keep defenses off balance...


JMO of course, but I'd put the overall failure of the offense at:

50% Faulty scheme, inadequate coaching
25% Talent
25% Execution


If Art comes back, and it appears he will at this point, I think it's imperative that we put an innovative OC with a working knowledge of blitz pickups in place... Yes, we need to add talent, but we also need to move away from protection schemes that basically need pro Bowl talent across the front to succeed on a game to game basis...

Frankly, I don't think you can put the process of selecting the OC in Art's hands this time around and I'm not confident with having it in Al's either... We need a Tom Moore type that would basically prop up a weak X's and O's head coach... It'll never happen, but I'd bring in Howard Mudd as assistant head coach... The guy is animated which plays off Art's stoic personality, he's been involved with primo offenses and he's worked magic with average offensive line talent at Indy... Get Mudd in as assistant head coach/O-line guru, hire a James Lofton or Ken Zampese as OC and then go out and burn the godawful Oakland Raider 2006 playbook...

In the end, it's simply a matter of the Raider coaching staff trying to make "chicken salad out of chicken shit".

I think you can also apply this same theory to the coaching staff... Just as there are average/below average players that will never be anything past that, there are also average/below average coaches that will never be anything past what they are... It's entirely possible that Shell, Walsh, Shoop, Slater, Freddy B etc are the coaching equivalents of the Langston Walkers, Aaron Brooks, Jake Groves, Randall Williams, and Alvis Whitteds of the world...

Yeah if you ask me honestly, of course I'd prefer to bring in a Charlie Weis or Bobby Petrino... But I also feel that if Art comes back that he could be successful if we upgrade the coaching staff around him much the way we hope to upgrade the overall talent on offense... I don't see an offense coach that would evaluate past 'poor' as far as job performance goes... I don't expect we'd be able to stock the pond the way Belichick managed to do in New England, but I do expect an upgrade over the buddy hires Art made....

JMO...

 

[Madturk]

Frankly, I don't think you can put the process of selecting the OC in Art's hands this time around and I'm not confident with having it in Al's either... We need a Tom Moore type that would basically prop up a weak X's and O's head coach... It'll never happen, but I'd bring in Howard Mudd as assistant head coach... The guy is animated which plays off Art's stoic personality, he's been involved with primo offenses and he's worked magic with average offensive line talent at Indy... Get Mudd in as assistant head coach/O-line guru, hire a James Lofton or Ken Zampese as OC and then go out and burn the godawful Oakland Raider 2006 playbook...

I think you touch on some excellent points HB. My problem here is why even retain Art Shell? In addition to his not being an X's and O's guy, his game management skills suck and his player personnel decisions and coaching selections are just mind boggling. I mean, can someone please tell me anything positive he's done this season.

Screw this whole continuity argument. We've pretty much hit rock bottom as an organization. It can't get any worse. I'd rather not delay the inevitable anymore.

 

[SoCalRaider]

To take it a step further... why would any viable OC candidate want to work under Art Shell? I think the guy single handedly destroyed his reputation as a HC when he took his beef with Lombardi straight to the media... so much for keeping things in house. Plus he's got a hell of a reputation of letting good talent (Allen and now Porter) rot on the sidelines.

Jerry West put it best when a reporter asked him what seperates a great GM from all the rest. "All GMs make mistakes... the great ones know how to get rid of their mistakes quickly."

The sooner Davis rids this place of Shell, the better.

 

[Rupert]

I saw an offensive scheme that didn't account for the speed of NFL defenses, a pass pro scheme that wasn't very user friendly to blitz pickups and offensive linemen in general, and a scheme that did very little to create mismatches or keep defenses off balance...

You blame the coaches. Okay, they've got some culpability, but under Walsh, Walter looked downfield all day long and never came off to the underneath receivers (which you claim weren't there). However, put Brooks under center after his long injury, with the same pass route combinations, and all of a sudden the underneath receiver is getting hit. Blame the coaches for not getting Walter to come off the deep route soon enough, but the season-long rant that Walsh didn't have the route packages was wrong.

