PFT Jim Fassel rumor...

[hawaiianboy]

RAIDERS BRINGING IN FASSEL?

There's talk emanating from Raiderland regarding the possibility that former Ravens offensive coordinator Jim Fassel will be brought in as a consultant for the team's anemic offense.

The move, as we understand it, would not result in Fassel replacing current offensive coordinator Tom Walsh being fired.

It might be Fassel's only opportunity to get back into football for 2007. Frankly, he might be better off getting paid by the Ravens to stay home. The chances of being associated with this year's unofficial NFL train wreck might do far more harm than good as to his future career options.




What PFT is neglecting here is that IF Fassel were indeed brought in, and IF he could stop this underachieving offense from circling the drain, he may be setting himself up as a future Raider head coach option... Since another head coaching gig is what he is said to desire, that may be incentive enough to board the SS Minnow on it's three mile tour..

 

[Crossbones]

I remember we talked a lot about the possibility of Fassel coming to Oakland last year. Didn't happen. Not too sure I like that guy and the Raven's offense, even with Air McNair, isn't exactly making defensive cordinators shake in their boots. So as I dunno.

 

[Rupert]

Why on earth would we want to bring in a guy who couldn't get an offense with more talent working? Not only did they have more talent, they had a better defense so they could afford to have more patience with their offense, and didn't need as much production.

Bad, bad move in my opinion. Walsh is not the problem at all. Poor execution is the problem. And who says Fassel runs an offense that Art likes? This is media BS from all appearances.

 

[hawaiianboy]

Bad, bad move in my opinion. Walsh is not the problem at all. Poor execution is the problem.

I really don't totally agree with this... Yes poor execution is part of the equation, but that doesn't absolve Walsh of the brunt of the blame IMO... Every play ever drawn up is designed to succeed with perfect execution... As much as I want to be optimistic about the guy, there seems to be alot of things fundamentally faulty in concept and no in game adjustments to what's not working and what we're seeing from the defense IMO...

I mean when Ronald Curry gets ten snaps from the slot against a team that's struggled covering trip sets and defending the middle of the field, that's on the coaches... When your running back coming off a 70 catch season doesn't get a single pass look the first two games?... When your playcalls have your tailback in max protect and he's not able to effectively excecute against a=a guy like Merriman, you just may want to throw the tailback a slip screen or flare to the area the blitzer vacated to slow down the blitz...

We got the ball in Moss's hands on one step drops on consecutive successful plays, yet we haven't seen a smash screen or quick pitch since despite corners playing in man off...

Yes we've struggled with pass pro execution, dropped balls and basically with getting the ball into the hands of the playmakers we do have, but have we really done all that much to help the struggling players out?... Alot of coaching is concept, but more important IMO, is the ability in making adjustments and playing to your players strengths...

I dunno, I just see alot more negatives than positives to the base offensive design... and I really don't see that changing much to be honest... If our QB's finish the year with a 50% completion rate and a 1:1 TD to INT ratio, I'd consider that a miracle... If we're continually going to consistently only utilize the top 2 or 3 parts of the passing tree, I expect 4 TD's in 5 games to be the norm...


I'm not a big fan of Fassel myself, but I see two potential upsides in a consultant role:

1) He's worked with pocket type QB's in the past...

2) He has a working knowledge of blitz packages... Our passing game has been totally crippled just about every time we see a zone blitz or X stunt...

 

[s.dot88]

i say bring him in, Walsh could use all the help he can get right now

 

[Raider Nation]

I think at this point, the more brain power we can put towards our anemic offense the better.

Although I can just see the jokes thrown out about the Raiders if they hire Fassel as an advisor. That'd give us Moore, Fassel, and Shoop as our 3-headed offensive monster. Hell, that even makes me chuckle.

 

[Byron2112]

More talent, more talent everywhere...





please...







God...

 

[Rupert]

Hawaiianboy: Everyone is fond of saying the team isn't making adjustments. I can't argue with that assessment. But when I see it week after week, I ask myself why. The answer I come up with is that the coaching staff is working on execution. They're getting repetitions in game situations since practice is obviously not getting them to NFL caliber.

