Tim Brown Thoughts...

Angry Pope

All Raider
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
8,458
Reaction score
547
Ex-Raider Brown Sees No Silver Lining

September 22, 2006


Never mind winning a game, the Oakland Raiders have yet to score a touchdown this season. They have been outscored, 55-6, in losses to San Diego and Baltimore, and their decision to bring back Coach Art Shell now looks more like misguided desperation than some nostalgic stroke of genius.

If there's a real Black Hole, it's in the Raiders' locker room and not in the McAfee Coliseum stands. Despite all the veterans in the locker room, none has stepped up to fill the leadership void. A franchise that has always embraced the philosophy of going deep is now discovering new depths by the week, although, mercifully, the Raiders are off this weekend.


Retired receiver Tim Brown, a nine-time Pro Bowl selection who was Mr. Raider for 16 seasons, was on the team during Shell's first coaching go-round. He's also familiar with coordinator Tom Walsh's offense, which in two games has generated 129 and 162 yards.



Although he spent his final season with Jon Gruden in Tampa Bay, Brown retired a Raider and still keeps in touch with members of the team. To him, things are looking Silver & Bleak.

"I was on some bad teams there, but we were never devoid of leadership," Brown said. "Be it me, be it Marcus Allen back in the day, be it Howie Long, be it whomever. We were never devoid of leadership. And I think right now the locker room is barren.

"I never played with Warren Sapp — and I'm not necessarily hearing bad things about Warren Sapp — but I'm not hearing, 'He's our guy,' or, 'He's our leader.' I'm not hearing that about anybody on the offensive line, I'm not hearing that about anyone whatsoever.

"So when you have a team where everyone's just out playing — and guys are playing hard, it looks like guys are out there flying around, so that doesn't seem to be a problem — but I think there's a little division between Art and the team. And you have to have leadership in the locker room in order to close that division."

Brown made an analogy to his own relationship with his father. He said it's a good one largely because Tim's older brother acted as a middleman.

"When I didn't understand and I was thinking I'd do my own thing," Brown recalled, "my big brother would say, 'No, just listen to what he said, and just do it. Sooner or later you're going to be able to do your own thing, but just do what he says first.'

"That's sort of the same way with Art. When he says something, he wants it done his way. Well, if you're that young brash kid, you're thinking, 'No, I want to do it my way.' But they need that big brother who can say, 'Hey, look, just do it his way, and believe me it's going to work out.' "

Since reaching the Super Bowl in the 2002 season, the Raiders have gone 13-37 and burned through coaches Bill Callahan and Norv Turner. After last season, they rehired Shell, who was a respectable 56-41 in his first stint as coach, counting a 2-3 postseason record.

"Our time with Art back when he was a coach was absolutely great," Brown said. "The only bad part was when the whole Marcus Allen deal came out and everybody was pretty much put in a position where you had to choose sides. But other than that, we had a great time.

"He would give these hard speeches. He'd start an 8 o'clock meeting on Saturday morning at 7:50, or whenever he came downstairs. Nobody thought it was fair, but guess what, we all started getting there at 7:45. We started doing the things the way he wanted them done. And what happened? We started winning games and making the playoffs and doing a lot of great things."

But will the current situation work out the same way? Brown, for one, doesn't think so, especially with the offense the Raiders are running. It's one drawn up by Walsh, who was offensive coordinator of the Los Angeles Raiders in 1994 and, until he was hired in the spring, had been away from the NFL for 11 years. In the interim, he did a bit of coaching in college, owned a bed-and-breakfast in Idaho, and helped design football video games for Sega.

Those 1994 Raiders, the last of the franchise's L.A. teams, were classic underachievers who had major penalty and clock-management problems. It remains to be seen if these Raiders will be as undisciplined, but the clock problems already are starting to surface.

"You just can't run that offense in the NFL anymore," said Brown, now living in Dallas, his hometown, and doing TV analyst work for Fox. "They're calling timeouts, spending most of their timeouts, before 10 minutes is up in the second quarter. They're getting delay penalties, getting to the line of scrimmage late, because those plays are 20 words long.

"I know that it was a horrible offense way back when. We just had to make plays and make things happen way back when. Being that the 40-second clock has come into play, and a lot of other rules have come into play since he was [last] in the league, I knew that would be a tough adjustment for him. Even zone blitzes and things of that nature. That makes that offense very tough. It was very one-dimensional, trying to audible was very difficult."

Making matters worse, receiver Jerry Porter, among the Raiders' most dangerous offensive weapons, is feuding with Shell and was deactivated for the first two games of the season. There's no indication that standoff is ending.