Scheme change under Shoop, Brooks under center. The short timing routes are emphasized and Brooks doesn't have the confidence to release the ball. Throw Walter under center and he gets rid of the ball, but being inexperienced he makes mistakes in his reads and throws picks.

In both cases the pass protection scheme was sound for the play at hand. QB play effected the play result. The protection called wasn't always correct either, but that happens to every team in the NFL. At some point the players have to make the plays. The QB has to recognize the issues with pass protection and the play called. Is the coach at fault that Walter doesn't realize his pass protection won't allow him to wait for 5 seconds to release the ball? Is the coach at fault that Brooks won't throw the ball to the quick slant on a 3-step drop? For both I say yes and no. Yes, because the coach should recognize what their players' limitations are. No, because the players should at some point get comfortable or reach an understanding about how the play is supposed to function and execute it.

The scheme didn't account for the speed of NFL defenses? We sure as hell disagree. The players didn't account for the speed of NFL defenses. As quickly as our OL was getting beaten off the ball didn't account for the speed of NFL defenses. Our backs not blocking the dogging backer didn't account for the speed of NFL defenses. Our interior linemen getting driven back into the QB on a 3-step drop didn't account for the power of NFL defenses. Our WR's and TE's dropping passes didn't account for the speed of NFL defenses.

I've said it too often this season: the players were the biggest problem. Everyone blamed Walsh. Then when you got your wish with a modern coordinator in Shoop, the team still couldn't produce. Oh wow! 10 more yards a game and 4 points less. Two different approaches to offense and similar results. Maybe both OC's suck out loud. It's possible. But RIVL nailed it that you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

Many of the offensive coaches you're complaining about coached last year too when our production was so much better. Freddy B was coaching Gruden's receivers too. Ooops. Hole in that theory.

My percentages:
30% Coaching - attitude adjustment from Art and players adjusting to it
30% Talent
30% Execution
10% Scheme - we had two - one you liked and one you didn't - neither worked. Either could have been more balanced, but both would have worked better if the players had worked them better.

 

[hawaiianboy]

You blame the coaches. Okay, they've got some culpability, but under Walsh, Walter looked downfield all day long and never came off to the underneath receivers (which you claim weren't there).

You mean when we were max protecting with the two RB's and using mostly three man routes?... When there wasn't a single pass completion to a RB for what? the first 4 games?... I don't know what you mean by route combinations, but I said that the bottom of the passing tree wasn't being utilized... There was nothing going to the backs and a quick slant or a short out was pretty non-existent... How many rub routes did you see? How many times did we see a LB matched up with a back running a circle route?... We were getting killed with LB blitzes and not utilizing a back as the hot receiver...

It's not like I was alone with my thinking... From Andrew Walter:

Backup quarterback Andrew Walter has been openly critical of Walsh's play-calling, saying there aren't enough "quick-hitters" and short stuff and that many of his plays take too long to develop. As a result, he said, he and starting quarterback Aaron Brooks are more susceptible to being sacked.

Lamont Jordan has also been vocal about it... Rich Gannon noted it... Jaworski panned it on film break downs... Timmy Brown... Jerry Rice way back in the SF preseason game noted that only the top of the tree was being featured and that it would be a long year for the QB's if it stayed that way... Opposing coaches came out and flat out said our offense was simple to prepare for...

The scheme didn't account for the speed of NFL defenses? We sure as hell disagree.

Guess we do... we ran a scheme assuming that speed guys like Moss, Whitted and Williams would be able to outrun coverages... Instead teams sat back in two deep, rolled a safety over the top of Moss, and dropped the inside backer deep ... Most teams use a drop step blocking scheme specifically to offset the speed off the ball of rushing defenders... We don't and constantly find ourself getting beat off the ball on the initial step...

I've said it too often this season: the players were the biggest problem.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains alot of those same players produced last year under Jimmy Raye... That we couldn't get anywhere near the same production out of them while a spare like Raye could is a testiment to just how bad the scheme was....

