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

John Pagano joining Raiders staff as Asst. Head Coach D.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DirtyHarry


Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 3358
Location: Foster City,CA
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd stay away from Teo with the injury he already was a limited athlete imo
_________________

JonesDrew32 wrote:
38-10 Chargers

This game should definitely bring some lulz from the Raiders side.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big Rob


Joined: 24 Sep 2011
Posts: 3509
Location: Long Beach, Ca
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whats not to like about this move, We bring in an experienced coordinator who will help that side of the ball.

Happy to see that we aren't just sitting on our hands, and are out attacking our weaknesses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OakleyRaider24


Joined: 11 Jan 2017
Posts: 37
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Love this move. Hope he can teach KNJ to be creative in play calling, better game plans, getting guys in position to excel and disguise things rather than line up, rush 4, drop 7 and still get beat deep. I think if we have a mid season bye week and we're still 20-30th in defense Norton is shown the door and the keys are tossed to Pagano.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DC4_Life


Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Posts: 514
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

could the Raiders be transitioning to more of base 3-4 defense Del Rio and Pagano history. I don't think we have the athletes to be Seattle....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
OakleyRaider24


Joined: 11 Jan 2017
Posts: 37
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DC4_Life wrote:
could the Raiders be transitioning to more of base 3-4 defense Del Rio and Pagano history. I don't think we have the athletes to be Seattle....

You're 100% right, we don't have the guys to be Seattle. I personally hate our scheme. Yes it works like Bruce Irvin said but nobody can duplicate it. Earl Thomas & Bobby Wagners don't grow on trees not to mention Kam is a extremely unique freak of a safety and Michael Bennett is probably the best edge setter/inside nickel rusher in the game!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
G


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 3825
Location: Hollywierd
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really like this move and he was a name I liked if we fired KNJ. I also like keeping KNJ. Yes there are a lot of D people on the staff, but why fire KNJ if were paying him either way? He brings passion and connection to the table.
As long as they all get along I'm all for it. If KNJ's contract expires next season it also gets his replacement here before another team gets him. If something happens to Del Rio we've got a guy who can cover for a few games. Also helps Del Rio focus on other aspects as I expect he worked a lot with KNJ. Now that's JP's job and our inexperienced O cord can get more attention and we will have STABILITY in coaching for a while. Dowling will be here for at least 2-3 seasons before getting HC position. JP seems happy as a D cord and if Defense works great maybe KNJ gets HC opps...
Have to like the signing and retaining of KNJ. KNJ lacked the experience and got it with us. Now it's put up or NEXT!!! No excuses, well one...We are notheing without Carr, NOTHING!!! Thank you TICE!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5794
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DC4_Life wrote:
could the Raiders be transitioning to more of base 3-4 defense Del Rio and Pagano history. I don't think we have the athletes to be Seattle....


Del Rio history? I know Pagano is a 3-4 coach but JDR has always been a 4-3 guy. Seems strange that he would go away from his preferred scheme but who knows. For what it's worth, I would rather see Mack and Aldon at OLB in a 3-4 so I'd be all for it. I think we'd get more out of them there than at DE.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 16820
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The difference between our scheme and a 3-4 isn't much. We've played Mack and Irvin on the edges at the line all year long in our base. Mack on the weakside, Irvin on the strongside. Irvin is already labeled a LB but whatever you want to call Mack, his assignments aren't far off from what they would be as a 3-4 OLB.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rolni


Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 3392
Location: Europe
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZoomWaffle wrote:
DC4_Life wrote:
could the Raiders be transitioning to more of base 3-4 defense Del Rio and Pagano history. I don't think we have the athletes to be Seattle....


Del Rio history? I know Pagano is a 3-4 coach but JDR has always been a 4-3 guy. Seems strange that he would go away from his preferred scheme but who knows. For what it's worth, I would rather see Mack and Aldon at OLB in a 3-4 so I'd be all for it. I think we'd get more out of them there than at DE.

There is not that clear difference anymore between 3-4 and 4-3.

The 4-3 under scheme use by the Seahawks is pretty similar to a 3-4 D and overall our Defense is already a hybrid 3-4\4-3 D.

We use 3 bigger DL players like the 3-4 teams.
We use a DE, a NT and a DT on paper, but basically that is the same as a LDE-NT-RDE in a 3-4.
We ask our interior DL's to 2gap in base, so this is pretty much the same as a 2gap 3-4 base DL.
The difference on paper is that we put Mack in as a DE in the depth chart, not as an OLB, but if you watch closely he is in a stand up position a lot especially in the base early on.

