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 ... 20, 21, 22 ... 26, 27, 28  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3806
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big P's philosophy: "Don't be negative about anything Raiders, or I will complain about how negative you are.

Unless it's Terrelle Pryor. F that guy. I don't like him so you can't either."
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RaisinBran


Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 9799
Location: 925/805
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Lmao
_________________

(NFL)=Raiders, (MLB)=A's, (NBA)= Warriors
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5362
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:

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..


The first paragraph is spot on. But I disagree with some of the second one. I homestly think asking for 5 impact players is too much this year. Our 1st rounder should be one, our 3rd could maybe be one, but expecting anyone after that to make an impact as a rookie is a bit much. Even so, we would stillmhave to sign 3 big impact FAs, and with our cap situation I don't see that happenening. I would be happy with a more realistic outcome like a true impact player in the 1st, a decent contributor in the 3rd, and 2-3 starting caliber FAs.
_________________


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
Raidin


Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 5265
Location: Dublin
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what people moaned about during the season I'd have though the hiring would have been received very well. He seems to want to implement a style that most on this forum want to see. Taken from the article Oakdb posted

http://raidernationtimes.com/article.php?id=9561

Quote:
Olson has the reputation for running more traditional power running plays, as well as the willingness to throw up the deep, play-action pass. Both of which suit the Raiders, almost perfectly. However, don't be surprised to see some zone blocking and stretch plays, just like the ones we saw from Knapp.
The good news is: Olson won't run them exclusively and rely on them like Knapp did.
But, just because Knapp is gone, doesn't necessarily mean the zone scheme is entirely eradicated. Olson has a few zone running plays in his arsenal. For the most part though, expect to see more pulling guards, traps, isolation and lead plays that were so prevalent and successful under Hue Jackson.
As for the passing game, Olson's route combinations and philosophies are very close to Al Saunders'. He likes to stretch the field outside the numbers, then run deep-ins and crossing routes underneath. Having the tight end and slot receivers control the middle of the field will open up a lot of one-on-one opportunities for the outside receivers.
One thing that may change drastically is the use of the tight ends. Don't expect Brandon Myers to have a big year, or even as good a year as he did in 2012. The tight end is not high on Olson's priority list. Outside of Kellen Winslow's 2009 season, in which he gathered in 77 catches for 884 yeards, the tight ends in Olson offenses average about 60 catches for just 450 yards.
Something about Olson's philosophy that is likely to change is his use of the running backs in the passing game, (or lack thereof). The best receiving season a running back has had under Olson was Carnell "Cadillac" Williams' 46 receptions for 355 yards, and just one touchdown. When you have Darren McFadden, Marcel Reece and Mike Goodson in the back field, you'd be crazy not to get them the ball is space. Olson knows this, and will likely get the running backs more involved in the passing game than he has before.
Finally, Olson doesn't take a lot of risk...which can be good and bad. Don't expect to see a lot of reverses, end-arounds or fake punts like Raider Nation witnessed under Jackson. This is good in the sense that high risk plays often fail more than they succeed, but "nothing ventured, nothing gained."
Speaking strictly from a philosophical standpoint, Olson's power run game and play-action passing make him a great fit for the Raiders.

_________________
raidr4life wrote:
Imagine if EricAllen21 posted better. Just imagine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dawsonleery


Joined: 31 Oct 2012
Posts: 687
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Greg Knapp is stuck in 1999, the guy was afraid to update his playbook. I just hope Greg Olson isn't stubborn like Knapp and everything needs to be done his way. Just mold your scheme around the talent... And get Reece involved more... Ausberry too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22394
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justwinbaby81 wrote:
Big P's philosophy: "Don't be negative about anything Raiders, or I will complain about how negative you are.

Unless it's Terrelle Pryor. F that guy. I don't like him so you can't either."


I am negative about a lot of things. But this is over the top.

According to this forum, the Raiders are going 0-16 and Olson is to blame. Allen should be coaching JV football in Texas. McKenzie has not clue what the words GM mean. And the beat marches on.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5759
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZoomWaffle wrote:
holyghost wrote:

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..


The first paragraph is spot on. But I disagree with some of the second one. I homestly think asking for 5 impact players is too much this year. Our 1st rounder should be one, our 3rd could maybe be one, but expecting anyone after that to make an impact as a rookie is a bit much. Even so, we would stillmhave to sign 3 big impact FAs, and with our cap situation I don't see that happenening. I would be happy with a more realistic outcome like a true impact player in the 1st, a decent contributor in the 3rd, and 2-3 starting caliber FAs.


I hear ya man, but that's not what I said. I said 2 impact guys, 5 significant additions. 3 of them just have to be positive additions, it's unrealistic to think they can all be impact guys. Thinking of it in these terms, those other 3 guys can be Lamarr Houston, Desmond Bryant, Phillip Adams types. I wouldn't call any of those guys pro bowlers, but they were plusses at the end of the season there.