Everyone blamed Walsh. Then when you got your wish with a modern coordinator in Shoop, the team still couldn't produce. Oh wow! 10 more yards a game and 4 points less. Two different approaches to offense and similar results. Maybe both OC's suck out loud. It's possible. But RIVL nailed it that you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit.

Neither one would have been my choice, but it is hardly fair to compare the two... One of them had a full training camp and 12 in season weeks to implement his scheme, the other took over midweek 11 games into a lost season... Both are dogshit IMO, but I'd take Shoop at this point just because his offenses at least sustain drives and keeps our defense off the field... Like I said, it looks like you're discounting that the same chicken salad out of chicken shit theme could be applied to the coaches... Can you honestly look back and point to a single positive that came out of Tom Walsh's presence?... You get upset when everyone blames him but yet it seems like you absolve him of blame for defects in his scheme?...


We went from an average offense to a pathetic one... We basically swapped out Kerry Collins for Walter/Brooks and Boothe for Stone and changed coordinators... All year long we've seen the opposing coaching staff go into the locker room at halftime and make adjustments to what we're doing on offense while we constantly flatline after the break... That to me is one of the biggest signs that our collective offensive braintrust is just not up to NFL par...

I'm certainly not arguing that the talent level doesn't need to be improved right across the board because I've been banging that gong for a few years now... but there is just no way in hell that this group should have been down in the gutter with the Tampa's and Seattles as worst ever... Personally, if I were a coach I would put that squarely on myself...

 

[Rupert]

I love the "basically the same personnel" argument. Right! Average offense? Wrong again. Below average offense.

Let's just look at the OL for a minute:

Gallery and Slaughter were worse at LT than Sims was last year.
Sims and now McQ played worse than Walker/Badger did.
Grove was worse than Treu.
McQ and Booth about washed Ron Stone and Grove.
Langston played worse than Gallery.

Now, you can continue to blame the scheme, but manning up and driving your guy off the line or walling him off from the QB is all about how well you play the game. The line play dropped off from last year, and as any objective person can see, the personnel changed. But changing positions doesn't seem to count in your book. Guys were picking up blitzes almost as often as they did last season, and they were bad then.

Collins would have done better in Walsh's scheme than Brooks or Walter did.

Combined we have MORE rushing yards and a better average per carry through 15 games this season than we did all 16 last season. Fewer TD's though.

Moss played worse this season than when he was injured last season.
Porter fueded himself out of the game.
Whitted? I still don't get this one.
Curry is back to form, but got far too little field time.
Gabriel was traded. This makes as much sense to me as Whitted starting.

I don't blame the scheme here as much as I blame the coaching decisions. Whitted starting? That's brilliant. Porter disgruntled but we trade Gabriel? Another Phi Beta Kappa move.

So here's where I break it down: bad QB play, poor pass protection, underwhelming WR play, AND stubbornly sticking with a deep passing game despite the 1st three factors.

It's funny that you quote players that support your theories and ignore the ones that dispute it. Jordan has praised Shoop, Peete, and Biletnikoff, three of your chicken shit coaches.

You go back to your "no changes at halftime" rant. Lovely. When nothing's working what do you change to? No-one has ever adequately answered that. Not you, not anyone. It's not Madden 2006. You don't just call up a play and they execute it (or not). You have to have practiced it. But then again, guys missing blocks and guys dropping passes and guys fumbling or throwing picks, that's all on the scheme. BS. Absolute BS. Guys have to make the plays. Too often they didn't, and there's no scheme in the game that can overcome that. There are no adjustments that can be made to overcome that. I think you're making far too little of those issues. You can believe him if you want to or not, but Art Shell has often said in his press conferences that the guys didn't execute in the game what they did in practice. How does a coach overcome that? How do you adjust to that? I still don't have an answer.