As a Base we use Mack and Irvin as OLB's with the interior DL (3guys) down in the dirt with two off ball LB's behind them.
This is basically a 5-2 front 7, but you can call it 3-4 if you want. If Mack puts his hand on the ground you can call it a 4-3 under front. Makes no real difference.
_________________
WIN LOSE OR TIE...RAIDER FAN 'TIL I DIE!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NightTrainLane


Joined: 22 Oct 2015
Posts: 2760
Location: Western US
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolni wrote:
ZoomWaffle wrote:
DC4_Life wrote:
could the Raiders be transitioning to more of base 3-4 defense Del Rio and Pagano history. I don't think we have the athletes to be Seattle....


Del Rio history? I know Pagano is a 3-4 coach but JDR has always been a 4-3 guy. Seems strange that he would go away from his preferred scheme but who knows. For what it's worth, I would rather see Mack and Aldon at OLB in a 3-4 so I'd be all for it. I think we'd get more out of them there than at DE.

There is not that clear difference anymore between 3-4 and 4-3.

The 4-3 under scheme use by the Seahawks is pretty similar to a 3-4 D and overall our Defense is already a hybrid 3-4\4-3 D.

We use 3 bigger DL players like the 3-4 teams.
We use a DE, a NT and a DT on paper, but basically that is the same as a LDE-NT-RDE in a 3-4.
We ask our interior DL's to 2gap in base, so this is pretty much the same as a 2gap 3-4 base DL.
The difference on paper is that we put Mack in as a DE in the depth chart, not as an OLB, but if you watch closely he is in a stand up position a lot especially in the base early on.

As a Base we use Mack and Irvin as OLB's with the interior DL (3guys) down in the dirt with two off ball LB's behind them.
This is basically a 5-2 front 7, but you can call it 3-4 if you want. If Mack puts his hand on the ground you can call it a 4-3 under front. Makes no real difference.


I don't think Zoom was around for or maybe just doesn't remember the pages and pages and pages and pages of 3-4 and 4-3 back and forth we had last year. We all came to the conclusion that we can't really call our defense one or the other since it looks like both and changes from snap to snap and start to start.
_________________

~This is the year of "win close". Next year is "win big".
~IMO Reggie has a plan for how much he can spend. The 2-4 FA who sign may surprise us but they will make sense once we draft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TiberiusRising


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 13128
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maybe we will finally have some run D.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NightTrainLane


Joined: 22 Oct 2015
Posts: 2760
Location: Western US
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TiberiusRising wrote:
maybe we will finally have some run D.


Weren't far off last year.
_________________

~This is the year of "win close". Next year is "win big".
~IMO Reggie has a plan for how much he can spend. The 2-4 FA who sign may surprise us but they will make sense once we draft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrOaktown_56


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 7764
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TiberiusRising wrote:
maybe we will finally have some run D.


I think the run defense had to do with losing MEJ and regression from our nose tackles. MEJ being back should help a lot and not having Malcolm Smith back will also help IMO.

Should be a very good run defense next year. The pass defense... well that remains to be seen.
_________________
El ramster wrote:
bertuzzi wrote:
Goff and Gurley are the worst QB-RB combo in history lmfao


Yo buddy quit trolling yeah.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NightTrainLane


Joined: 22 Oct 2015
Posts: 2760
Location: Western US
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrOaktown_56 wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
maybe we will finally have some run D.


I think the run defense had to do with losing MEJ and regression from our nose tackles. MEJ being back should help a lot and not having Malcolm Smith back will also help IMO.

Should be a very good run defense next year. The pass defense... well that remains to be seen.


That scenario only works if we upgrade Smith and the NTs step it up to 2015 levels. Mario alone isn't enough tho he'll really help.
_________________

~This is the year of "win close". Next year is "win big".
~IMO Reggie has a plan for how much he can spend. The 2-4 FA who sign may surprise us but they will make sense once we draft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TiberiusRising


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 13128
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the run D was more than just Edwards and the NT. Although I do agree that Williams an Ellis way under performed and were probably the biggest factors on smaller runs. While at times it seemed ok we just gave up way to many yards per carry and big runs. It just wasnt as noticeable since teams often had to shootout with Carr in the passing game. The one area we did well was causing Fumbles, Irvin really helped there and seems like a big mantra for existing defense to take the ball away. Outside of FF the run D was much better in 2015 than 2016 and it wasnt what I would call great in 2015 either. I mean really the pass D should just automatically look better if we improve our run D. Teams knew they can run or pass and imo it is easier to fix the run D first. Doesnt take away from team needs but guys need to be in the right places and well tackle.



Total: 1881, 10th worst
YPG: 117.6, 10th worst
YPC: 4.5, tied for 6th worst
20+: 10 plays, tied for 13th worst
40+: 5 plays tied for 2nd worst
TD's: 18, tied for 6th worst.
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, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
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