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

Life without Hue
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
early43


Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1133
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
early43 wrote:

Isnt taking a secondary job when you have been a offensive coach your whole career "settling"...

Its still unclear how big a part Saunders played in our offensive play calling last year. Did he come up with the game plan and Hue just picked the plays? Were they both calling plays and Hue took credit for it? Hard to say but history tells me that Saunders was just as big, if not bigger reason why our offense worked last year and not a first time HC who took credit for calling the plays.


For long

OK, and what history tells you about the 2010 season when our offense improved while Saunders was coaching in Baltimore?
If you've been watching the Raiders in 2010 and 2011 you should know it was the same concept on offense.
I have no idea how it is unclear. The offense was installed by Jackson in 2010, Saunders took over the OC job when Jackson was named HC but he kept the playcalling duties. Saunders was brought in because he had been running the same kind of offense (vertical passing, quick strike) his whole career. Those are the facts as opposed to your behind the scenes conspiracy theory lacking a single proof.


Big difference between the two offenses and how they performed. All im saying is Saunders has a better history of offensive success than Hue Jackson which is why I believe Saunders had a big hand in how our offense took off in 2011. Saunders has had success in most places where he was the OC whereas Jackson has been a realtive unknown playcaller/ positin coach.

Think what you will, your the one whos pulling the conspiracy card. I just think is funny how our offense seemed to greatly improved once Saunders was on staff and how he seems to get zero credit for any of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 14483
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

early43 wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
early43 wrote:

Isnt taking a secondary job when you have been a offensive coach your whole career "settling"...

Its still unclear how big a part Saunders played in our offensive play calling last year. Did he come up with the game plan and Hue just picked the plays? Were they both calling plays and Hue took credit for it? Hard to say but history tells me that Saunders was just as big, if not bigger reason why our offense worked last year and not a first time HC who took credit for calling the plays.


For long

OK, and what history tells you about the 2010 season when our offense improved while Saunders was coaching in Baltimore?
If you've been watching the Raiders in 2010 and 2011 you should know it was the same concept on offense.
I have no idea how it is unclear. The offense was installed by Jackson in 2010, Saunders took over the OC job when Jackson was named HC but he kept the playcalling duties. Saunders was brought in because he had been running the same kind of offense (vertical passing, quick strike) his whole career. Those are the facts as opposed to your behind the scenes conspiracy theory lacking a single proof.


Big difference between the two offenses and how they performed. All im saying is Saunders has a better history of offensive success than Hue Jackson which is why I believe Saunders had a big hand in how our offense took off in 2011. Saunders has had success in most places where he was the OC whereas Jackson has been a realtive unknown playcaller/ positin coach.

Think what you will, your the one whos pulling the conspiracy card. I just think is funny how our offense seemed to greatly improved once Saunders was on staff and how he seems to get zero credit for any of it.


And i just think it's even funnier you don't want to give credit to Hue for the 2010 improvement (which was a lot more impressive btw).
I'm not the one pulling anything, who is saying the guy calling the plays might actually have done nothing and has nothing to offer to back up that claim. That's surely not me, is it?
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
early43


Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1133
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
early43 wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
early43 wrote:

Isnt taking a secondary job when you have been a offensive coach your whole career "settling"...

Its still unclear how big a part Saunders played in our offensive play calling last year. Did he come up with the game plan and Hue just picked the plays? Were they both calling plays and Hue took credit for it? Hard to say but history tells me that Saunders was just as big, if not bigger reason why our offense worked last year and not a first time HC who took credit for calling the plays.


For long

OK, and what history tells you about the 2010 season when our offense improved while Saunders was coaching in Baltimore?
If you've been watching the Raiders in 2010 and 2011 you should know it was the same concept on offense.
I have no idea how it is unclear. The offense was installed by Jackson in 2010, Saunders took over the OC job when Jackson was named HC but he kept the playcalling duties. Saunders was brought in because he had been running the same kind of offense (vertical passing, quick strike) his whole career. Those are the facts as opposed to your behind the scenes conspiracy theory lacking a single proof.


