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 hire Greg Olson to be OC
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 26, 27, 28  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 7747
Location: CA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
3) Stats are meaningless. Coaches look as good or as bad as the talent they have at their disposal.


So we fired Greg Knapp for no reason? Brick wall
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14292
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A good read on our new OC.
http://raidernationtimes.com/article.php?id=9561
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dante9876


Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 21610
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
Catching up on the news. This thread was about the most painful thing I've read in months. So much crying and some of the dumbest stuff I've read in some time.

Here are my thoughts on the hire:

1) Not a splash, but I think the staff wants a guy who they can all grow with. Not a guy who might be headed to a HC gig in the short term.

2) A PBS guy. Isn't that what most wanted?!?

3) Stats are meaningless. Coaches look as good or as bad as the talent they have at their disposal.

4) Encouraged by his work at some of his stops.

To the 'yeah but we were 8-8 crowd' that just won't STFU"

1) Every season is different. Living in the past make you a complete idiot. The division, the schedule, the injuries, the roster etc. all change.

2) Hue Jackson's team folded 1-4 down the stretch, couldn't score in the red zone or put teams away. You think he improves on an 8-8 record when he was going backwards to finish his first year as HC?

To the DA is in over his head, has no connections, is a egomaniac morons.

1) Some of the things you say are so dumb, it pains me we enjoy the same team.

2) You're negativity and crybaby attitudes are ridiculous and I hate to see what you people are like in real life.

3) Patients is a wonderful thing.


Sweet another post from Big_P calling people dumb, ignorant, and stupid. Then ends it with " Patients is a wonderful thing." I guess you meant patience. We will wait for you to blame your iphone our ipad spell check thing though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 33487
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
3) Stats are meaningless. Coaches look as good or as bad as the talent they have at their disposal.


So we fired Greg Knapp for no reason? Brick wall


Sounds like you would have liked to keep him from this post. Wink
_________________

bungleodeon wrote:
Sorry, it's Tuesday and that means I drink.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5772
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see Olson as a conservative Dennis Allen choice to be honest. In my mind the biggest reason he is here is his tendency to try and utilize his players to their strengths, why I think he was hired. That's a good thing, but I am betting the reason a guy who would do that and yet never really produced great offenses lies in the fact that he probably isn't a spectacular play caller of any kind.
Dennis Allen hires him in the thinking of undoing his biggest mistake with Knapp and the offense, which is not using the players properly. Still, it will produce a better offense but not a great one I am sure. There's no great offensive mind in this equation nor the top of the line talent and execution necessary to achieve that on the field.

So all in all I'm thinking Dennis Allens' job is reliant on the defense. It's his D, and the team is a continuation of the same general conservative type of structure he has gravitated toward. If the D makes serious strides, the team will. If it doesn't I really doubt this offense will be enough of a game breaker to do it. It'll be better, don't get me wrong. But I don't see a leap coming from the offense. And Allen's job kinda depends on it, on a leap of some kind which pretty much must come from the defense now.

I honestly expect to see a defense heavy draft, and if there are offensive picks I'd expect them to be on the Oline. Just a theory, it feels as if Allen's image of a team being ball control and mistake free offense vs. a suffocating defense is still where he is trying to go. And this hire - while it acknowledges he made a mistake with the offense and Knapp, and with misusing the guys he had, it still says nothing in regards to a high octane offense. Even though that's what he said a couple weeks ago, it is not what he did nor what he is going for. Not by my eyes anyway...

It's fine either way to me, as long as it works. Use the offensive guys enough to score some points. I don't care if we outshoot anyone. But the defense must make serious strides or this team won't be winning any more games than the past year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22611
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

macklemore wrote:


First of all, don't complain about people being stupid all off-season then end a post with "Patients is a wonderful thing", the word you were looking for is patience.

Secondly, your post sucks.


Forgive my iPhone auto correct.


macklemore wrote:


lol.. let me get this straight.. You make excuses for Dennis Allen saying the schedule, injuries and roster are different, then, in the very next point rag on Hue Jackson for going 1-4 down the stretch when he had to deal with injuries, a different schedule and roster? Can't believe I used to respect you.


