Oh really? So it's the owner's fault when a player misses a tackle? Or fails to knock down the ball the guy he's covering ends up catching even though the defender is there stride for stride with him? It's Mr. Davis' fault that a d-lineman jumps offsides or a linebacker hits a receiver in a cross route before the ball gets there?
Absolute hogwash.
Your logic is absurd. And nobody here is hanging on Al's nutsack... many of us are happy to have an updated scheme, but that doesn't solve all the woes in Oakland. We're calling for personal accountability among the players who have failed at the very basic skills their position requires on every other team in the NFL. That's the point some of you geniuses fail to get.
You folks hanging on Huff's nutsack should rethink this position of failure.
Plenty of blame to go around for the poor defense over the last many years. Players being undisciplined, missing easy tackles having like of effort and so on. The DC being clueless. And yes including the Owner allowing the players to be undisciplined, forcing a defensive scheme on his DC's and one that many other teams have stated they didnt have to work hard to prepare for, hiring a DC that had no business being on an NFL sideline anymore. Blame for the defense goes all around from Davis to the DC and to all the players on D.
RIP Al Davis you will forever be in our memories. I know I was very critical of you but I always have and always will appreciate all you accomplished as a RAIDER!! I will root no more or no less for the Raiders and be no more or no less a Raiders fan now that you are gone.
Raider Nation 4 Life!
Reading through this thread I believe there are legitimate points on BOTH sides of the debate.
It's my belief that SOME is scheme and putting players in a position to excel. Allowing a player to make plays at what he does best while hiding what he doesn't do very well. Additionally, Michael Huff was a HIGH first round draft pick and at times has shown "flashes" of it for lack of a better term. But I don't think anybody will mistake him for Ed Reed! As pointed out previously there has been players that have looked good in the scheme we have been running for sometime.
Huff on the other hand has had many a game where he disappeared, whiffed tackles etc. Sorry, but shouldn't he know how to tackle by now? Can't blame the scheme or coaches on that one.
The couple of things I did take away from the interview is Huff sounds excited to be in a different defense. The old scheme was as vanilla as vanilla gets. I recall one player from another team that was interviewed a couple years back. He stated (paraphrasing here)... "I had a hard time staying awake watching film of the Raiders defense. Every play it was the same thing over and over. Single high safety with man corners and four rushers."
The other thing I took away from the interview is Huff has really stuck his foot in his mouth. He's REALLY up against it now!!! If he DOES NOT PLAY like one of the best safety's in the entire NFL he's going to be looking pretty stupid.
Oh really? So it's the owner's fault when a player misses a tackle? Or fails to knock down the ball the guy he's covering ends up catching even though the defender is there stride for stride with him? It's Mr. Davis' fault that a d-lineman jumps offsides or a linebacker hits a receiver in a cross route before the ball gets there?
Absolute hogwash.
Your logic is absurd. And nobody here is hanging on Al's nutsack... many of us are happy to have an updated scheme, but that doesn't solve all the woes in Oakland. We're calling for personal accountability among the players who have failed at the very basic skills their position requires on every other team in the NFL. That's the point some of you geniuses fail to get.
You folks hanging on Huff's nutsack should rethink this position of failure.
You sound like a broken record going on and on about missed tackles and assignments like these are issues only common to the Raiders. I've seen Polamalu miss his share of tackles on big games and quite frankly players in general have foregone the art of tackling for big hits. Missed tackles are commited by every defense even the best because football is a fast game and offensive players are bigger, stronger, and faster than they have ever been. It looks worse on Raiders players because they were often placed on islands where a missed tackle is more significant because it leads to a big play. We have all seen Huff make some pretty poor attempts on ball carriers but it seems like he's taking a lot of blame for his performance in a defense that was bad long before he got here. When you think about it him being ranked in the middle of the league at his position in one of the historically poor defenses in the NFL tells me he played at a level above the scheme and coaching.