Here's the way I see it. You don't build a house on a faulty foundation. So while adjustments and specialty plays might have some near-term positive effects, it doesn't get the coaching staff any closer to doing what they want to do. So the game plan is heavy on the foundation plays. They broke out trick plays against Cleveland. Why? Because they had enough success with foundation plays to attempt to win the game.

Here's another reason to stick with foundation plays until the players execute them regularly (or don't). Evaluation. The Raiders aren't running plays that no-one in the NFL runs. That's just media BS. So the coaching staff is determining who can execute at an NFL level and what changes they need to make to personnel. First casualty? Brooks. Second? McQuistan. Third? Might be Walker. We'll see Sunday if he's still "injured" (he's listed as questionable). If the staff started bringing in the kitchen sink, they wouldn't be any further in the implementation of what they want to do on offense.

All that said, I would take a different tack. Like you suggest, I'd evaluate what I have, what they do best, and where I want to go. I'd start with what they do best and work my way toward where I want them to be. I can understand why coaches go the other route. Hell, look at Brian Billick. He's a WCO guy, and he hasn't once been able to run it in Baltimore. Looks like he doesn't have a problem going another route. It's all about the way the coaches want to make the transition. Art Shell has decided to see if they sink or swim his way. Those who sink will get cut and he'll bring in those he thinks can swim.

The media make it out as if the route you and I both prefer is what "smart" coaches do. But the truth is, a very small minority of coaches do what the media says they should do. Only coaches who have their system in place with players they trust running it are regularly successful with a large playbook and a complement of adjustments that can be seen during a game (or at least at halftime).

 

[Crossbones]

There has to be a happy medium here. You can't just stick with what you want to do. Teams watch film and are ready for what you want to do when they see you try it over and over.

What HBoy is saying is to give them just a little more to think about. The screens (we've run about three all year), slants (we hardly ever do it), quick outs and things like that. Those kinds of plays tend to slow down the rush and give our OL a lttle better chance throughout the game. I'll agree to a point about "execution" but I think you might be carrying that a little too far here. The offense has to give defenses more than three things to think about. That's the coaches job. And when we do the same thing game in and game out we're just making it easier for teams to game plan us.

You know what Einstein says about doing the same thing over and over....I'm not giving Tom Walsh a complete pass on this issue.

 

[hawaiianboy]

Everyone is fond of saying the team isn't making adjustments. I can't argue with that assessment. But when I see it week after week, I ask myself why. The answer I come up with is that the coaching staff is working on execution. They're getting repetitions in game situations since practice is obviously not getting them to NFL caliber.

That's certainly an optimistic way to look at it....

Here's the way I see it. You don't build a house on a faulty foundation. So while adjustments and specialty plays might have some near-term positive effects, it doesn't get the coaching staff any closer to doing what they want to do. So the game plan is heavy on the foundation plays. They broke out trick plays against Cleveland. Why? Because they had enough success with foundation plays to attempt to win the game.

See, I'm not even taking trick plays into consideration.... The thing that gets me is not making basic adjustments... For instance, throwing to the blitz spot to slow down pressure is pretty much Football 101... How many times do we need to see Lamont Jordan unsuccessfully pick up a blitzing LB and your starting QB hit before you realize it's not working?... Shouldn't your players ability to make in game adjustments be a part of the evaluation process?... To me throwing hot against a blitzing team is part of a foundation, I mean it's done at the highschool level...

Here's another reason to stick with foundation plays until the players execute them regularly (or don't). Evaluation. The Raiders aren't running plays that no-one in the NFL runs. That's just media BS.

I was one that argued a 7 step drop wasn't uncommon in todays NFL and the problem was more with the setup of the passing tree rather than depth of QB drop so, I don't think I subscribe to media brainwashing... but how productive is it to run the same plays at a defense that's expecting the grouping of plays?... When you run the ball 20 out of 23 times on first down as we did against the Niners, at some point you're merely running into the teeth of run blitzes... To have your players successfully execute in that situation, you better be superior talent wise across the board... How accurate can an evaluation be if you're setting your offense up to fail?.... We can run that 8 and 9 route to Moss over and over, but at some point as a coach you've got to see that it's still a low percentage pass attempt thrown against two deep over the top help and have him break it into an out or comeback route...

