You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 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

What makes you think the Raiders QBs were to blame?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Polonius916


Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 4
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:43 am    Post subject: What makes you think the Raiders QBs were to blame? Reply with quote

72 sacks. One of the worst totals in NFL history.

94.9 yards per game rushing. Good enough for the bottom tier of the league.

What makes you think the Raiders have a QB problem? Who could tell? They were on their backs so fast it was ridiculous. And when they actually had the time to throw the ball, they got this wild look in their eyes, like they were crying with delight or afraid that they must have missed the rapture or something. But they'd throw the ball, bounce it off of Randy Moss's hands, and then watch as Moss watched the ball get picked off off of the tip (and he wouldn't even bother to tackle the guy who intercepted it).

I could break down all of the available QBs and compare them to walter, but that isn't the point. The point is, do you think that Steve Young, Vince Young or Mike Vick would play WELL in this offense? Say anything about Aaron Brooks you want, but you can't call him immobile. And yet he got sacked 26 times in 8 games! Being generous to the Oline as Brooks did not play most of a couple of those 8 games, a pace of 52 sacks in the season!

So make a legitimate argument that it isn't the Oline. Please. Make a legitimate argument that any of these QBs you guys want can play with what could be considered to be the worst offensive line in history. QB is a quick fix. Fixing the oline isn't. The only possible way that I can see to help the oline buy time is a superplay making tailback--not necessarily an every down guy. But somebody who makes defenses plan around him even if the line is terrible. You can't have a wide receiver meet that standard with out an oline (Moss was that type of player, but the Vikings had hardly a terrible line). You can't have a QB meet that standard--face it, Atlanta has rarely been that good, certainly not a super bowl contender under Vick, and no one would call the Titans offensive line that bad.

Please, convince me to use that pick on a QB. Or to trade for a QB with a high profile player. I want to be convinced. All this QB talk is getting my blood pressure up and keeping me up till 442 in the morning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
surferoncrack


Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 105
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you read the comments of opponents defenses during the season, they will all state that the offense of the raiders was so "vanilla" that they could read right through it. The sole responsibility for the raiders being so terrible is the offensive cordinator and for shell to take walsh after 11 years of running a bed in breakfast in Imbred Idaho was incredibly stupid.

The absolute first thing you want is a QB, one that makes the team and the fans excited. JaMarcus Russell would be a PR dream. I would trade Moss and or Porter for 2nd or 3rds. as a matter of fact, i would trade Lamont back to Jets and have a 1st, 2 seconds and 3 3rds. I am sure that could be a huge jump in the right direction where at least the first year the team is exciting!

with those picks, you could have a combination of Lineman, RB's, a couple of WR's and who knows....... seabass' replacement
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
91jmay


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 29949
Location: Wonderland
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

we dont need more lineman from the draft. We need steinbach +davis to sure it up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
martins3325


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 365
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:05 pm    Post subject: Re: What makes you think the Raiders QBs were to blame? Reply with quote

Polonius916 wrote:
72 sacks. One of the worst totals in NFL history.

94.9 yards per game rushing. Good enough for the bottom tier of the league.

What makes you think the Raiders have a QB problem? Who could tell? They were on their backs so fast it was ridiculous. And when they actually had the time to throw the ball, they got this wild look in their eyes, like they were crying with delight or afraid that they must have missed the rapture or something. But they'd throw the ball, bounce it off of Randy Moss's hands, and then watch as Moss watched the ball get picked off off of the tip (and he wouldn't even bother to tackle the guy who intercepted it).

I could break down all of the available QBs and compare them to walter, but that isn't the point. The point is, do you think that Steve Young, Vince Young or Mike Vick would play WELL in this offense? Say anything about Aaron Brooks you want, but you can't call him immobile. And yet he got sacked 26 times in 8 games! Being generous to the Oline as Brooks did not play most of a couple of those 8 games, a pace of 52 sacks in the season!

So make a legitimate argument that it isn't the Oline. Please. Make a legitimate argument that any of these QBs you guys want can play with what could be considered to be the worst offensive line in history. QB is a quick fix. Fixing the oline isn't. The only possible way that I can see to help the oline buy time is a superplay making tailback--not necessarily an every down guy. But somebody who makes defenses plan around him even if the line is terrible. You can't have a wide receiver meet that standard with out an oline (Moss was that type of player, but the Vikings had hardly a terrible line). You can't have a QB meet that standard--face it, Atlanta has rarely been that good, certainly not a super bowl contender under Vick, and no one would call the Titans offensive line that bad.

Please, convince me to use that pick on a QB. Or to trade for a QB with a high profile player. I want to be convinced. All this QB talk is getting my blood pressure up and keeping me up till 442 in the morning.