Reading through this thread I believe there are legitimate points on BOTH sides of the debate.
It's my belief that SOME is scheme and putting players in a position to excel. Allowing a player to make plays at what he does best while hiding what he doesn't do very well. Additionally, Michael Huff was a HIGH first round draft pick and at times has shown "flashes" of it for lack of a better term. But I don't think anybody will mistake him for Ed Reed! As pointed out previously there has been players that have looked good in the scheme we have been running for sometime.
Huff on the other hand has had many a game where he disappeared, whiffed tackles etc. Sorry, but shouldn't he know how to tackle by now? Can't blame the scheme or coaches on that one.
The couple of things I did take away from the interview is Huff sounds excited to be in a different defense. The old scheme was as vanilla as vanilla gets. I recall one player from another team that was interviewed a couple years back. He stated (paraphrasing here)... "I had a hard time staying awake watching film of the Raiders defense. Every play it was the same thing over and over. Single high safety with man corners and four rushers."
The other thing I took away from the interview is Huff has really stuck his foot in his mouth. He's REALLY up against it now!!! If he DOES NOT PLAY like one of the best safety's in the entire NFL he's going to be looking pretty stupid.
May the games begin!
The thing that I've noticed most on the d the last 10 years is how many guys behind the 'front 4' wiff on tackle attempts. If you watch the tapes and see where the first whiff is... there are very few plays where the [allegedly bad] scheme was a factor. Poor tacklers like Huff were the biggest factor!
Cut or trade the poor tacklers! That is the answer, not a new scheme.
Word! I never heard Tatum run his mouth in PRACTICE, he had a lot to say on the field and when he did run his mouth while talking to the local press he backed up what he said during the game. Huff has a lot of nerve bad mouthing Al (RIP) when Al (RIP) was the one who used a 1st round pick on his weak tackling azz. Al (RIP) is the reason Huff is getting paid right now. STFU and make some plays.
I always heard Tatum was a really humble and mellow dude off the field...Pretty much let his play do the talking..I always liked that about the old Raiders.
You sound like a broken record going on and on about missed tackles and assignments like these are issues only common to the Raiders. I've seen Polamalu miss his share of tackles on big games and quite frankly players in general have foregone the art of tackling for big hits. Missed tackles are commited by every defense even the best because football is a fast game and offensive players are bigger, stronger, and faster than they have ever been. It looks worse on Raiders players because they were often placed on islands where a missed tackle is more significant because it leads to a big play. We have all seen Huff make some pretty poor attempts on ball carriers but it seems like he's taking a lot of blame for his performance in a defense that was bad long before he got here. When you think about it him being ranked in the middle of the league at his position in one of the historically poor defenses in the NFL tells me he played at a level above the scheme and coaching.
You can honestly say this with a straight face? Have you ever watched a Raiders game?
No doubt there are *some* plays where a different scheme may have helped put people in a better position to make a tackle. But are you seriously trying to tell me the ridiculously poor tackling Huff and many others on this team exhibited was predominantly caused by X's and O's on a chalkboard?
As stated above, if you can get your hand on him, tackle him. Fundamentally, it is/should be this straight forward.
Do other teams miss tackles? Of course! I'm not a fan of other teams. I'm a fan of the Raiders, who, IMHO, are and have consistently been over the last decade the worst tackling team in the league. Not even close.
And tackling is just one of our problems. Since you don't seem to pay attention, I'll let you in on a secret: we set a new all-time record for penalties last year. Ever, by any team. Did our scheme cause players to jump offsides? Did our scheme cause Huff and others to interfere with the receiver? To hit him before the ball got there? To hit a player after the ball was dead? Exactly which of these (offsides, pass interference, personal fouls, late hits, etc.) are caused by the scheme? I can't wait for this answer.
I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record. Hate to break it to you, but I'm only going to speak the truth.