Get this straight. I'm not making ANY excuses for DA. I'm simply saying, 1 season to the next you can't compare them. You can't say, we were 8-8 and we should be 10-6 the following season because. Nice of you to pick ONE thing (injuries) and draw a conclusion about the statement.

macklemore wrote:

Not true at all. Stats are meaningful. Coaches are directly responsible for putting talent in positions to succeed, you can have all the talent in the world but if you are asking them to do stuff they can't do you will not have any success. e.g. Knapp putting Darren McFadden in a ZBS.

Hue Jackson put our offensive players in positions they could succeed and what happened? our offense scored points.

Greg Knapp took virtually the same players and put them in a scheme they could not succeed in and what happened? He turned an offense into a defense for the other team.


My argument was to DO. You can't grab his stats from Tampa, St. Louis, etc. and draw a conclusion about how he will do with Oakland.

If anything, he seems very adept at getting the playmakers the ball. A common theme with his offenses. Knapp didn't do that, and he was fired. But we owe DO a chance don't we?

Honestly, my post sucked. I'm fine with you saying that. It was a rage post after reading some honestly absurd statements in this thread.

This fan base won't even give a coach a chance now unless he has a big name. It's been so much negativity around here, it's disgusting.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 33487
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
I see Olson as a conservative Dennis Allen choice to be honest. In my mind the biggest reason he is here is his tendency to try and utilize his players to their strengths, why I think he was hired. That's a good thing, but I am betting the reason a guy who would do that and yet never really produced great offenses lies in the fact that he probably isn't a spectacular play caller of any kind.
Dennis Allen hires him in the thinking of undoing his biggest mistake with Knapp and the offense, which is not using the players properly. Still, it will produce a better offense but not a great one I am sure. There's no great offensive mind in this equation nor the top of the line talent and execution necessary to achieve that on the field.

So all in all I'm thinking Dennis Allens' job is reliant on the defense. It's his D, and the team is a continuation of the same general conservative type of structure he has gravitated toward. If the D makes serious strides, the team will. If it doesn't I really doubt this offense will be enough of a game breaker to do it. It'll be better, don't get me wrong. But I don't see a leap coming from the offense. And Allen's job kinda depends on it, on a leap of some kind which pretty much must come from the defense now.

I honestly expect to see a defense heavy draft, and if there are offensive picks I'd expect them to be on the Oline. Just a theory, it feels as if Allen's image of a team being ball control and mistake free offense vs. a suffocating defense is still where he is trying to go. And this hire - while it acknowledges he made a mistake with the offense and Knapp, and with misusing the guys he had, it still says nothing in regards to a high octane offense. Even though that's what he said a couple weeks ago, it is not what he did nor what he is going for. Not by my eyes anyway...

It's fine either way to me, as long as it works. Use the offensive guys enough to score some points. I don't care if we outshoot anyone. But the defense must make serious strides or this team won't be winning any more games than the past year.


This is how I pretty much view the hiring too. In every way. I think his defense can be successful but its going to hinge on personnel moves. He got some decent production out of the nobodies we started at the end of the season. We didn't exactly face the best offenses, but we played pretty well still. Makes me think that with more talent and the kinds of guys he's looking for that he can make big improvements on our D.
_________________

bungleodeon wrote:
Sorry, it's Tuesday and that means I drink.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22611
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
3) Stats are meaningless. Coaches look as good or as bad as the talent they have at their disposal.


So we fired Greg Knapp for no reason? Brick wall


So you don't get it either I guess? Tell me how DO's 'stats' in Tampa and St. Louis have any bearing on him in Oakland?

My problem is posters like yourself who want to post his stats and conclude, he sucks, DA sucks, McKenzie sucks and the Raiders are doomed.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22611
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dante9876 wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
Catching up on the news. This thread was about the most painful thing I've read in months. So much crying and some of the dumbest stuff I've read in some time.

Here are my thoughts on the hire:

1) Not a splash, but I think the staff wants a guy who they can all grow with. Not a guy who might be headed to a HC gig in the short term.

2) A PBS guy. Isn't that what most wanted?!?