While no one here would argue our offense has a LOT of issues..Bad line, Inconsistent running, Bad scheme, underachieving WRs...to insinuate by proxy that we have a good or even adequate QB situation is flawed logic I think. While there are no NFL stats that will show a QB's performance when given adequate time..there were plenty of plays --and some very game on the line type--where there was adequate time and the QBs were off the mark or turned the ball over. Aaron Brooks has a long history of being a poor decision maker, inconsistent, and with poor acurracy...the fact that he went to a worse team --where he continued that trend-- doesnt absolve him of those attributes..to argue otherwise is flawed. Go ask around on the Saints board and see if anyone there wished they had him back. I rest my point on Brooks. Walter i'm inclined to cut more slack because he was green, and was thrust into such a bad situation. But the fact he fumbled 13 times, threw 13 INTs, for a meager 53%, and took 46 sacks --granted not entirely his fault but shows just how immobile he is--, and did not look very accurate when he did have time all does not instill alot of confidence that he will become an accomplished NFL player. Though he put up big yards in college he was not particularly accurate in college either --52% complete in his senior year--, and took alot of sacks in college as well. While I admit it is still possible he could be a solid NFL QB..he did not impress when he DID have time..and especially when he had time in crucial situations. Yes I do have more confidence that Jamarcus Russell --or Troy Smith in my mind as well-- will be a better NFL player than Walter ever will be..especially under the adverse conditions of our offense..and I think so do most Raider fans here, which is why there is such a buzz about him now. And yes I absolutely think Vince Young or Steve Young would have had more success, because they are Mobile..and winners who elevate their team above thier talent level. Can I prove that? Of course not..thats like saying you could "prove" Muhammad Ali in his prime would beat Mike Tyson in his prime. Didnt happen so theres no way to prove it..but I believe it to be true.

PS: I dont believe there has ever been a RB to earn "Super Star" status playing behind a bad OL. Look at Denver..did they crank out that many 1500yrd runners because every one of them was a "great" RB or was it maybe because they have a great run blocking Offensive line?

Also I dont think anyone here thinks that just a new QB is the solution. We all FULLY EXPECT the OL to be addressed through a combination of Veteran FreeAgents and Draft picks. I dont think ANYONE here expects we will stand pat and start the same OL lineup next year..regardless of what we do with the #1 Pick. I just dont think anyone wants to see us use our 1st Rd pick on an OL after the Gallery debacle..much safer to pick up veteran freeagents..look at how well Larry Allen pickup worked out for SF and Frank Gore --who by the way wasnt a real high draft pick, and tore up the league-- I agree with surferoncrack, and 91jmay has the right idea..coupled with a 3r or 4th rd pick OL for depth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Polonius916


Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Posts: 4
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I apologize if I suggested that our QBs were good. I just can't see them as being terrible. Brooks was always supposed to be a bandaide until walter was ready, which wasn't expected to be this year.

As for a back who was good with a bad OLine...Barry Sanders. I certainly don't think the Raiders should draft OLine in the first round, or in any round for that matter. If they want to change the personnel (and I don't think that is necessary, honestly (they were pretty banged up and the fact that Gallery has had four OLine coaches in three years could be an indicator of where his problem really lies--I'm not saying he doesn't suck, I just am not convinced that he sucks yet) I think they should do so through trade. I think they need proven commodities at the OLine. I think the line will be better, which is why I think they need to draft AP. I know Steve Young or Vince Young would be better back there. But you know, four wins won't do it for me either--and that is all they'll get with anyone back there if they don't provide help for the OLine--and I think that help needs to come from the backfield, and not a QB. I guaruntee that Russell won't be able to wiggle away from too many more sacks. Fewer turnovers, sure, but lets say he gets sacked 46 times over the course of the season (fewer than either of QBs would have taken over the course of 16 games)...how many hits do you want your QB to take no matter how well he is throwing? He'll end up injured and deflated. I think drafting a QB in the first round would be a colossally bad move. I think drafting OLine would be too. They need a running game and I just don't think a standard power type back can do that by himself (though I think that Fargas AND Jordan platooning looked pretty damn good).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan00


Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 2320
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The main problem was the offensive coordinator, followed by the offensive line, and then the QB play. Brooks showed that he is just another Kerry Collins but with much better legs. He's got a slow release and makes too many boneheaded plays like Collins does. Walter was hard to gauge but he made his share of mistakes as well. The entire offense, sans Curry, Grove, and Boothe needs to be overhauled.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pfassad


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 2068
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Our O-Line started off as the problem, but it didnt end as the problem. Our backs and TEs can't pick up a blitz, our WRs ran lazy routes, and our QBs were non-chalant with the ball. It wasn't the O-line that threw an interception in the last seconds of the KC game in the end zone, and it wasnt the O-line that didnt try to knock the ball away from the defender. And near the end of the season the line was only giving up a couple of sacks a game, but Walter, especially, would just fumble every time he got hit. And my biggest embarrasment this year was that we could not get the ball out from under center....I dont know how many fumbled snaps we had....and whether that is always the QBs fault.....but Id rather keep Grove too, especially if the other choice is keeping Brooks and Walter. QBs make their money in the red zone....and 12 total TDs means neither one of ours shouldve made a penny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pfassad


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 2068
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And also, with all of our problems, we didnt run even one play out of the shotgun.....our coaching staff simply wasnt good enough to adjust.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Juan00


Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 2320
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pfassad wrote:
And also, with all of our problems, we didnt run even one play out of the shotgun.....our coaching staff simply wasnt good enough to adjust.