Brown said Porter could and should be the receiver running those quick slants over the middle, routes Randy Moss doesn't like running and 185-pound speedster Alvis Whitted is too small to run.

"Alvis Whitted will do anything they ask him to do," Brown said. "It's like they sent him over the middle the other day and almost got him decapitated. That's not what Whitted should be doing, but he's having to play Jerry Porter's role. I think Jerry could make this offense look a little better, because he can get the ball out of the quarterback's hands a little quicker with the routes that he can run.

"It's tough to have a new offense, and even tougher to not be firing with all your bullets. And right now they're not firing with all their bullets."

But first things first. The way Brown sees it, the change has to come even before the team steps onto the field.

"Some kind of way, the organization has to raise up a leader in that locker room," he said. "Because if Art is up there giving these great speeches, but everybody's going to the locker room saying, 'Man, what was that?' then it doesn't matter. It's all for naught."
 
I liked Brown's explanation of why the offense is difficult, long freaking names for the plays. That might help a team learn a new system, everything is descriptive. But geez, these guys have been playing football forever, can you simplify things a little?
 
Well, most everyone that was here with Tim is gone now. Fred and Willie wouldn't say anything.

Randy Moss was elected as one captain of our team and he is happy with that. In his interviews, he has mentioned about Art being too strict etc. There is Tim Brown's brother, the middleman, trying to be a leader.

As Walter grows into his role, he will be a leader as well.

Lamont Jordan is vocal himself.

I love Tim and everything that he did while donning our colors. However, Tim left our team upset and as a veteran and a leader. Maybe there is still a little bit of that triggering some of his comments on leadership...I don't know.

As far as Walsh goes, a good offensive coordinator will make adjustments to game plans depending on the team their facing, the quarterback that is behind center, the personel on the team, and what works and doesn't work from week to week. I am giving him a few more weeks to see if those adjustments come.
 
Urgency missing from play
Struggles with clock put pressure on QB; offense at disadvantage


PHIL BARBER


ALAMEDA - Time is the essence of the Raiders' offensive woes this season. The quarterbacks haven't had enough time after the snap. That much is obvious. Less visibly, they haven't had enough time before the snap, when they're still at the line of scrimmage.

Typically, an NFL play goes from the play caller (in the Raiders' case, offensive coordinator Tom Walsh) to the quarterback via radio transmission. The quarterback relays the call to his offensive teammates in the huddle, then he has the option to audible to a limited number of play changes at the line, which in turns triggers a new blocking scheme.

All of that must be done in 40 seconds, and the Raiders have been bumping up against ":00" on the play clock. In one second-quarter sequence Sunday against the Ravens, second-year quarterback Andrew Walter called three timeouts in five trips to the line of scrimmage. He was hit with a delay-of-game penalty against the Chargers in Week1, and putative starter Aaron Brooks has been clock-challenged as well.

"It has to be a sense of urgency on everybody's part," coach Art Shell said. "That starts with the play calling coming in on time, but also the quarterback getting the plays out in the huddle so that we can get out to the line of scrimmage. ... There were too many times we were not getting up there quick enough."

There is blame enough for everybody. To be sure, it starts with Walsh. The NFL allowed for sideline-to-helmet communication in 1994 - Walsh's last season in the NFL before he returned with Shell this year. Anyway, he might be a little rusty after spending several years away from the sidelines at any level.

Shell said his quarterback should have more than 20 seconds on the play clock when he gets to the line. Too often this season, he has had 15 or 16, and that's a problem.

"Because what happens is, the blitzes that are coming, they time it up," Shell said. "They're watching the clock. So, all of a sudden they'll show the blitz, you don't have time to audibilize."

Walter's inexperience is another factor. Spitting out plays in the huddle shouldn't be a problem. But diagnosing defenses at the line is no breeze when you have yet to start an NFL game. And it's even tougher when the opponent is San Diego or Baltimore, which boast two of the more complex defensive systems.

"Those guys have been going against some difficult defenses the last two weeks," Brooks said. "It's been very difficult to present them with things, point out the gap that they're going to, get your blocking schemes. So it's taking some extra time to get it and set it right on the same page, as opposed to just going up there and just hiking the ball."

The blocking schemes have been a whole other can of worms - as Brooks and Walter can attest through various aches and pains.

Center Jake Grove is responsible for calling out the blocking on each play. If the quarterback audibles, Grove usually does, too. He tells each guard the new scheme and it flows down the line, from guard to tackle and from tackle to tight end. The signal is usually just a word or two, but it's crucial that everyone gets the message.