Big difference between the two offenses and how they performed. All im saying is Saunders has a better history of offensive success than Hue Jackson which is why I believe Saunders had a big hand in how our offense took off in 2011. Saunders has had success in most places where he was the OC whereas Jackson has been a realtive unknown playcaller/ positin coach.

Think what you will, your the one whos pulling the conspiracy card. I just think is funny how our offense seemed to greatly improved once Saunders was on staff and how he seems to get zero credit for any of it.


And i just think it's even funnier you don't want to give credit to Hue for the 2010 improvement (which was a lot more impressive btw).
I'm not the one pulling anything, who is saying the guy calling the plays might actually have done nothing and has nothing to offer to back up that claim. That's surely not me, is it?


I never discredited anything Hue brought to our offense as a OC. My original post made it clear that I didnt think Hue was a good HEAD COACH... Nothing about him being a OC. The basis for my argument has always been that Hue was a bad HC. Yes, our offense improved drastically in 2010 with him as our OC, but the bar was set pretty low from our offense that was ran by Cable. Improvements were made in 2010 thanks to Jackson. Not denying it.

More improvements were made once Al Saunders was brought on and all I am choosing to do is believe that Saunders had more to do with it than Jackson. Saunders has a long history of having good offenses. And until I hear some concrete information from someone other than Hue Jackson, I think its a valid point to bring up that Saunders was just as responsible for our offense than Jackson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5412
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

silver_surfer wrote:
Well Reggie could of gave Hue a year.

The precedent: Holmgren gave Mangini a year his first year for the Browns

Hue could of earned Reggies trust.. Hue loved being a raider, remember that Texan game and how emotional Hue got.. poor hue, his new boss get in yow
, hue is excited to meet him, without saying a word Reggie fires him.. Of only Hue didn't make that stupid Palmer deal. One mistake cost him his job.. I can see why he did it, he felt we were close to a title.. This a talented roster who could compete sucks to see them under achieve.. Hue took risks and was gutsy, I will always admire him for that ..


Now we are doomed for the next ten years like post gruden


Losing Gruden is not what turned us into the mess we have become. What screwed us over was Gruden and Al built a team full of senior citizens. Gannon, Rice, and Brown were all like 35 or older, as were starters all over the team. They did a poor job of drafting/developing players to take over once they retired or declined to the point of no longer starting. I'm not defending Bill Callahan or Art Shell as coaches by any means, but we lost the majority of our talent within a year or two of Gruden being traded because the majority of our starters were old.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 8599
Location: CA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
bitty wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
There is something I read about DA and why they chose an OC with zone blocking, he said that it is one of the hardest offense to prepare for. It's pretty smart once you think about it. We just have to execute. That's the biggest problem is the o-line doesn't execute.

Here's food for thought the last time we had zone blocking cable was the coach. He might be a big difference because the last time we ran it we ran it way better.



If zone blocking is so great then why do most SB winners run power blocking schemes.


I could be wrong but I think the only teams that won the SB running the zone was 49er,Denver and Green Bay.


It doesn't matter what time of scheme offensive or defensive a team runs if they don't have talent to execute it.


Or coaching...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22834
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
bitty wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
There is something I read about DA and why they chose an OC with zone blocking, he said that it is one of the hardest offense to prepare for. It's pretty smart once you think about it. We just have to execute. That's the biggest problem is the o-line doesn't execute.

Here's food for thought the last time we had zone blocking cable was the coach. He might be a big difference because the last time we ran it we ran it way better.



If zone blocking is so great then why do most SB winners run power blocking schemes.


I could be wrong but I think the only teams that won the SB running the zone was 49er,Denver and Green Bay.


It doesn't matter what time of scheme offensive or defensive a team runs if they don't have talent to execute it.


Or coaching...


You think give Knapp keys to Houston's established offense and they would suck?

Players can make a coach look good or bad. Not defending Knapp, just playing devil's advocate here but the guy has never overseen a team with a lot of offensive talent.

Case and point, look where Houston was w/ Kubiak until recently. Dead man walking coach until he finally starting hitting on some draft picks and things really came together. The ZBS took shape and even a guy like Steve Slaton saw success in it.

