That Raider offensive line....

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#21
3VID3NC3 said:
Bro theres no way to avoid the fact we need new linemen..Walker is gone, Sims is old and Grove gets manhandled every play. No coach could take the players we have now and turn them into a solid o-line. Im not arguing the fact that a different coach and scheme could help but its not gonna fix everything. We need players upfront with attitude and fire. Gallery was a damn choir boy growing up..no one is scared of him.
I hear you mayne. I am not saying we don't need new linemen... but I am saying that we don't have to trade our number one pick to trade down and draft some linemen. When we could sign a few free agents (possibly Newberry) and change the blocking shemes.... and not only that the whole offensive scheme is going to change. We may see the Qb get rid of the ball quicker which would result in less sacks.

Art set everyone up to fail. First he called for a man to man blocking scheme and then he had receivers running all of these deep as routes. That's why the Raiders ended up 2-14. Now we can turn a bad situation into a good situation.

To the anti-Raiders... don't bank on the Raiders giving up sacks like they did last year. Russell can move too....
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#23
It's the coaching. Mike Shanahan learned that cut blocking scheme from the 49ers when he was offensive coordinator. Coaching makes a huge difference wether you believe it or not.
 
Mar 16, 2005
6,904
401
83
#24
Tony said:
It's the coaching. Mike Shanahan learned that cut blocking scheme from the 49ers when he was offensive coordinator. Coaching makes a huge difference wether you believe it or not.
I never once said coaching DOESN'T make a difference I agree with that!! But to say coaching WAS THE PROBLEM....NOT TRUE!

Talent, or lack there of I should say, is the problem!
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#25
thascary1 said:
can he move faster than 45 sack man Vick....I am betting no.
Probably not... but he's not going to have to move faster than Vick. He has a better arm and better pocket awareness. Vick doesn't have good pocket awareness and he's about 6'1 so he has to scramble more. Russell is 6'5, has an accurate arm, and pretty good pocketawareness for a Jr coming out of college.
 
Mar 16, 2005
6,904
401
83
#26
Tony said:
Probably not... but he's not going to have to move faster than Vick. He has a better arm and better pocket awareness. Vick doesn't have good pocket awareness and he's about 6'1 so he has to scramble more. Russell is 6'5, has an accurate arm, and pretty good pocketawareness for a Jr coming out of college.


there is the major statement of your post!
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#27
thascary1 said:
I never once said coaching DOESN'T make a difference I agree with that!! But to say coaching WAS THE PROBLEM....NOT TRUE!

Talent, or lack there of I should say, is the problem!
Coaching was the main problem... that's why Art Shell, Slater, Walsh, Shoop have all been replaced. Al Davis is doing the right things by getting his coaching staff re-assembled first and then they'll probably sit down and review tape on which linemen can/should be removed or replaced. It's all starts with coaching.... that's why the Raiders are getting their coaching staff assembled right now.
 
Mar 16, 2005
6,904
401
83
#29
Tony said:
Coaching was the main problem... that's why Art Shell, Slater, Walsh, Shoop have all been replaced. Al Davis is doing the right things by getting his coaching staff re-assembled first and then they'll probably sit down and review tape on which linemen can/should be removed or replaced. It's all starts with coaching.... that's why the Raiders are getting their coaching staff assembled right now.
you make things too easy sometimes.

How many times as this been done recently in Oakland? And how many of those times was it said these are the coaches to get it done?

It's been said a million times on these boards but I will ay it again.....lack of talent first....the second problem is
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OWNERSHIP!
 
Mar 16, 2005
6,904
401
83
#32
Tony said:
You gots to understand this.... you have to.

please read what 3vid3nc3 posted....it's been done already in Oakland with little success! They have tried different schemes and packages...TALENT JUST ISN'T THERE!
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#36
Jesse fuckin' Rice said:
No, it wasnt.

Why the fuck is your head so hard, bro?
My head is not hard. I just believe that coaching was the main reason for a team going 2-14 with a top 5 ranked defense. Ryan pretty much ran the defense so I can't give Art any credit for the defense. None! Art was mainly in charge of the offense and he's the reason why the Raiders went 2-14.
 
Apr 25, 2002
3,020
2
38
#37
Tony said:
My head is not hard. I just believe that coaching was the main reason for a team going 2-14 with a top 5 ranked defense. Ryan pretty much ran the defense so I can't give Art any credit for the defense. None! Art was mainly in charge of the offense and he's the reason why the Raiders went 2-14.
Thing is, Art was brought in to be a leader..not an offensive guru. Problem was Art decided to bring in Tom Walsh as OC and the play calling had to be relied on Walsh.
We had a good offensive coach in Norv Turner but he wasn't a leader. Now we got Kiffin who is another offensive coach that will call his own plays, but will he be the leader the team needs? Gruden was successful because he could do both...so far Im not sure about Kiffin.
 
Apr 25, 2002
9,595
5
38
#40
Tony said:
We may see the Qb get rid of the ball quicker which would result in less sacks.
It would also result in more interceptions, whether you have Russel, Walter or Brooks in there. Especially Walter and Russel because of their inexperience (that's if you even draft Russel).

I agree with Tony to an extent, but I do not agree that coaching was the main reason the line was garbage. Better coaching would have helped a lot, but lack of talent would have prevented them from being a good or even decent line. I understand what he's saying about zone blocking Vs. man-to-man blocking, but any good lineman would have known to convert to a zone block when he sees his man drop back into coverage no matter what the coaches have taught them. It's common sense for a professional offensive lineman. You see your man drop off into the backfield, then you see a linebacker blitzing.. It's obvious what you do from there.

The raiders need better coaches and players. Period.