"It's tough in a loud situation like it was last week," Shell said. "There were plays that we audibilized to, and all of a sudden you have half the line getting it and half not getting it. .. . You have to pass it down the line of scrimmage so that everybody knows what's going on."

For the Raiders, the situation has snowballed from minor to critical. Once the Ravens got their pass rush revved up, the M&T Bank Stadium crowd got into the act and made the offensive-line communication that much more troublesome. And the success San Diego and Baltimore have enjoyed with blitzes will no doubt prompt the Browns to pull out the stops on Oct. 1.

"Defenses, seeing what they've done to us the last two weeks, they're going to bring a lot of people," left tackle Robert Gallery said. "They're going to bring more than we can block and try and make us make mistakes. They're not just going to rush three and let us block 'em."

There is a positive to all this. At least the Raiders know they aren't simply being manhandled by opponents. A little communication might go a long way toward fixing the problems in Oakland.

EXTRA POINTS

As of Thursday, the Raiders had not added a quarterback to the roster to fill in for the injured Brooks. "The way it looks right now," Shell said, "we'll probably head into next week with the two guys (Walter and Marques Tuiasosopo). ... Quite a few teams started the season with just two guys. So, we feel good about the guys that we have."
 
Angry Pope said:
As far as Walsh goes, a good offensive coordinator will make adjustments to game plans depending on the team their facing, the quarterback that is behind center, the personel on the team, and what works and doesn't work from week to week. I am giving him a few more weeks to see if those adjustments come.
There is a problem that most coodinators and head coaches have: that is deciding between execution and strategy. What I mean is this: if the team isn't executing you have to ask yourself, is it our execution or is it the opponent's strategy?

Most coaches believe in their game plan and give it time to work. Therefore, they don't change it and give their players more time to perfect their execution. This approach usually results in no changes until the half. It's not because these coaches don't know how to change, it's because they want to give their players ample opportunity to execute the game plan. In other words, don't change the plan if it ain't broke.

So Shell and Walsh stick with the game plan. Why? If X hadn't missed his blocking assignment on play Y, we get the completion. No need to change that approach, it was one guy screwing up. Then on play A, player B screws something up. No problem, if player B doesn't screw up the play works, there's no need to change that play or the strategy behind selecting it.

What week one proved was that someone was going to screw up about 60% of the time and the play would utterly fail.

Game plan adjustments were made to address that for week two. Then we had to go to the backup QB, and he blew some of his throws that would have dramatically changed the outcome (to the tune of 2 TD's for us).

But where was the running game? Nowhere. Hmmm, maybe that needs to change. But we were going up against two of the best rush defenses in the game. Is it time to change that? Not until we have difficulty against an average defense. We're going up against a weaker defense in Cleveland, so this is not the time to throw out the game plan. It's time to try to get it functioning. Put a little confidence in it, and then try to take it up against a bigger challenge.

If the offense fails miserably against Cleveland, look out. There will be such a great loss of confidence in the offense that it will struggle all season. The defense will have to shoulder the load, and the question of character on defense will come up. Baltimore didn't let offensive ineptitude prevent them from being one of the league's bets defenses. So far I've seen our defense give up at the end of each half so far. They'll have to prevent those collapses to keep the team in it while the offense figures it out. It's the only way to take pressure off the offense.
 
But isn't there a point when the coaching staff has to say...they're NOT able to execute the plan? Meaning, in our case, the OL can't block. Maybe we should try and slow down the pass rush with a screen. Brilliant 'Bones -- you're hired.

there comes a point when X, Y,, and Z are all screwing up and it happens to be different OLmen missing blocks that something needs to change sooner than the coaching staff intends. They haven't been able to do that. Art is still "taking notes" that says "we have to throw to the RB's". :eek:
 
I would expect to see some in our next game. We had receivers sneak out, halfbacks preparing for swing passes, we were just my more creative ....we practiced those in the preseason games so I don't know why we haven't implemented more of them.
 
Problem is Bones, if the OL can't block, nothing will work. One thing is evident so far this season, defenses seem to see screen passes coming from a mile away. Even when the defense doesn't defend it well, they seem to sniff it out pretty quickly. Screens appear to be another play that is MORE difficult in today's more athletic NFL. So calling for screens is asking for a loss and HOPING for a decent play. The only time they really work is when the defense is bailing out on a 3rd and long, and I've seen very few get the 1st in that situation.

The swing pass only works if the backers are bailing. However, most defenses spy the back if he stays in to pass protect and they're not blitzing. Unless their pass defense is a zone and the backers need to get to their zone due to poor DB play (and we haven't played one of those teams yet) the swing pass might be a tough sell, unless the backers aren't great, and today, most backers can at least stay with a RB for a swing or flat pass. If the pass rush is getting in, the pass will have to have some air on it, and the backer will get there while the RB waits for the ball. Bottom line on that is that it most likely won't go for many yards.

So on both the screen and the dump-off passes to the RB, you're not going to get many yards against a good front 7 (which we've faced already). I don't think the "analysts" understand that. It's not just a good pass rush we were facing, it was a good front 7, and that negates the ability to do much with screens and swing passes. Sure it sounds good, but the effect would have been negligible. Okay, we'd have had a better completion percentage, but we wouldn't have gotten more 1st's or kept the ball much longer.

The 1st two teams we faced were balls nasty up front, and played man just long enough to let the front 7 get to the QB.

Now regarding Art "taking notes" about getting the ball to the RB's. Sure he's going to say that. He threw the press a bone. I was wondering whether it was something he needed to address with Walter, and maybe Brooks as well. It's one thing to say it, but until your OL blocks, teams are going to send the inmates to turn your OC over to the asylum. And screen and swing passes only slow down the rush if you can get SOME blocking. I don't think we've seen enough blocking yet.
 
Problem is Bones, if the OL can't block, nothing will work. One thing is evident so far this season, defenses seem to see screen passes coming from a mile away. Even when the defense doesn't defend it well, they seem to sniff it out pretty quickly. Screens appear to be another play that is MORE difficult in today's more athletic NFL. So calling for screens is asking for a loss and HOPING for a decent play. The only time they really work is when the defense is bailing out on a 3rd and long, and I've seen very few get the 1st in that situation.

The swing pass only works if the backers are bailing. However, most defenses spy the back if he stays in to pass protect and they're not blitzing. Unless their pass defense is a zone and the backers need to get to their zone due to poor DB play (and we haven't played one of those teams yet) the swing pass might be a tough sell, unless the backers aren't great, and today, most backers can at least stay with a RB for a swing or flat pass. If the pass rush is getting in, the pass will have to have some air on it, and the backer will get there while the RB waits for the ball. Bottom line on that is that it most likely won't go for many yards.

So on both the screen and the dump-off passes to the RB, you're not going to get many yards against a good front 7 (which we've faced already). I don't think the "analysts" understand that. It's not just a good pass rush we were facing, it was a good front 7, and that negates the ability to do much with screens and swing passes. Sure it sounds good, but the effect would have been negligible. Okay, we'd have had a better completion percentage, but we wouldn't have gotten more 1st's or kept the ball much longer.

The 1st two teams we faced were balls nasty up front, and played man just long enough to let the front 7 get to the QB.

Now regarding Art "taking notes" about getting the ball to the RB's. Sure he's going to say that. He threw the press a bone. I was wondering whether it was something he needed to address with Walter, and maybe Brooks as well. It's one thing to say it, but until your OL blocks, teams are going to send the inmates to turn your OC over to the asylum. And screen and swing passes only slow down the rush if you can get SOME blocking. I don't think we've seen enough blocking yet.
 
Wise guy -- I hear you the first time. :p

Well I still disagree with you a little. You can't just sit there and let the defense pin their ears back. Swings and screens would at least help give them something to think about.

So what you're telling me now is that we're just going to have to keep doing it over and over and hope something changes? Isn't that the definition of insanity?
 
No. It would be insane if we weren't improving. We are. We were better against Baltimore than we were against San Diego.

Shell said he didn't run more than 2 7-step drops against Baltimore, but Jaworski says we ran 13, 3 more than against San Diego. We were sacked fewer times weren't we? Yeah, improvement.

Look. I agree that we should mix it up. I prefer that approach. But that's best done by a team that has its s#!t together. We do not, as of yet, have our s#!t together. Until we do, we're going to keep going through the same old s#!t until we get it right.

Defenses are going to pin their ears back until we stiffen up. Until we do, we're sitting ducks. I don't like it, but that's about what we're going to get for the forseeable future.
 
Adjusting to the game


Sep 23, 2006

When the camera pans to Art Shell on the Oakland Raiders sideline it is tough to determine what he is thinking or feeling, except pain. Without emotion, the head coach is a deer caught in headlights. Save for his trusty notebook that is.

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."
 
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.

This is from the above article and it is a bit of misinformation. Tom Walsh was on the staff before 1994 but he was only the offensive coordinator in 1994. Therefore, the passes to the running backs increased over the prior years when Walsh was the OC.
 
That was my thought exactly. Terry Robiskie was the OC before Walsh.
 
Back
Top