Where the scheme hurt us was with a young QB and a bad OL. But you complain about sacks? Really? That's on Walsh's scheme? You need to look at the numbers and wake up already. Under Walsh we averaged 4.8 sacks a game. Bad right? Very bad. Under short pass happy Shoop we've got... drum roll please... 4.25 sacks per game. So a short passing scheme saved us all of half a sack per game. My friend the numbers don't back up your scheme theory at all. In fact, they point to the exact cause I've been pointing out all season: the players.

 

[Rupert]

Oops, forgot to clear up your Andrew Walter comment. Like I said, Walter was the problem. The play took too long to develop in his mind. Brooks, with the same plays, was hitting the underneath receivers. I see it as the guy executing it more than the scheme.

Were we still without the RB dumps and rub routes you like? Yes. Were we missing the quick slants Walter likes? Yes. But Brooks was finding open receivers in a three receiver pattern that Walter wasn't. Then he got more blitzes, but with the deep patterns we got running room for Brooks. With Walter unable to scramble, yes, it would have made more sense to dump to the RB and let him to the running. I don't disagree at all. And that's where the coaches should have helped the QB. I completely agree.

 

[Crossbones]

From my point of view the entire offensive coaching staff (yeah that includes Biletnikoff) is a total piece of shit. Walsh, Shoop and especially Art shell.

I don't see a future with this coaching staff going forward. I disagree with your take 100% Rupert but frankly I'm sick of beating my head against the wall trying to argue with you. We'll agree to disagree.

What is it that the "continuity" group sees in Art Shell? What ecxactly is it that he does and what does he bring to the table? Not much (if anything) as I see it. We're just delying the inevitable another year but I fear that is ecxactly what the Raiders are going to do.

I know from my past experience in the work place that I would absolutely hate a boss like Art Shell. He does nothing. He's the worst communicator I have ever seen a a HC. He has zero fire, is lacking in motivational skills and things have gotten a lot worse under his direction. What more is there to say? He's acted like a complete child with respect to the Jerry Porter situation. He seems to carry a huge chip on his shoulder and is constantly jumping at shadows. That comes from knowing deep inside that he's the perfect model for the 'Peter Principal'...

Why would anybody wish for another year of this bullshit and then have to fire his ass a year down the road and start over again anyway? I just don't get that. I dig the continuity idea IF we saw some progress. Unfortunately we're seeing regression.

Oh and about Scrabble's comment on Shell. I think that is a guy who is just trying to stay out of the fray. A guy trying not to rock the boat. I don't believe for a minute he believes that crap. But then that's just me.

Just like FRAM...pay me now or pay me later. Shell has to go. Sadly I doubt he's gonna be shit canned mainly because there are no options that I see for replacing him. Sad, sad, sad. I so hope I am wrong.

 

[Freakshow]

I've always put more blame on the players than on the coaches. Do the Raiders have a great coaching staff? Hell no they don't but even lame schemes can work some of the time if the players are good. Coaches can only do so much. I think the main reason for our offensive struggles this year is this:

Starting Quarterback: Hurt in game one and doesn't return until week 9. Playing catchup at that point and going through a new offensive coordinator. Subsequent injuries keep Brooks on the bench. In the meantime we have basically a rookie, and an immobile one at that learning on the fly and trying to get it done.

Starting Receivers: Moss and Porter - both either benched, hurt, or disgruntled. Either way, they're not on the field producing. Instead we get Curry coming off two major achilles injuries, whitted, and...and who else?

Starting Running Back: Jordan is over-rated (and over-paid) to begin with and gets hurt half-way through the season. We have to rely on Justin Fargus who gets more than any back around and Rashard Lee. These guys are not starting caliber talent.

Starting Tight End: Courtney Anderson and Randal Williams. Enough said.

Starting O-Line: Gallery and Grove are in over their head, Boothe and McQ are rookies and unproven, and Walker flat out sucks. Sims gets benched after missing considerable time due to injury and at least three of the five are adjusting to new positions.

