Inside Slant 09.21.2006

Angry Pope

All Raider
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
8,458
Reaction score
547
Inside Slant

9/21/2006


Raiders coach Art Shell has made note of it, and promises considerable study on the subject.

It's bye week in Oakland, time for the Raiders to study what went wrong in two games lost by combined score of 55-3.

Of all the ugly statistics compiled by the Raiders offense through the two games, the strangest stat of all is a zero.

Despite overwhelming pressure on quarterbacks Aaron Walter and Aaron Brooks, the Raiders don't have a single pass completion to their running backs.

It's an amazing statistic, given that one of the tried and true ways to attack a fierce pass rush is through screen passes, check downs and swinging the ball outside for running backs to attack theoretically open spaces.

Raiders quarterbacks have been sacked 15 times in two games. The only other team in double figures is Miami with 10.

"As we move along, I've been writing down notes," Shell said. "That's one of the things I wrote down. We need to get the ball to our backs out of the backfield. We need to put more pressure on the defense by doing that."

The Raiders in recent years have depended heavily on throwing passes to the running backs.

LaMont Jordan had 70 receptions for the Raiders last season, second on the team. In 2004, Amos Zereoue had 39 catches and J.R. Redmond 32. That was in the Norv Turner regime.

The Jon Gruden-Bill Callahan era featured running backs essentially taking "long handoffs" as a way to move the sticks, with the highlight coming in 2002 when Charlie Garner caught 91 passes for 941 yards.

The Raiders are the only team in the NFL that through two games does not have a running back with a pass reception.

A scan of both game books finds only one of 46 passes that were intended for Jordan — an incompletion by Walter over the middle on third-and-11 that fell incomplete.

In the opener against San Diego, Walter threw deep for Jordan on one play but it was erased by a delay of game penalty.

It's not clear whether there is a flaw in the system of offense or if it is no more than a two-game fluke. Brooks and Walter refer all questions regarding play selection to the coaching staff.

Oakland's offense has its roots with the Sid Gillman system Al Davis learned with the San Diego Chargers in the early 1960s. In Davis' first year as head coach in 1963, running backs caught 68 passes — including 30 for a staggering 685 yards (22.8 yards per catch by Clem Daniels.

Through the late 60s and early 1970s running backs such as Hewritt Dixon and Charlie Smith were reliable receivers out of the backfield.

Raiders offensive coordinator Tom Walsh is a Gillman disciple, but relying on running backs as receivers was a hit-and-miss proposition when he was on staff between 1982-94.

In 1994, his last season with the Raiders, Harvey Williams caught 47 passes for 391 yards. But the season before, no Raiders running back had more than Steve Smith's 18 receptions.

In 1990, the year the Raiders made it to the AFC championship game against Buffalo with Walsh a key member of the offensive staff, only 20 of Jay Schroeder's 182 completions were to running backs.

According to one player, backs have often been kept in to protect the passer, not that it's done much good.

"You have to adjust," the player said. "I'm not sure we've done that."

cont'd...
 
cont'd...

NOTES, QUOTES

—Quarterback Aaron Brooks, out with a sprained pectoral muscle, won't face the Cleveland Browns when the Raiders return from a bye Oct. 1, but is hoping to see considerable improvement.

"I didn't come here for this," Brooks said. "I didn't come here to be stagnant, unproductive, disorganized. We've got to clean up our own areas, stay positive and move forward.

—Coach Art Shell said Brooks remains the Raiders' starting quarterback, but Brooks realizes that could change if Andrew Walter seizes the moment.

"I talked to him on the plane coming back," Walter said. "I told him to keep doing what he's doing, just hang in there. I'm proud of him. AT the time, I didn't know how serious my injury was, but you know, you take it and run with it.

"That's how I got on the field. Somebody got hurt and I got out there and performed and played well."

—QB Andrew Walter has absorbed eight sacks in two games, but Shell disputes the assertion that the 6-foot-6, 230-pound quarterback is not mobile enough.

"He doesn't have the escapability, like most quarterbacks," Shell said. "But he can move around the pocket to avoid pressure, which is sometimes all you ask of your quarterback because you don't want them running too much.

"If you he move around and avoid pressure like a Peyton Manning he'll do well," Shell said. "That's not to say he's a Peyton Manning, but he can have that type of movement in the pocket."

Shell believes the knock on Walter for being immobile is not incorrect.

—Cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha, who missed the Ravens game with a foot sprain, said he was the victim of a cheap shot by San Diego's Eric Parker 30 to 40 yards downfield away from a play in the opener.

"San Diego's been known for doing it. Denver does it. I've just got to be more aware of it," Asomugha said. "For the past few games, we've gone at it, so I kind of expected something to come from him but I didn't think he'd do a cheap shot like that. There had been some history there ... I don't like that guy."