3) Stats are meaningless. Coaches look as good or as bad as the talent they have at their disposal.

4) Encouraged by his work at some of his stops.

To the 'yeah but we were 8-8 crowd' that just won't STFU"

1) Every season is different. Living in the past make you a complete idiot. The division, the schedule, the injuries, the roster etc. all change.

2) Hue Jackson's team folded 1-4 down the stretch, couldn't score in the red zone or put teams away. You think he improves on an 8-8 record when he was going backwards to finish his first year as HC?

To the DA is in over his head, has no connections, is a egomaniac morons.

1) Some of the things you say are so dumb, it pains me we enjoy the same team.

2) You're negativity and crybaby attitudes are ridiculous and I hate to see what you people are like in real life.

3) Patients is a wonderful thing.


Sweet another post from Big_P calling people dumb, ignorant, and stupid. Then ends it with " Patients is a wonderful thing." I guess you meant patience. We will wait for you to blame your iphone our ipad spell check thing though.


So that's not a valid reason? Have a nice day hating everything the Raiders do.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5772
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
holyghost wrote:
I see Olson as a conservative Dennis Allen choice to be honest. In my mind the biggest reason he is here is his tendency to try and utilize his players to their strengths, why I think he was hired. That's a good thing, but I am betting the reason a guy who would do that and yet never really produced great offenses lies in the fact that he probably isn't a spectacular play caller of any kind.
Dennis Allen hires him in the thinking of undoing his biggest mistake with Knapp and the offense, which is not using the players properly. Still, it will produce a better offense but not a great one I am sure. There's no great offensive mind in this equation nor the top of the line talent and execution necessary to achieve that on the field.

So all in all I'm thinking Dennis Allens' job is reliant on the defense. It's his D, and the team is a continuation of the same general conservative type of structure he has gravitated toward. If the D makes serious strides, the team will. If it doesn't I really doubt this offense will be enough of a game breaker to do it. It'll be better, don't get me wrong. But I don't see a leap coming from the offense. And Allen's job kinda depends on it, on a leap of some kind which pretty much must come from the defense now.

I honestly expect to see a defense heavy draft, and if there are offensive picks I'd expect them to be on the Oline. Just a theory, it feels as if Allen's image of a team being ball control and mistake free offense vs. a suffocating defense is still where he is trying to go. And this hire - while it acknowledges he made a mistake with the offense and Knapp, and with misusing the guys he had, it still says nothing in regards to a high octane offense. Even though that's what he said a couple weeks ago, it is not what he did nor what he is going for. Not by my eyes anyway...

It's fine either way to me, as long as it works. Use the offensive guys enough to score some points. I don't care if we outshoot anyone. But the defense must make serious strides or this team won't be winning any more games than the past year.


This is how I pretty much view the hiring too. In every way. I think his defense can be successful but its going to hinge on personnel moves. He got some decent production out of the nobodies we started at the end of the season. We didn't exactly face the best offenses, but we played pretty well still. Makes me think that with more talent and the kinds of guys he's looking for that he can make big improvements on our D.


He did well with what really was a garbage pile of personnel. Think about it. Our supposed "talent", i.e. the overpaid garbage, was actually cut back quite a bit. We lost our "best" pass rusher, starting best CB, then our 2 starter CBs after that, our "best" DT for the second half of the season, and our starting MLB. And replaced them all with backups or midseason scrap heapers. And by the end of the season we were a better defense than before, and not a worse one which is what would happen with other teams in the same situation 99% of the time. So I think it ended up being an improvement, even though we churned so much personnel.

Now, it really hinges on McKenzie and Allen's relationship and the draft and free agency period. They must - MUST - be able to bring forth 2 impact defenders and 5 overall significant additions. The Senior Bowl and our first round choice are both sooooo key to this team for next year. If they blow it, it's not pretty. If they kill it, who knows, we could actually field a legitimately up and coming young team for once. Gotta resign the right guys too, Bryant as much or more than anyone. Forget Myers, he doesn't mean crap. He just sucks up catches, Reece can take alot of those if they get the ball to him. But hey, even though the guy did great he's really just not a crucial part of this teams future. Bryant is so much more important right now, because the future winning of this team has just been shifted onto the shoulders of the defense..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dante9876


Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 21610
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
3) Stats are meaningless. Coaches look as good or as bad as the talent they have at their disposal.