Houston was patient w/ the coaching and scheme and it is starting to payoff for them, but it took some time.

**Disclaimer. Not drawing any correlation to Knapp's time in Houston. Just using Houston as an example of a 'failing ZBS team' who found their stride in time.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 14483
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:

You think give Knapp keys to Houston's established offense and they would suck?


Not sure. But the Raiders offense was better than Houston's offense last season.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 6486
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll tell what I never signed on for, palmer throwing 35+ times a game. Similarly to Peyton, these veteran QBs could be viciously effective under the cover of an explosive run game. IMO, any game plan that regularly depends on Palmer airing it out is ill conceived. Of course he has tendonitis. This is not what I expected at all. I expected Jason Campbell, except actually connecting on the deep ball. I understood why Palmer had to throw so much w/o DMC but how the Raiders are using Palmer is just plain dumb, imo.

If Knapp thinks Oakland is going to give the ZBS 5 seasons then trade Palmer as soon as a contender has an injury at QB and salvage whatever return you can get.
_________________
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
early43


Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1133
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
big_palooka wrote:

You think give Knapp keys to Houston's established offense and they would suck?


Not sure. But the Raiders offense was better than Houston's offense last season.


Depends on how you define better?

If better mean more explosive, then yes the Raiders were better than Houston.

If better mean most consistent, then Houston has the better offense and it's not even close.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 15258
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
bitty wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
There is something I read about DA and why they chose an OC with zone blocking, he said that it is one of the hardest offense to prepare for. It's pretty smart once you think about it. We just have to execute. That's the biggest problem is the o-line doesn't execute.

Here's food for thought the last time we had zone blocking cable was the coach. He might be a big difference because the last time we ran it we ran it way better.



If zone blocking is so great then why do most SB winners run power blocking schemes.


I could be wrong but I think the only teams that won the SB running the zone was 49er,Denver and Green Bay.


It doesn't matter what time of scheme offensive or defensive a team runs if they don't have talent to execute it.


Or coaching...


You think give Knapp keys to Houston's established offense and they would suck?

Players can make a coach look good or bad. Not defending Knapp, just playing devil's advocate here but the guy has never overseen a team with a lot of offensive talent.

Case and point, look where Houston was w/ Kubiak until recently. Dead man walking coach until he finally starting hitting on some draft picks and things really came together. The ZBS took shape and even a guy like Steve Slaton saw success in it.

Houston was patient w/ the coaching and scheme and it is starting to payoff for them, but it took some time.

**Disclaimer. Not drawing any correlation to Knapp's time in Houston. Just using Houston as an example of a 'failing ZBS team' who found their stride in time.


ill give wade phillips props also cause once houston became a defensive powerhouse they became a playoff team.
_________________


green24 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN > all of you


Raider X wrote:
This is football, not pussology 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 8599
Location: CA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
bitty wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
There is something I read about DA and why they chose an OC with zone blocking, he said that it is one of the hardest offense to prepare for. It's pretty smart once you think about it. We just have to execute. That's the biggest problem is the o-line doesn't execute.

Here's food for thought the last time we had zone blocking cable was the coach. He might be a big difference because the last time we ran it we ran it way better.



If zone blocking is so great then why do most SB winners run power blocking schemes.


I could be wrong but I think the only teams that won the SB running the zone was 49er,Denver and Green Bay.


It doesn't matter what time of scheme offensive or defensive a team runs if they don't have talent to execute it.


Or coaching...


You think give Knapp keys to Houston's established offense and they would suck?

Players can make a coach look good or bad. Not defending Knapp, just playing devil's advocate here but the guy has never overseen a team with a lot of offensive talent.

Case and point, look where Houston was w/ Kubiak until recently. Dead man walking coach until he finally starting hitting on some draft picks and things really came together. The ZBS took shape and even a guy like Steve Slaton saw success in it.

Houston was patient w/ the coaching and scheme and it is starting to payoff for them, but it took some time.