—With Brooks out two to four weeks, the Raiders haven't decided whether to pursue a third quarterback. Jeff George, brought in for a few days before the final cut when Walter's shoulder started acting up, has not been contacted, Shell said.

The Raiders have talked with former Pittsburgh Steeler Tommy Maddox, Shell said, but have not decided whether to take it any further.

It's possible the third quarterback will be Ronald Curry, the No. 3 wide receiver and a star quarterback at North Carolina and in high school.

"I feel pretty comfortable with everything," Curry said. "I mean, I've played quarterback my whole life. It's still football."

BY THE NUMBERS: 291 — The amount of total net yards the Raiders have in two games. In Oct. of 2002 against the Buffalo Bills, the Raiders had 291 yards at halftime.

QUOTE TO NOTE: "You don't want to get too frustrated where you start cussing everybody out. It's still a fine line between the individual. Some guys are very emotional, some guys are very calm and collected and other than that just don't give a (bleep)." — Raiders quarterback Aaron Brooks on the varying reactions to a poor start.

STRATEGY AND PERSONNEL

The Raiders worked Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and then took the weekend off, with much of the time devoted to blocking and protecting the passer.

Left guard Barry Sims suffered a hip injury the club feared was serious, but Sims was back practicing full strength by Wednesday. Left tackle Robert Gallery, who missed the Baltimore game with a torn calf muscle, worked enough Tuesday and Wednesday to inspire optimism that he could possibly return to face Cleveland on Oct. 1.

Finally, it appears Kevin Boothe, a sixth-round draft pick from Cornell, will replace third-round pick Paul McQuistan as the starting right guard. Boothe worked with the first team Tuesday and Wednesday, although Shell would not commit to Boothe starting against Cleveland.


PLAYER PERSONNEL NOTES

—CB Nnamdi Asomugha was held out of practice with a sprained foot, but said it was just precautionary. He expects to be full-strength when the Raiders resume practice next week.

—CB Fabian Washington was held out of practice with a strained hamstring, and also should be ready to face Cleveland.

—LB Grant Irons missed practice with a lower back strain and his status for Cleveland is not known.

—QB Aaron Brooks will miss the first start of his career due to injury when the Raiders resume Oct. 1. Brooks started the last five games of 2000, all 16 games from 2001 through 2004 and the first 13 games of 2005 before being benched in favor of Todd Bouman.

—QB Andrew Walter has a 4.2 passer rating in the fourth quarter, going 5-for-19 with a pair of interceptions.
 
Angry Pope said:
You kniow what? Those videos are sick. We don't play like that anymore. Watching the defenses in those videos makes me sick. Those guys were hungry. They were animals flhying to the ball and they wanted to hit somebody and knock their brains out. Today's team in comparison is soft from top to bottom. Until I see otherwise that's what I think.
 
CrossBones said:
You kniow what? Those videos are sick. We don't play like that anymore. Watching the defenses in those videos makes me sick. Those guys were hungry. They were animals flhying to the ball and they wanted to hit somebody and knock their brains out. Today's team in comparison is soft from top to bottom. Until I see otherwise that's what I think.

Our defense is swarming to the ball yet they haven't played together as much as those teams yet. I have seen some good hitting from the defense and I am proud of them for what I have seen. I don't expect them to be like those old teams yet. We are a work in progress where those teams were already established.

We have a young team. We can't complain about acquiring old veterans and then complain when we don't. We are a work in progress from the young developing defense to our quarterback.


We turned over a roster of veterans since our Super Bowl. We had a nice run with them. Now we have to rebuild. If we had torn this team apart as you suggested two years ago, we would have gone through the same growing pains. There is no magic wand...if so, Jimmy Johnson would have used his first season instead of going 1-15 with Troy Aikman.

We did a good job of being competitive and rebuilding. It makes sense to be patient. As always, just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be a few fans upset at our Raiders. Sometimes you just have to ask yourself, what exactly is keeping me a Raider fan?

I mean, if you hate the owner, the head coach, the supporting coaches, the players and the philosphy, the years of not winning, what is there to hold your loyalty to the team? Is it a memory of the old school teams? Frankly, fans shouldn't put themselves in a position to make themselves sick. Other teams are able to compete and spend lots of money. Maybe that is the way some of these fans should go...a team that will give them satisfaction day in and day out.

We just went through a stretch that eventually culminated in a Super Bowl visit. We had a good four year stretch.

I love my Raiders whether they win or lose, the good with the bad, good times and bad times. If I want to be optimistic that is me. But damn if doesn't get old the pessimism after just two games.
 
It's pretty frustrating. That's about the best I can come up with.
 
Benedict! Sorry, your holiness, I can't rep you for that last post, but I agree with it 100%.