With the position Allen has put himself in, there has to be a couple true impact guys added. Otherwise the team can't progress. So it's up to him and McKenzie to not only hit on the 1st rounder, but to hit on a pro bowler. And it's also on them to find another top player be it in the rest of the draft or somewhere overlooked in FA. They gotta make it work. We can't expect a pro bowler in the 5th round, but if the team intends on ever winning, they're honestly going to have to find some great players in unexpected places, such as the 5th round. The Burrises and Bilukidis of the world are nice, but we need a James Harrison from that vicinity. Otherwise McKenzie is an average GM and the team will float along as is. Any GM can fill out a roster with average dudes.


Last edited by holyghost on Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 14788
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Big P's philosophy: "Don't be negative about anything Raiders, or I will complain about how negative you are.

Unless it's Terrelle Pryor. F that guy. I don't like him so you can't either."


I am negative about a lot of things. But this is over the top.

According to this forum, the Raiders are going 0-16 and Olson is to blame. Allen should be coaching JV football in Texas. McKenzie has not clue what the words GM mean. And the beat marches on.


old buddy iirc didnt you say similar things when knapp was first hired.
talking about how creative he was Laughing
_________________


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
justwinbaby81


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 3806
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
justwinbaby81 wrote:
Big P's philosophy: "Don't be negative about anything Raiders, or I will complain about how negative you are.

Unless it's Terrelle Pryor. F that guy. I don't like him so you can't either."


I am negative about a lot of things. But this is over the top.

According to this forum, the Raiders are going 0-16 and Olson is to blame. Allen should be coaching JV football in Texas. McKenzie has not clue what the words GM mean. And the beat marches on.


Right, but we all pick and choose what we think is good and bad about the Raiders. For you it's Pryor, for me it's Allen, for some it's Palmer, etc. Some more than others too.

I'm sure there are some who dislike Olson, Allen, and McKenzie. Me, I am negative about one and neutral about two. Realistically, none of the three have proven much of anything lately. So if anyone is pessimistic about that trio it's hard to say it is over the top.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BlackPrestige92


Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 6069
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

we suck. Crying or Very sad
_________________


If Phil Jackson came back, still no coaching me, Im uncoachable, Im unsociable.
-Kendrick Lamar
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 7287
Location: CA
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BlackPrestige92 wrote:
we suck. Crying or Very sad


Yes, the Lakers do suck. Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Django


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 2919
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darbsk


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 996
Location: Wales, UK
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:14 am    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.


Good post Ghost, however i do feel a little more optimistic about our O after reading up a little on GO. It appears that he likes to stretch the field with outside receivers and use playaction, which could really suit Palmer. Especially if Ford and Moore can be used in that capacity, this could open up the underneath for DHB and his niche of short slants, comebacks and YAC . The running game i think has us all optimistic for a return to the hitherto unimagined (under Greg Knapp) heights of 4+ ypc and decent utilization of McFadden.

While his stats and general feedback has been underwhelming a few Bucs fans have been very complimentary towards GO and his adapting and getting the best of the players they have had. he seems much more compatable to the players we have on the roster and if we hit big on one or two defencive impact makers we could suprise afew people next year. I hope so as i do genuinely like Allen, Tarver and McKenzie.
_________________
It may take us a short while, but we'll get that nastiness of the Raiders back.
Mr. Al Davis RIP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 32834
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Django wrote:


I can appreciate this lol.
_________________

BigBillsFan13 wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
Somewhere, RR strokes his mustache with pride
Among other things...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5362
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
ZoomWaffle wrote:
holyghost wrote:

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..


The first paragraph is spot on. But I disagree with some of the second one. I homestly think asking for 5 impact players is too much this year. Our 1st rounder should be one, our 3rd could maybe be one, but expecting anyone after that to make an impact as a rookie is a bit much. Even so, we would stillmhave to sign 3 big impact FAs, and with our cap situation I don't see that happenening. I would be happy with a more realistic outcome like a true impact player in the 1st, a decent contributor in the 3rd, and 2-3 starting caliber FAs.


I hear ya man, but that's not what I said. I said 2 impact guys, 5 significant additions. 3 of them just have to be positive additions, it's unrealistic to think they can all be impact guys. Thinking of it in these terms, those other 3 guys can be Lamarr Houston, Desmond Bryant, Phillip Adams types. I wouldn't call any of those guys pro bowlers, but they were plusses at the end of the season there.

With the position Allen has put himself in, there has to be a couple true impact guys added. Otherwise the team can't progress. So it's up to him and McKenzie to not only hit on the 1st rounder, but to hit on a pro bowler. And it's also on them to find another top player be it in the rest of the draft or somewhere overlooked in FA. They gotta make it work. We can't expect a pro bowler in the 5th round, but if the team intends on ever winning, they're honestly going to have to find some great players in unexpected places, such as the 5th round. The Burrises and Bilukidis of the world are nice, but we need a James Harrison from that vicinity. Otherwise McKenzie is an average GM and the team will float along as is. Any GM can fill out a roster with average dudes.


My bad, I misread what you said.
_________________


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
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 ... 20, 21, 22 ... 26, 27, 28  Next
Page 21 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