**Disclaimer. Not drawing any correlation to Knapp's time in Houston. Just using Houston as an example of a 'failing ZBS team' who found their stride in time.


Key word is established. You need a coordinator that knows what he's doing to establish anything successfully. The Raiders had the ZBS running great in Kiffin's first year as HC when Knapp was the "OC". The difference is Knapp wasn't calling plays, and Tom Cable was coaching the offensive line.

BTW, the Texans had no talent on their offensive line when it was first being installed. The Raiders do. There's no excuses for how poor the Raiders are run blocking right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cellomac1212


Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 2041
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
I think the issue many are facing is they expected to much to soon. Fans wanted a 49ers type turnaround under a new regime. But the Raiders simply didn't have the talent or resources they had when the new regime came in.

So now it becomes a waiting game and fans better settle in. This offseason was steps backwards and there was never going to be forward momentum.

The new FO had no money and limited draft picks to work with. They were forced to cut their best and only pass rusher. They were not able to add impact players in the draft with 95 being the first pick.

The GM is new to his job. The HC is new to his job. The DC is new to his job. There was bound to be a learning curve, setbacks and adversity.

The goal IMO was simple for the FO. Trim the fat (contracts and underachievers), be creative in adding depth. Install new offense and defense and be patient in letting it grow and come together.

This is rebuilding time in Oakland. Not re-loading in the Davis sense. This is a project and will take IMO 2-3 years to complete and be competitive. They will continue overhauling the roster, finding pieces that fit the schemes before it all comes together.

Like many, I just want to see the Raiders win. Two 8-8 seasons, you think they are on the cusp, but this 'new era' had to begin in the new FO's vision and that vision was overhaul from coaches to players to schemes.

So here we are. Looking at a 4 win season. Lots of adversity, finger pointing and media tirades.

For many, they always talked about a post-Davis era. We're living it. And if you truly believed in the hiring of McKenzie than you have to be patient in this honeymoon period to see it take form.

It's going to take a well played free agency game and well placed draft picks for in my mind 2 or 3 years before this comes together in their vision.

Better settle in.


Good points, but with that said, I think we only lost a total of 3 or 4 starters on both O and D.

Defense
-I think our LB's are better, our cb's are worse, everything else the same.

Offense
-We got Mcfadden back and kept our same receivers (minus Boss and Murphy)

Our D looks 10 times better (even though they still suck). But WTH happened to our offense? Mcfadden and the zone blocking scheme has already been tried and was not successful. Why would an offensive coordinator take possibly the best RB in the league in one system and go completely opposite of it? I don't mind incorporating the ZBS, but why just throw away the power blocking scheme that got McFadden all his notoriety?

We should of kept Hue and brought in a D Coordinator. We should not have regressed this much (and it didn't look much better in the pre season either so we have 6 games to judge from).
_________________

I hoped for a playoff appearance, but the passing of Al met terms for my sig removal after 3+ years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 8599
Location: CA
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
I think the issue many are facing is they expected to much to soon. Fans wanted a 49ers type turnaround under a new regime. But the Raiders simply didn't have the talent or resources they had when the new regime came in.

So now it becomes a waiting game and fans better settle in. This offseason was steps backwards and there was never going to be forward momentum.

The new FO had no money and limited draft picks to work with. They were forced to cut their best and only pass rusher. They were not able to add impact players in the draft with 95 being the first pick.

The GM is new to his job. The HC is new to his job. The DC is new to his job. There was bound to be a learning curve, setbacks and adversity.

The goal IMO was simple for the FO. Trim the fat (contracts and underachievers), be creative in adding depth. Install new offense and defense and be patient in letting it grow and come together.

This is rebuilding time in Oakland. Not re-loading in the Davis sense. This is a project and will take IMO 2-3 years to complete and be competitive. They will continue overhauling the roster, finding pieces that fit the schemes before it all comes together.

Like many, I just want to see the Raiders win. Two 8-8 seasons, you think they are on the cusp, but this 'new era' had to begin in the new FO's vision and that vision was overhaul from coaches to players to schemes.