It's as plain as day to me that the team we field each week, for whatever reason (be it coaching, injury, inexperience, or something else) is simply not as good as the guys we face. Great coaching would obviously help but not a great deal with the guys we roll out every Sunday.

 

[Madturk]

It's as plain as day to me that the team we field each week, for whatever reason (be it coaching, injury, inexperience, or something else) is simply not as good as the guys we face. Great coaching would obviously help but not a great deal with the guys we roll out every Sunday.

Again a lot of these guys were here last season and we actually were scoring points. I'm not saying that we've got an abundance of talent on this side of the ball but how are teams like Tenn and the NYJ knocking on the playoff door then?

 

[Freakshow]

Again a lot of these guys were here last season and we actually were scoring points. I'm not saying that we've got an abundance of talent on this side of the ball but how are teams like Tenn and the NYJ knocking on the playoff door then?

It is possible for players to regress. It could be coaching, yes, but it could also be confidence, or it could be that a guy over-achieves his first year or two for whatever reason. Maybe he's more motivated when he first gets into the league - who knows but I do know that players can play better or worse on any given year and it's not always about coaching. It's a good question.

Tennessee has had clutch quarterbacking and a strong running attack. The last-second game-winning play of the Buffalo game was not a coaching issue - that was just flat-out ability on the part of Vince Young. You can't coach that. Travis Henry has fought off all comers and rebounded nicely after a down year in '05.

New York has also benefited from a re-surging Chad Pennington. Add in D-Brick and Mangold on that o-line and you have yourself a pretty front five.

Obviously Fisher has proven that he's an excellent coach and Mangini is having a helluva rookie campaign so there's no denying that coaching plays a big roll, but not as big as the players imo.

 

[Rupert]

I don't see a future with this coaching staff going forward. I disagree with your take 100% Rupert but frankly I'm sick of beating my head against the wall trying to argue with you. We'll agree to disagree.

What exactly do you disagree with? Nothing you said addresses anything I said. So what do you disagree with? I'm confused.

 

[Rob]

What exactly do you disagree with? Nothing you said addresses anything I said. So what do you disagree with? I'm confused.

I think.............what Phil is tring to say is that Art is "chicken shit" and is not to be confused with "chicken salad". And I think Phils right.

 

[Rupert]

I think.............what Phil is tring to say is that Art is "chicken shit" and is not to be confused with "chicken salad". And I think Phils right.

My point is... when did I say otherwise? What I have said time and again is that the players on offense are a bigger problem than the coaches.

You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit, but a guy who makes chicken salad isn't likely to whip up Cordon Bleu either. We haven't had good offensive coaches since Gruden and Callahan and then we had average defensive coaching.

I still don't understand the argument that says we were "much" better last season with mostly the same players. What? 4 wins is "much" better? Really? And we did most of it this season with a 1st year starter at QB. And even still we came within a play or two of winning 6-8 games despite all the missed blocks, dropped passes and turnovers.

When Art Shell says we're close, I know what he means. Both Walsh and Shoop have done a decent job (note: decent does not mean very good or great) of trying to get the offense to function. The play calling has been sound in both cases, and I've taken far too much grief for that belief all season. But if you objectively look at how many drives were destroyed by a dropped pass or a turnover, you might understand what Art is saying and I'm seconding.

You don't like Art's lack of demonstrative emotion on camera? From everything I've read, he leaves that on the practice field and in the meeting rooms. Tom Landry was no different, and that's where Art has drawn his sideline style. But just because you don't like the way he communicates with the media doesn't mean he's not an effective communicator. He's just not an effective communicator with us. But what Raiders coach has been? Gruden? Callahan? Turner? White? Bugel? Flores? Shannahan? None of them. You have to go all the way back to Madden, and he had a natural gift for gab that he's parlayed into a long career in the booth.

So, like Art's first tour of duty, the players have made or broken the coach. But it's strange that Art took the same players Shannahan couldn't win with and made them instant winners. Right now Art doesn't have that kind of talent. He's taken over a team on a 3-year losing streak and no-one wants to give him a chance.