How many game did you actually see? Because Oakland did run the shotgun...it was the no-huddle offense that they didn't run (unless of course it was the two-minute drill offense).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nugradraiderfan


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 964
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juan00 wrote:
The main problem was the offensive coordinator, followed by the offensive line, and then the QB play. Brooks showed that he is just another Kerry Collins but with much better legs. He's got a slow release and makes too many boneheaded plays like Collins does. Walter was hard to gauge but he made his share of mistakes as well. The entire offense, sans Curry, Grove, and Boothe needs to be overhauled.


Is is one of the most accurate posts that I have EVER seen on this site. The coaching and lack of direction, game planning & adjusting caused the majority of the problems. They helped to put the line in the awful situation they were in. With pretty much the same OL, we gave up around 40 sacks last year and that was with Collins. Then, you have poor QB play to top it all off with them holding the ball and throwing stupid passes when they did get time. The whole thing was a mess
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pfassad


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 2068
Location: Los Angeles
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juan00 wrote:
pfassad wrote:
And also, with all of our problems, we didnt run even one play out of the shotgun.....our coaching staff simply wasnt good enough to adjust.


How many game did you actually see? Because Oakland did run the shotgun...it was the no-huddle offense that they didn't run (unless of course it was the two-minute drill offense).


If you remember us running the shotgun, then you must have been watching with your Tivo under a microscope. Because if we did run the shotgun it was for an obscure 1 or 2 plays.....We ran no short patterns, and no shotgun....our scheme took a bad situation and made it much much worse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ioatnoc


Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 8
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we ran some shotgun sets it was very minimal, 5 plays at most. I think the O-line was doing better as the year went on and a good o-line coach and a veteran p/up could improve this line.
It was just a bad offense. Too many negative plays whether it be the sacks, turnovers, penalties, blown blocking assisgnments and dropped passes that hurt the offense. The new offensive coordinator has to be creative utilize more quick routes, screens and use the TE (a TE that can catch). I went to all the home games this year and the offense seemed like they received the plays that morning to me it's game preparation.

I believe we will pick JR and hopefully Bush with the second pick. We need a TE(Eric Johnson) that can catch and hold on to the ball. Overall I think the offense has the players. We are not going to get all the players that we need in the draft or free agency, we just don't have enough Salary Cap room. We have to work with the players we currently have. Remember the O-line is young and Gallery has had way too many injuries to really have some confidence/consistency. Randy will stay because he is too much of a malcontent and we will not get anything for him. If we had an offense that scored anywhere from 18-22 pts a game we should be great.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martins3325


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 365
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess the bottom line for me, without writing a whole nother long post about it is: I dont believe there are any weakness on this team that cant be addressed through freeagency and good coaching EXCEPT QB..marquee QBs just dont often move via freeagency. I feels its just as likely, if not more, that Micheal Turner becomes a star RB in this league as AP or any other back in the draft. J Russell is my pick and I sticking to it. ;)

PS: I dont think the Lions had a BAD O-Line..he made alot of yards on his own..but they run blocked well..heck they even passed blocked well enough for Scott Mitchell to get 4300 yeards one season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmckinney_27


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 399
Location: Laramie, WY
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

martins3325 wrote:

"PS: I dont believe there has ever been a RB to earn "Super Star" status playing behind a bad OL. Look at Denver..did they crank out that many 1500yrd runners because every one of them was a "great" RB or was it maybe because they have a great run blocking Offensive line?"

have you heard of a guy named Barry Sanders???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
martins3325


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 365
PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmckinney_27 wrote:
martins3325 wrote:

"PS: I dont believe there has ever been a RB to earn "Super Star" status playing behind a bad OL. Look at Denver..did they crank out that many 1500yrd runners because every one of them was a "great" RB or was it maybe because they have a great run blocking Offensive line?"

have you heard of a guy named Barry Sanders???

Yes I have and if you read my post you'd see that I dont believe the Lions had a BAD run blocking O-Line..and I bet if asked Barry would praise his line..were they the Cowbows of the 90s line? no..were they pretty good?..Im sure Barry would tell you yes. And as I mentioned they even blocked well enough for journeyman Scott Mitchell to throw for 4300 yards and Barry to run for 1500yards, its kinda hard to do that with a "BAD" O-Line
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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