So here we are. Looking at a 4 win season. Lots of adversity, finger pointing and media tirades.

For many, they always talked about a post-Davis era. We're living it. And if you truly believed in the hiring of McKenzie than you have to be patient in this honeymoon period to see it take form.

It's going to take a well played free agency game and well placed draft picks for in my mind 2 or 3 years before this comes together in their vision.

Better settle in.


There was never going to be forward momentum? I wonder why that is? haha People, stop acting like hiring a terrible OC is the norm for teams with new regimes. It's not. Reggie McKenzie didn't hire Greg Knapp to be a detriment to the team. It's not all apart of his master plan. He wanted to compete this season, but screwed the pooch with that hiring.

This all comes down to Greg Knapp. He's the difference between a 2-0 team and an 0-2 team, and the difference between fans who don't understand that "rebuilding" doesn't mean having to suck. You mention the 9ers, yet fail to acknowledge that they were 6-10 the season before Jim Harbaugh took over.


No need to acknowledge it. They were a talented club, just need coached correctly. Davis, Gore, Willis, Bowman, Goldson were already on that roster. That's better building blocks for a new regime than anything in Oakland.

And their division was terrible as well. Raiders 'makeover' comes at a time when Manning joins the division and the Chargers rebuilt their defense.


Yet they still finished 6-10. Any acknowledgement to the rest of my post, or was it expected that when Reggie McKenzie took over, the Raiders would hire a bum to run the offense like Greg Knapp? This has nothing to do with fans expecting too much or being unrealistic. This has to do with our strength from a season ago turning into a weakness because of a bad hire. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cellomac1212


Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 2041
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chali21 wrote:
There is something I read about DA and why they chose an OC with zone blocking, he said that it is one of the hardest offense to prepare for. It's pretty smart once you think about it. We just have to execute. That's the biggest problem is the o-line doesn't execute.

Here's food for thought the last time we had zone blocking cable was the coach. He might be a big difference because the last time we ran it we ran it way better.


ZBS requires fast linemen and usually works well for the smaller lines around the league. We built a line of the big nasty linemen. They like to power block. Mcfadden does not want to wait to see a hole, he wants the ball at full speed charging into the hole that is designed to be there. This entire o line and rb system needs to be gotten rid of if we are going to stick with ZBS. I personally think coaching did not evaluate the talent very well as they should of seen this team is not capable of running the ZBS.
_________________

I hoped for a playoff appearance, but the passing of Al met terms for my sig removal after 3+ years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cellomac1212


Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 2041
PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

early43 wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
early43 wrote:

Isnt taking a secondary job when you have been a offensive coach your whole career "settling"...

Its still unclear how big a part Saunders played in our offensive play calling last year. Did he come up with the game plan and Hue just picked the plays? Were they both calling plays and Hue took credit for it? Hard to say but history tells me that Saunders was just as big, if not bigger reason why our offense worked last year and not a first time HC who took credit for calling the plays.


For long

OK, and what history tells you about the 2010 season when our offense improved while Saunders was coaching in Baltimore?
If you've been watching the Raiders in 2010 and 2011 you should know it was the same concept on offense.
I have no idea how it is unclear. The offense was installed by Jackson in 2010, Saunders took over the OC job when Jackson was named HC but he kept the playcalling duties. Saunders was brought in because he had been running the same kind of offense (vertical passing, quick strike) his whole career. Those are the facts as opposed to your behind the scenes conspiracy theory lacking a single proof.


Big difference between the two offenses and how they performed. All im saying is Saunders has a better history of offensive success than Hue Jackson which is why I believe Saunders had a big hand in how our offense took off in 2011. Saunders has had success in most places where he was the OC whereas Jackson has been a realtive unknown playcaller/ positin coach.

Think what you will, your the one whos pulling the conspiracy card. I just think is funny how our offense seemed to greatly improved once Saunders was on staff and how he seems to get zero credit for any of it.


Well he is a great offensive coordinator. Of course he helps... That should go without saying...
_________________

I hoped for a playoff appearance, but the passing of Al met terms for my sig removal after 3+ years.
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, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
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