If the staff started bringing in the kitchen sink, they wouldn't be any further in the implementation of what they want to do on offense.

I don't think anyone is expecting the complexity of a Tom Moore offense, but implementing basic flare routes, slants and out patterns should be a staple to every team at this level....

Frankly, if after several training camps, 5 preseason games and 5 regular season games, we're still at the point where we needing to run the same small grouping of basic plays over and over again to evaluate our ability to do so, then we're even worse off than even the most doom and gloomer imagined... It's not like we're trying to trick people out there with a bunch of read routes and lots of motion, what we're seeing is basically page one of Sid Gillman's playbook.... I refuse to believe that our players and staff are incapable of more at this point...

 

[007]

Hmm..Bring in a coach who actually has seen the teams play in the last 15 years?

Sounds okay to me.

Walsh blows.

 

[Langlier]

I'm not saying give walsh the boot... We need to keep some continuity or walter will be shit as a QB from here on out... But bringing Fassel in to playcall from Walshes book using Walshes terminology sounds like an ingenius idea to me.

 

[raiderfanatic3]

Why on earth would we want to bring in a guy who couldn't get an offense with more talent working? Not only did they have more talent, they had a better defense so they could afford to have more patience with their offense, and didn't need as much production.

Bad, bad move in my opinion. Walsh is not the problem at all. Poor execution is the problem. And who says Fassel runs an offense that Art likes? This is media BS from all appearances.

i strongly disagree here with this, walsh does not know how to call plays in this era of football, he needs to go back to his B&B he has no idea what he is doing, its bad playcalling on his part, i mean come on do you seriously think that Lamont is a outside runner? No! he pounds it up the middle he has no speed to get to the outside, thats why we have Fargas even though he is injured, WALSH IS A MORON, therefore it is mainly his fault with bad playcalling

 

[Crossbones]

Well again, I'm all for giving Walsh the benefit of the doubt for a little longer but I'm not buying into the theory that the only reason we're not getting anything done is because the players are not executing. Some of that is certainly true since when guys are droping passes when they are wide open yeah, that's not the play calling it's poor execution. But the fact that Walsh's offense is vanilla and lacks any sort of diversity or common sense is not forgivable to me at the NFL level. But I also understgand that Walsh is doing what he knows. Maybe it's OK but then again maybe it's just not cutting it at this high level. We averaged aroun d 19 points per game last year I think. We're digressing mmore tghan anybody around here thought was possible.

What Rupert is asking for is great execution and then we can look at the play calling. Hell if any team could execute the kind of game plan Walsh is running they'd be Super Bowl Champs.

We'll see, the jury is still out but we have to get defenses more off balance than they have been so far. They're watching the game film and putting in defensive schemes that handle those situations and we're doing NOTHING to make them change. Nothing at all. Well, we're taking notes!

 

[TheNextStep]

Who gives a sh*t about all of this jibber jabber? Let's get down to the really important thing that came out of that first post:

The SS Minnow was on a 3 hour tour, not a 3mile tour, as any red blooded American knows. People, what we got ourselves is one a them there damned pinko commies in our midsts here...

 

[hawaiianboy]

Well again, I'm all for giving Walsh the benefit of the doubt for a little longer

It certainly wouldn't hurt to bring in a Fassel to consult, but I think at this point we're going to give Walsh the rest of the year no matter what... but I would hate to be the guy whose job hinges on season ticket sales should a Walsh year two be in the cards...

Maybe by the time Art was hired, it was a little late to recruit an up and comer, who knows... but I think should Art coach again next year, he's going to have to bring in a new guy... It's one thing for the fans to have little confidence in Walsh, another when your players don't seem to... There are good coaches with the vertical philosophy out there... People are probably sick of me saying it, but Ken Zampese of Cincy makes a hell of alot of sense... James Lofton would be another guy... Lane Kiffen of SC...


While we're on the subject... one thing that really bothers me is that we don't use any presnap motion... When you have a young QB, installing motion helps him get a read on the coverages the D will run... Instead we're being dictated to... How many times have we had to call time out because we're trying to audible when a defense is jumping in and out of blitz packages?...