On some other board somewhere, someone claimed I should admit I was wrong about Art Shell being a good choice for head coach, and Tom Walsh as OC. Well, even though I didn't say anything other than give them a chance before you call them crap, I'm told I was wrong to want to give them time. I'm told, after a whole two games, that I should admit that they shouldn't be given time to prove they're worth anything.

Huh? Draft picks are supposed to be give 3 years to prove themselves, after that, the book is pretty much in. Some people suggest a coach should be given the same amount of time. Hell, if we only gave Gruden 2 seasons, he'd have been an average coach posting a record of 16-16.

Yeah, I know Bones, it's frustrating, and we probably should have gone full rebuild 2 years ago. The last Callahan roster was a major reason we performed so poorly. Age and injuries caught up with us, but we went the reload route instead of rebuild. And that got us two more years of mediocrity.

I still shrug my shoulders when people give me grief about being a Raiders fan. Things would certainly be different if I were in charge. I am not, and can do nothing about it. I'll remain a Raiders fan until I stop loving football.
 
Good thoughts Rupert.

I don't begrudge anybody for expressing their unhappiness with the Raiders situation. It just doesn't bother me. It's difficult to be patient when you're know the past greatness of this organization. It's not about being a loyal fan -- for example if I wasn’t would I put up with the last 23 years of ineptitude? I don't think so. Take out the Gannon years and you're staring a Bengals franchise square in the eye. That's just wrong.

Anyway, I agree we pissed away two solid years by reloading and it makes the situation this year that much more intolerable. Most fans expected more immediate results albeit unrealistic. Fans built themselves up all through the off season with the addition of Art Shell bringing Raider football back...it hasn't gone exactly according to Hoyle unfortunately. Now we seem to have some locker room issues rearing their ugly head and although Al says he doesn't care about the locker room, I think deep down he knows it can be the root of all evil if not handled properly.

I have faith that Art can turn this thing around. I have no faith that he can do it with Tom Walsh. That was a terrible hire from where I sit. Twelve years out of professional football is too long. At least Art has been involved one way or the other as a position coach and more recently working for the league office. He still knows which end is up. I'm not convinced Walsh does. He has no choice but to go with what he knows and there is little history to show that a ten year old game plan will work in today's NFL. In some ways it’s a catch22… one hand we want Al to butt out and let the coaches pick their own staff but when he does we don’t like the results. Dunno. We have a long ways to go to get back to the feared team we once were. In fact we may never recapture that as we once knew it.
 
CrossBones said:
I have faith that Art can turn this thing around. I have no faith that he can do it with Tom Walsh. That was a terrible hire from where I sit. Twelve years out of professional football is too long. At least Art has been involved one way or the other as a position coach and more recently working for the league office. He still knows which end is up. I'm not convinced Walsh does. He has no choice but to go with what he knows and there is little history to show that a ten year old game plan will work in today's NFL. In some ways it’s a catch22… one hand we want Al to butt out and let the coaches pick their own staff but when he does we don’t like the results. Dunno. We have a long ways to go to get back to the feared team we once were. In fact we may never recapture that as we once knew it.
Well, first off, we don't have a ten-year-old game plan. We might have a ten-year-old approach to terminology, but as I said before, the NFL wasn't using the bunch formation 10 years ago. It was a college thing then. Spread concepts weren't prevalent then either, they've only come into the NFL in the past decade. BOTH concepts are being used in Walsh's offense. That gives me confidence that he is not out of touch with the modern NFL.

Who said it? Well, whoever it was was right on point. This offense needs to start executing before we start debating whether it's effective or not.
 
Rupert said:
Benedict! Sorry, your holiness, I can't rep you for that last post, but I agree with it 100%.

On some other board somewhere, someone claimed I should admit I was wrong about Art Shell being a good choice for head coach, and Tom Walsh as OC. Well, even though I didn't say anything other than give them a chance before you call them crap, I'm told I was wrong to want to give them time. I'm told, after a whole two games, that I should admit that they shouldn't be given time to prove they're worth anything.

Huh? Draft picks are supposed to be give 3 years to prove themselves, after that, the book is pretty much in. Some people suggest a coach should be given the same amount of time. Hell, if we only gave Gruden 2 seasons, he'd have been an average coach posting a record of 16-16.

Yeah, I know Bones, it's frustrating, and we probably should have gone full rebuild 2 years ago. The last Callahan roster was a major reason we performed so poorly. Age and injuries caught up with us, but we went the reload route instead of rebuild. And that got us two more years of mediocrity.

I still shrug my shoulders when people give me grief about being a Raiders fan. Things would certainly be different if I were in charge. I am not, and can do nothing about it. I'll remain a Raiders fan until I stop loving football.


I agree with you Rupert. I was hanging out on another board and I finally just left because it was full of nothing but negativity. I finally told them that it was affecting the way i watched the game and it was a lot more fun when it was just football.
 
Back
Top