So we fired Greg Knapp for no reason? Brick wall


So you don't get it either I guess? Tell me how DO's 'stats' in Tampa and St. Louis have any bearing on him in Oakland?

My problem is posters like yourself who want to post his stats and conclude, he sucks, DA sucks, McKenzie sucks and the Raiders are doomed.


So how people can like the hire and be positive about it because of what exactly? How do we have an opinion on the matter negative or positive? Should we just have the wait and see approach about everything we do? What exactly are discussion boards for again? I mean we can have an opinion and wait and see than flip flop like some posters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14292
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
I see Olson as a conservative Dennis Allen choice to be honest. In my mind the biggest reason he is here is his tendency to try and utilize his players to their strengths, why I think he was hired. That's a good thing, but I am betting the reason a guy who would do that and yet never really produced great offenses lies in the fact that he probably isn't a spectacular play caller of any kind.
Dennis Allen hires him in the thinking of undoing his biggest mistake with Knapp and the offense, which is not using the players properly. Still, it will produce a better offense but not a great one I am sure. There's no great offensive mind in this equation nor the top of the line talent and execution necessary to achieve that on the field.

So all in all I'm thinking Dennis Allens' job is reliant on the defense. It's his D, and the team is a continuation of the same general conservative type of structure he has gravitated toward. If the D makes serious strides, the team will. If it doesn't I really doubt this offense will be enough of a game breaker to do it. It'll be better, don't get me wrong. But I don't see a leap coming from the offense. And Allen's job kinda depends on it, on a leap of some kind which pretty much must come from the defense now.

I honestly expect to see a defense heavy draft, and if there are offensive picks I'd expect them to be on the Oline. Just a theory, it feels as if Allen's image of a team being ball control and mistake free offense vs. a suffocating defense is still where he is trying to go. And this hire - while it acknowledges he made a mistake with the offense and Knapp, and with misusing the guys he had, it still says nothing in regards to a high octane offense. Even though that's what he said a couple weeks ago, it is not what he did nor what he is going for. Not by my eyes anyway...

It's fine either way to me, as long as it works. Use the offensive guys enough to score some points. I don't care if we outshoot anyone. But the defense must make serious strides or this team won't be winning any more games than the past year.


Yep. Good post.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22611
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dante9876 wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
3) Stats are meaningless. Coaches look as good or as bad as the talent they have at their disposal.


So we fired Greg Knapp for no reason? Brick wall


So you don't get it either I guess? Tell me how DO's 'stats' in Tampa and St. Louis have any bearing on him in Oakland?

My problem is posters like yourself who want to post his stats and conclude, he sucks, DA sucks, McKenzie sucks and the Raiders are doomed.


So how people can like the hire and be positive about it because of what exactly? How do we have an opinion on the matter negative or positive? Should we just have the wait and see approach about everything we do? What exactly are discussion boards for again? I mean we can have an opinion and wait and see than flip flop like some posters.


You don't have to be positive about it. But people are OVERLY negative about it. When the hire conjures up posts about DA being a ego-manical coach, etc. it's just laughable.

It's one thing to like or dis-like the hire. The sweeping negativity and bashing of the HC and Olson before he even has a chance to show what he installs is an entirely different thing.

I mean some are already saying Allen is going to fired because of this hire! Seriously? It's January for hell sake.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14292
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:

This fan base won't even give a coach a chance now unless he has a big name. It's been so much negativity around here, it's disgusting.


Why can't we give our opinion no matter how negative or positive it is on the hiring? Apparently, if it's negative we should just shut up because people like you won't accept it. I'm sure everybody is hoping it turns out great but that's something we'll find out next fall. Until then, we're discussing the Raiders and the moves they make and if all we're allowed to do is praise everything without any objectivity, i don't know how anyone can find interest in that.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coach 2007


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 409
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


_________________
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 - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 26, 27, 28  Next
Page 20 of 28

 
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