Damn, you'd think as often as Gilligan's Island has been referenced by this bunch, I'd have the damn song right... My bad ::bows head in shame::

 

[Crossbones]

Damn, you'd think as often as Gilligan's Island has been referenced by this bunch, I'd have the damn song right... My bad ::bows head in shame::

Yeah that is pretty much unforgivable. Did that boat crash in Hawaii? Can't remember.

 

[Rupert]

See, I'm not even taking trick plays into consideration.... The thing that gets me is not making basic adjustments... For instance, throwing to the blitz spot to slow down pressure is pretty much Football 101... How many times do we need to see Lamont Jordan unsuccessfully pick up a blitzing LB and your starting QB hit before you realize it's not working?... Shouldn't your players ability to make in game adjustments be a part of the evaluation process?... To me throwing hot against a blitzing team is part of a foundation, I mean it's done at the highschool level...

Ah, but the critical part of doing that would be execution wouldn't it. Did you miss the swing passes and screens we didn't execute? Did you miss the dropped passes in the gap created by the blitz? But then again, that's execution isn't it? What about picking up the blitz? Were we picking it up without keeping the back in? Still execution.

I was one that argued a 7 step drop wasn't uncommon in todays NFL and the problem was more with the setup of the passing tree rather than depth of QB drop so, I don't think I subscribe to media brainwashing... but how productive is it to run the same plays at a defense that's expecting the grouping of plays?... When you run the ball 20 out of 23 times on first down as we did against the Niners, at some point you're merely running into the teeth of run blitzes... To have your players successfully execute in that situation, you better be superior talent wise across the board... How accurate can an evaluation be if you're setting your offense up to fail?.... We can run that 8 and 9 route to Moss over and over, but at some point as a coach you've got to see that it's still a low percentage pass attempt thrown against two deep over the top help and have him break it into an out or comeback route...

It isn't overly optimistic to say that running 20 of 23 times on 1st down challenging your players to execute. I've watched them mix it up and I've watched them run it by formula. But people are ignoring that and saying we should mix it up like high school 101 when we're not executing well enough to compete at the NFL level. I'd call that buying into the media brainwashing. I can see you're not a lock-step media parrot, but the conclusion and overlooking evidence that counters that conclusion allows me to draw the comparison.

I don't think anyone is expecting the complexity of a Tom Moore offense, but implementing basic flare routes, slants and out patterns should be a staple to every team at this level....

Frankly, if after several training camps, 5 preseason games and 5 regular season games, we're still at the point where we needing to run the same small grouping of basic plays over and over again to evaluate our ability to do so, then we're even worse off than even the most doom and gloomer imagined... It's not like we're trying to trick people out there with a bunch of read routes and lots of motion, what we're seeing is basically page one of Sid Gillman's playbook.... I refuse to believe that our players and staff are incapable of more at this point...

Look, we've used those plays, and haven't executed them. In my opinion, that's why the coaches have gone back to working it in small steps. Seriously, hot reads are the next to LAST thing a QB learns, option routes come later. I can't imagine you think Walter is making the correct read on what he's already given. And you think the O-Line is giving him enough time to make all the reads? With a young QB you dumb it down, route trees, hot reads, option routes, etc. As he grows you put more in. Why is it every other young QB gets a pass from the media? Do you hear anyone talking about them dumbing it down for Walter? Nope. Any of us? I'm the first (at least here).

Sid Gillman didn't use bunch or spread concepts. Those are modern developments. We've used them.

 

[Rupert]

What Rupert is asking for is great execution and then we can look at the play calling. Hell if any team could execute the kind of game plan Walsh is running they'd be Super Bowl Champs.

WHOA! I just want consistent NFL caliber execution. Just average. It doesn't need to be great. And I've already seen the play calling be solid and we didn't execute.

 

[Crossbones]

So when you use a play twice and don't execute you discard the concept? But when you run 20 of 23 times on first down and don't execute that's OK?

Come on man. You're being way too vanilla in your anaylisis on this one. You'rfe only lookikng at one point of view. You have an excellent point about lack of execution but like said, if we were executing to your liking we'd be 5-0 instead of 0-5. We're way too predictable and that's coaching. Yes you have to execute but we're doing neither.