The other thing I took away from the interview is Huff has really stuck his foot in his mouth. He's REALLY up against it now!!! If he DOES NOT PLAY like one of the best safety's in the entire NFL he's going to be looking pretty stupid.
He may have *ucked himself.
Disclaimer: Any of my comments posted here are not directed at any RFN members. It's just my opinion.
The thing that I've noticed most on the d the last 10 years is how many guys behind the 'front 4' wiff on tackle attempts. If you watch the tapes and see where the first whiff is... there are very few plays where the [allegedly bad] scheme was a factor. Poor tacklers like Huff were the biggest factor!
Cut or trade the poor tacklers! That is the answer, not a new scheme.
The place where scheme was the issue IMO was with matchups. We allowed the opposing team to dictate the matchups. We rarely used guys like C. Woodson or Nnamdi to shadow the other teams best players. In the old scheme they didn't care if your 3rd string safety was responsible for covering Wes Welker in the slot or Calvin Johnson deep. It didn't matter if your pass rushing LB was asked to cover a speedy back out of the backfield. And it didn't matter that the other team never had to adjust to anything we did because we always followed the same rules on D and rarely mixed it up. The only adjustments we ever seemed to make on D was to add more DBs. Otherwise we ran the same thing as with the LBs. The D never adjusted to take advantage of players strengths.
The place where scheme was the issue IMO was with matchups. We allowed the opposing team to dictate the matchups. We rarely used guys like C. Woodson or Nnamdi to shadow the other teams best players. In the old scheme they didn't care if your 3rd string safety was responsible for covering Wes Welker in the slot or Calvin Johnson deep. It didn't matter if your pass rushing LB was asked to cover a speedy back out of the backfield. And it didn't matter that the other team never had to adjust to anything we did because we always followed the same rules on D and rarely mixed it up. The only adjustments we ever seemed to make on D was to add more DBs. Otherwise we ran the same thing as with the LBs. The D never adjusted to take advantage of players strengths.
Hear what you're sayin.
I guess playing to our strengths, to avoid offsides we'd line up the DL/DEs ten yards behind the LoS!
I guess playing to our strengths, to avoid offsides we'd line up the DL/DEs ten yards behind the LoS!
Why did we jump off sides so much and have all those penalties in your opinion?
Is that all on the players?
Maybe we just drafted players that are penalty prone?
Why did we jump off sides so much and have all those penalties in your opinion?
Is that all on the players?
Maybe we just drafted players that are penalty prone?
Oh that's a good one. Show me one draft analysis claiming any of our guys has a propensity to jump offsides. Some of you guys will reach for ANYTHING to avoid personal accountability.
Think before you type for god's sake. Being sloppy is your OWN fault period. Owning up to it when you make a mistake is a personal responsibility.
Oh that's a good one. Show me one draft analysis claiming any of our guys has a propensity to jump offsides. Some of you guys will reach for ANYTHING to avoid personal accountability.
Think before you type for god's sake. Being sloppy is your OWN fault period. Owning up to it when you make a mistake is a personal responsibility.
So we just happen to end up with sloppy, mistake prone players?
When they didn't come out of college that way?
He probably should have kept his mouth shut (not for blaming Als meddling or any of that talk) because now when he misses tackles or gets run through, which he will, his comments will be thrown right back his his face.
Huff plays like a scaredy cat and always will. scheme has nothing to do with that.
So we just happen to end up with sloppy, mistake prone players?
When they didn't come out of college that way?
Discipline among the coaches and ownership certainly was lacking at times. But you miss my point again. There are great players playing for lousy coaches and ownership all the time. Yet they hold themselves personally accountable for their own performance. Should the coaches and owner do the same? Absolutely.
To say all my crappy play was due to the scheme we were running is simply asinine though.
It starts with taking care of your business. STFU and get it done.
If you can't comprehend that concept then I wish you luck, sir/madam.
331Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Originally Posted by MileHighRaider
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks