Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Raiders vs. Falcons Week 6 GDT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 39, 40, 41
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 6486
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raidin wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
AND John Fox completely threw out the playbook AGAIN when Denver signed Manning and told him it was completely his baby. SMART coaches conform.



Can you name one who conformed to a running back?


If I had to guess I don't suppose this is the offense Palmer would have chosen for himself . . . . .
_________________
Nodisrespect wrote:
(on building inside out) teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 6486
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
pHaT_dEsI wrote:
I don't know if anybody asked this question but I was wondering why the refs didn't call a delay of game on Matt Bryant for kicking the ball long after Dennis Allen called the time out on the final kick?


Atlanta has done it 3 times this year, and it should be a penalty. Why uncalled? Because the original refs are biased and Atlanta is 6-0, Matt Ryan is the golden boy.

Not only that, but it was not a last second timeout. It was called waaayyy before any snap.


Tuck rule 2.0. This will addressed once again after the fact determent to the Raiders.
_________________
Nodisrespect wrote:
(on building inside out) teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3817
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
holyghost wrote:
pHaT_dEsI wrote:
I don't know if anybody asked this question but I was wondering why the refs didn't call a delay of game on Matt Bryant for kicking the ball long after Dennis Allen called the time out on the final kick?


Atlanta has done it 3 times this year, and it should be a penalty. Why uncalled? Because the original refs are biased and Atlanta is 6-0, Matt Ryan is the golden boy.

Not only that, but it was not a last second timeout. It was called waaayyy before any snap.


Tuck rule 2.0. This will addressed once again after the fact determent to the Raiders.


it was unsportsmanlike penalty 15 yards
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 6486
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitty wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
holyghost wrote:
pHaT_dEsI wrote:
I don't know if anybody asked this question but I was wondering why the refs didn't call a delay of game on Matt Bryant for kicking the ball long after Dennis Allen called the time out on the final kick?


Atlanta has done it 3 times this year, and it should be a penalty. Why uncalled? Because the original refs are biased and Atlanta is 6-0, Matt Ryan is the golden boy.

Not only that, but it was not a last second timeout. It was called waaayyy before any snap.


Tuck rule 2.0. This will addressed once again after the fact determent to the Raiders.


it was unsportsmanlike penalty 15 yards


I missed that while I was throwing things . . .
_________________
Nodisrespect wrote:
(on building inside out) teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nightmare


Joined: 19 Dec 2008
Posts: 2799
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That game felt more like last year's Raiders. Losing a close one with an obscene amount of penalties... Defense played better than I've seen it in a long time. Shame abut the running game and the penalties. It never all goes right at once for us.

Happy to eat crow on this one, expected us to lose by at least 14, but the team on the whole played really well. Just hope they can keep it up for the next 3 weeks and get at least 2 wins out of them. Would be terrible after a performance like that, to revert back to the Raiders that showed up in Miami or Denver.
_________________
Quote:
Warren Sapp is a fool. That dude is stupid. He played for the Raiders 20 years ago, no one cares what he says, nobody likes him, hes a joke.
^ ^ ^ Chaz Schilens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raidin


Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 5631
Location: Dublin
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
Raidin wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
AND John Fox completely threw out the playbook AGAIN when Denver signed Manning and told him it was completely his baby. SMART coaches conform.



Can you name one who conformed to a running back?


If I had to guess I don't suppose this is the offense Palmer would have chosen for himself . . . . .



Doesn't give him a chance to throw enough ints?
_________________
raidr4life wrote:
Imagine if EricAllen21 posted better. Just imagine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 8603
Location: CA
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raidin wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
Raidin wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
AND John Fox completely threw out the playbook AGAIN when Denver signed Manning and told him it was completely his baby. SMART coaches conform.



Can you name one who conformed to a running back?


If I had to guess I don't suppose this is the offense Palmer would have chosen for himself . . . . .



Doesn't give him a chance to throw enough ints?


Because he threw INT's last season in completely different circumstances, keeping the vertical passing attack would have resulted in more of the same. Great logic...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raidin


Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 5631
Location: Dublin
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
Raidin wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
Raidin wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
AND John Fox completely threw out the playbook AGAIN when Denver signed Manning and told him it was completely his baby. SMART coaches conform.



Can you name one who conformed to a running back?


If I had to guess I don't suppose this is the offense Palmer would have chosen for himself . . . . .



Doesn't give him a chance to throw enough ints?


Because he threw INT's last season in completely different circumstances, keeping the vertical passing attack would have resulted in more of the same. Great logic...



Because he's thrown lots of Ints for most of his career by a few good years. His decision making is can be poor, we saw that yesterday.
_________________
raidr4life wrote:
Imagine if EricAllen21 posted better. Just imagine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oak42069


Joined: 08 Apr 2009
Posts: 2114
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raidin wrote:
Darkness wrote:
Raidin wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
Raidin wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
AND John Fox completely threw out the playbook AGAIN when Denver signed Manning and told him it was completely his baby. SMART coaches conform.



Can you name one who conformed to a running back?


If I had to guess I don't suppose this is the offense Palmer would have chosen for himself . . . . .



Doesn't give him a chance to throw enough ints?


Because he threw INT's last season in completely different circumstances, keeping the vertical passing attack would have resulted in more of the same. Great logic...



Because he's thrown lots of Ints for most of his career by a few good years. His decision making is can be poor, we saw that yesterday.


drove us right back down the field. put us in position to win,

redeemed.

then calls himself out

good man, we'll see better n keep dmoes health up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Professor Oak


Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 3910
Location: Pallet Town
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
dante9876 wrote:

Here we go again. Head coach wants to run a scheme in his tenure he, shouldn't wait to start it cause the players he inherited cant run it. If they can't do it they will go soon enough. It's not like our offense was good enough to carry us to the playoffs.


1985 just called, they want their coaching paradigm back. In TODAY'S NFL coaches must reinvent themselves in the mold of their players if they wish to remain relevant or stick around long enough to implement their system. HueJax was not a great playcaller, however, one of the most impactful things that he did was ask DMC what were his favorite plays and implement them immediately.

Thank you. I'm glad someone else understands this.

A top 10 offense (without a healthy DMC for the most part) & people want to stick with the new scheme after seeing how potent/capable this offense can be. Unlike our defense, our offense has some very nice pieces that are not being used the way they should.

Everyone is latching onto McFadden not being a fit, but really, it's more than 1 player. Although very smart & athletic, Veldheer is not the same. He has become less effective as a blocker in this scheme. Same goes for Wiz, who had a solid rookie campaign last year. He has been struggling, but I know people will blame that on him being injured. I'm not even going to mention the rest of the OL because the players hold no value, but the same players (other than Brisiel) were a pretty strong unit last year.

Moral of the story is, you don't change things that work well. As a coach, your job is to bring out the best in your players, not force them to do things they don't excel at. Apparently my logic is incorrect, but that's just how I see things.
_________________
(o◕ ‿‿◕o)//
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmac505


Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 832
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor Oak wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
dante9876 wrote:

Here we go again. Head coach wants to run a scheme in his tenure he, shouldn't wait to start it cause the players he inherited cant run it. If they can't do it they will go soon enough. It's not like our offense was good enough to carry us to the playoffs.


1985 just called, they want their coaching paradigm back. In TODAY'S NFL coaches must reinvent themselves in the mold of their players if they wish to remain relevant or stick around long enough to implement their system. HueJax was not a great playcaller, however, one of the most impactful things that he did was ask DMC what were his favorite plays and implement them immediately.

Thank you. I'm glad someone else understands this.

A top 10 offense (without a healthy DMC for the most part) & people want to stick with the new scheme after seeing how potent/capable this offense can be. Unlike our defense, our offense has some very nice pieces that are not being used the way they should.

Everyone is latching onto McFadden not being a fit, but really, it's more than 1 player. Although very smart & athletic, Veldheer is not the same. He has become less effective as a blocker in this scheme. Same goes for Wiz, who had a solid rookie campaign last year. He has been struggling, but I know people will blame that on him being injured. I'm not even going to mention the rest of the OL because the players hold no value, but the same players (other than Brisiel) were a pretty strong unit last year.

Moral of the story is, you don't change things that work well. As a coach, your job is to bring out the best in your players, not force them to do things they don't excel at. Apparently my logic is incorrect, but that's just how I see things.


im not sure building your O around a RB who cant stay healthy is smart either.

the PBS requires a certain kind of RB IMO, DMC is that, but there are not many.
There are lots of RBs who can run in a ZBS.

You need to understand that reggie is not thinking short term success he is thinking long term.

DA is not under pressure this year because RM knows it takes more than one year to change schemes succcessfully. so they are still seeing who can and cant play in this scheme.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 14483
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmac505 wrote:

the PBS requires a certain kind of RB IMO, DMC is that, but there are not many.
There are lots of RBs who can run in a ZBS.


When did this become somekind of proven fact?
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Professor Oak


Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 3910
Location: Pallet Town
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmac505 wrote:
im not sure building your O around a RB who cant stay healthy is smart either.

the PBS requires a certain kind of RB IMO, DMC is that, but there are not many.
There are lots of RBs who can run in a ZBS.

You need to understand that reggie is not thinking short term success he is thinking long term.

DA is not under pressure this year because RM knows it takes more than one year to change schemes succcessfully. so they are still seeing who can and cant play in this scheme.

I completely understand that, but the scheme isn't just for the potential success of McFadden, it's for the potential success of the entire team. If the OL & McFadden are having the success, that opens things up for Palmer, Moore, DHB, Reece...etc...etc. It's not happening right now due to execution & fit. We're very one dimensional.

I agree that DMC is not a great fit in this system, but getting rid of him & getting someone else won't necessarily solve the problem. The OL is not creating enough holes on a consistent basis. That's why we're seeing some power blocking in certain plays lately. No one is excelling at what they do best, which is why the offense has taken a step back.

I understand that RM & DA will stick to their guns. They're not here to please me & my wants. They're here to run things the way they want & hope to become successful at it. I'm just saying they're making it a lot tougher than it should be.
_________________
(o◕ ‿‿◕o)//
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5774
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's clear this offense is not as good as last year's, but whether or not it will be I think can only be determined after the year when it's fair to say it can be judged and is no longer developmental.

Having said that so I don't have anyone telling me I am trying to say this offense is as good...

What exactly makes anyone think the last offense was so damn good?
The point and yard totals overall were higher, but there were many games last year where the offense pulled the same thing it is pulling now. Falling asleep for entire quarters, not showing up to entire games, and definitely not winning us games consistently. Same exact difficulties punching it in inside the 20. Was it really that good in our collective memory that it cannot be left behind? Seeing the same general problems makes me think it's the personnel and execution rather than they system. Tell me the same problems aren't happening, because it sure looks like the same problems.

I remember good games and more points. But I also remember running was a big problem the last half of last year. A BIG problem. The first half of the year padded the second half. Palmer's stats passing seem to be pretty much the same this year to last. Except for less INTs. And in this offense we have slightly less quality playmakers than last year between missing Ford and Bush.


Honestly the only true deep dropoff is McFadden's rushing production. But like the point made earlier, if we fit the offense to only keep his production up we get back into the risk of losing him and therefore losing the whole offense with him. Not to mention the fact that it isn't winning us a significantly greater amount of games unless the guy stays healthy. Which he hasn't been able to do in 4 years.

The dropoff is not what everyone is making it out to be. Because it's padded on the first half of last year. So the least that can be done as far as being fair is to judge this year's offense after the year is over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raidin


Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 5631
Location: Dublin
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor Oak wrote:
dmac505 wrote:
im not sure building your O around a RB who cant stay healthy is smart either.

the PBS requires a certain kind of RB IMO, DMC is that, but there are not many.
There are lots of RBs who can run in a ZBS.

You need to understand that reggie is not thinking short term success he is thinking long term.

DA is not under pressure this year because RM knows it takes more than one year to change schemes succcessfully. so they are still seeing who can and cant play in this scheme.

I completely understand that, but the scheme isn't just for the potential success of McFadden, it's for the potential success of the entire team. If the OL & McFadden are having the success, that opens things up for Palmer, Moore, DHB, Reece...etc...etc. It's not happening right now due to execution & fit. We're very one dimensional.

I agree that DMC is not a great fit in this system, but getting rid of him & getting someone else won't necessarily solve the problem. The OL is not creating enough holes on a consistent basis. That's why we're seeing some power blocking in certain plays lately. No one is excelling at what they do best, which is why the offense has taken a step back.

I understand that RM & DA will stick to their guns. They're not here to please me & my wants. They're here to run things the way they want & hope to become successful at it. I'm just saying they're making it a lot tougher than it should be.



But they're not making it tougher. Relying on McFadden to last a full year without getting injured would be making it far more tougher to succeed.
_________________
raidr4life wrote:
Imagine if EricAllen21 posted better. Just imagine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 39, 40, 41
Page 41 of 41

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group