Rome wasn't built in a day. I understand Raiders fans were living a Super Bowl quality life before the Callahan implosion and subsequent Turner mediocrity. But ask the residents of New Orleans what it's like to lose your city. You have three choices: leave, leave until it's rebuilt, or tough it out through the hard times. Obviously we've all decided to tough it out. I know there are plenty of examples of teams that have turned it around with a new coach. New Orleans is a perfect example. But ask yourself whether you'd rather have Drew Brees or Aaron Brooks. Given the choice before the season I'd have taken Brees even though I had doubts about his shoulder, Brooks wasn't even on my radar.

Will Shell work out? I don't know. I have grave concerns based upon what I've seen during this tenure.

Do I think Shell should be given another season? Absolutely! I appreciate the continuity argument, but that's a lesser concern for me. I think with another off-season, a little house cleaning, a couple new players, and a little (okay maybe a lot) less turmoil (some of which Art created with his style and by hiring Walsh) we will see a true "much" better result. I think it's funny that Art is getting a rap from a few players that Shannahan got from most players in his term with us. It's odd that approach isn't valued anymore, but the most successful coaches Parcells, Schottenheimer, Shannahan, and Cowher (off the top of my head) have the same my way or the highway approach.

Art isn't just establishing his coaching style, he's trying to re-establishing a culture of winning. It's not easy, and the first steps will be painful. Will he succeed? It's a damned good question that remains to be seen, and it's a question many people don't want to wait to find out.

The players aren't the best judges of the situation, regardless of what you think. Tim Brown? He wanted Bugel remember? And now he's a good judge of caoches? I'm sorry, I'll pass on his evaluation. Gannon? Moss? Porter? Jordan? Sapp? Guys with huge egos aren't going to be too generous to someone who doesn't stroke their ego. They are not good judges, but they'll be the first people we hear something from. And the players who've bought into the system? They're not saying much because they know their actions speak louder. But it's the lack of words that's distressing the fans.

 

[RaiderIVlife]

Again a lot of these guys were here last season and we actually were scoring points. I'm not saying that we've got an abundance of talent on this side of the ball but how are teams like Tenn and the NYJ knocking on the playoff door then?

Not from the 2nd half of the season on. The offense became markedly worse after a few misdseason victories over bad teams like Tennesee & Buffalo. Check the numbers.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/stats/OAK/2005/regular

In fact, over the last 8 games of 2005, the Raiders averaged 13.125/pts per game.

They achieved those stellar numbers with a healthy LaMont Jordan, Jerry Porter and a non-shuffled of the offensive line?

Did the offense regress in 2006? Yes, but only marginally when you consider that we changed scheme's and shuffled the line.

I say Art Shell get's at least 1 additional year (not to mention some cap space to acquire new talent) before we throw him overboard.

I've already said that I'm on board with hiring a "hot" OC candidate (Carmichael? Lofton?), retain Rob Ryan as DC and promote the better coordinater to HC around 2008 or 2009.

Continuity

 

[RaiderIVlife]

It is possible for players to regress. It could be coaching, yes, but it could also be confidence, or it could be that a guy over-achieves his first year or two for whatever reason. Maybe he's more motivated when he first gets into the league - who knows but I do know that players can play better or worse on any given year and it's not always about coaching. It's a good question.

Tennessee has had clutch quarterbacking and a strong running attack. The last-second game-winning play of the Buffalo game was not a coaching issue - that was just flat-out ability on the part of Vince Young. You can't coach that. Travis Henry has fought off all comers and rebounded nicely after a down year in '05.

New York has also benefited from a re-surging Chad Pennington. Add in D-Brick and Mangold on that o-line and you have yourself a pretty front five.

Obviously Fisher has proven that he's an excellent coach and Mangini is having a helluva rookie campaign so there's no denying that coaching plays a big roll, but not as big as the players imo.

Medicore players also get exposed around year 2 or 3 (see Gallery) and are often out of the league shortly thereafter.