More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com
I watched as much of the NY Giants' mugging of the Oakland Raiders 44 to 7 as I could stand, even as the CBS Sports NFL group was apologizing for the game!
CBS Football Analyst and NFL great Boomer Esiason said it looked like the Washington Generals versus the Harlem Globetrotters, and one had to assume the Raiders were the Generals, which were always beaten by the Globetrotters. Seeing them actually do that was a low point in Oakland Raiders football history, and now we must call into question everything the Raiders are doing on the field.
Especially on offense with the Oakland Raiders passing game.
I've said and written it before, and I'll do it again. The Raiders passing offense lacks the basic practices used by organizations that install timed passing games. The lack of use of hashmarks as landmarks is just the start of the problem. It's the overall passing game philosophy that I now question.
The Oakland Raiders seem obsessed with using the run to set up the pass, even when they're down by 30 points and everyone in the building knows they've got to throw. Yet, time and again, the Raiders' coaches insisted on having quarterback Jamarcus Russell run play action passes.
I couldn't believe it.
But then I realized the Raiders' coaches were under the impression that such a move would slow down the pass rush. Only someone forgot to tell that to the New York Giants. The Raiders's Russell was sacked six times, three times in the first half, three times in the second half.
One particularly memorable slamming of Russell came on a play action fake out of the I formation where Johnathan Goff came around end on a blitz and met Russell as soon as he came out of the play fake.
The Raiders play selection and formations were terribly predictable. Just having two backs in the I Formation means they can't quickly release for a pass and causes the defense to constrict, making blitzing easier because the outside linebackers are closer to the quarterback than would be the case in a spread formation.
Why didn't the Oakland Raiders just use five wide receiver sets and throw short passes? You know: three steps here, five steps there, one step, and then a screen pass of some kind. It's not a hard something to coach - the examples of how are all over the Internet of one cares to look, especially for the Walsh Offense.
I'm going to push this until it gives, but I'll start by asserting if the Oakland Raiders gave me their third string offensive players and quarterback, we could beat their starting defense in a seven-on-seven drill starting at the 50 yard line. Our offense would score on each of, say, five drives. I'm that confident I can prove just how much behind the state-of-the-art the Raiders passing game is.
Points to A Win
Their are several approaches the Raiders need to adopt to have a successful passing game. This is how I would attack a defense.
1) Using formations to direct the defense: The first problem is that the Raiders don't use formations to "direct" the defense. For example, it's impossible to play an effective zone defense against a five wide-receiver system. Many defenses are forced to play some kind of man-for-man coverage. Some of those coverages would result in a defense with no middle linebacker and starting their we would exploit it.
2) Preshifts cause defenses to "keep it simple": The Dallas Cowboys under Tom Landry popularized the "preshift" where the offense would start in one formation, then shift to another, before the snap of the ball. In our case we would shift receivers - from three wide to a cluster, for example - to discourage cornerback blitzing and render any zone blitz ineffective, and force a basic man-for-man coverage.
3) Early motion forces defenses to reveal coverages: Into this we mix motion before the snap, especially the backs from the backfield, or wide receivers from running back positions, to cause the defense to show if it's playing man or zone. We also use motion to stretch the defensive coverage, then attack the seams with a variety of pattern combinations.
4) Multiple launch points keep the quarterback on the move: Against us the defense will see rollouts, sprint passes, one-step passes, three-step passes, five-step passes, and delayed passes which are plays where we throw to a receiver, who then throws back to the quarterback, who then throws. (Yes, I know the throw to the receiver must be such that it's not a pass, else we would throw two passes.)
5) No huddle offense to take advantage of defenses that heavily substitute players: This is pretty straight forward. We give the quaterback the freedom - teach this really - to call plays at the line of scrimmage and have a special package of plays that give receivers option routes so one play has a better chance of working.
That's the approach. Again, this is a rather general presentation as I didn't talk about such things as route design or route combinations. But I'm convinced any Raider quarterback would thrive in my system, but I know JaMarcus Russell would be an all pro in it.
I understand that the Raiders' coaches give Rusell only a few plays, but they're the wrong plays. Even if it's a package of 15 plays, that can be 15 of the best plays the league's ever seen.
If the Oakland Raiders disagree, all they have to do is take me up on my challenge. I know I will prevail.
I watched as much of the NY Giants' mugging of the Oakland Raiders 44 to 7 as I could stand, even as the CBS Sports NFL group was apologizing for the game!
CBS Football Analyst and NFL great Boomer Esiason said it looked like the Washington Generals versus the Harlem Globetrotters, and one had to assume the Raiders were the Generals, which were always beaten by the Globetrotters. Seeing them actually do that was a low point in Oakland Raiders football history, and now we must call into question everything the Raiders are doing on the field.
Especially on offense with the Oakland Raiders passing game.
I've said and written it before, and I'll do it again. The Raiders passing offense lacks the basic practices used by organizations that install timed passing games. The lack of use of hashmarks as landmarks is just the start of the problem. It's the overall passing game philosophy that I now question.
The Oakland Raiders seem obsessed with using the run to set up the pass, even when they're down by 30 points and everyone in the building knows they've got to throw. Yet, time and again, the Raiders' coaches insisted on having quarterback Jamarcus Russell run play action passes.
I couldn't believe it.
But then I realized the Raiders' coaches were under the impression that such a move would slow down the pass rush. Only someone forgot to tell that to the New York Giants. The Raiders's Russell was sacked six times, three times in the first half, three times in the second half.
One particularly memorable slamming of Russell came on a play action fake out of the I formation where Johnathan Goff came around end on a blitz and met Russell as soon as he came out of the play fake.
The Raiders play selection and formations were terribly predictable. Just having two backs in the I Formation means they can't quickly release for a pass and causes the defense to constrict, making blitzing easier because the outside linebackers are closer to the quarterback than would be the case in a spread formation.
Why didn't the Oakland Raiders just use five wide receiver sets and throw short passes? You know: three steps here, five steps there, one step, and then a screen pass of some kind. It's not a hard something to coach - the examples of how are all over the Internet of one cares to look, especially for the Walsh Offense.
I'm going to push this until it gives, but I'll start by asserting if the Oakland Raiders gave me their third string offensive players and quarterback, we could beat their starting defense in a seven-on-seven drill starting at the 50 yard line. Our offense would score on each of, say, five drives. I'm that confident I can prove just how much behind the state-of-the-art the Raiders passing game is.
Points to A Win
Their are several approaches the Raiders need to adopt to have a successful passing game. This is how I would attack a defense.
1) Using formations to direct the defense: The first problem is that the Raiders don't use formations to "direct" the defense. For example, it's impossible to play an effective zone defense against a five wide-receiver system. Many defenses are forced to play some kind of man-for-man coverage. Some of those coverages would result in a defense with no middle linebacker and starting their we would exploit it.
2) Preshifts cause defenses to "keep it simple": The Dallas Cowboys under Tom Landry popularized the "preshift" where the offense would start in one formation, then shift to another, before the snap of the ball. In our case we would shift receivers - from three wide to a cluster, for example - to discourage cornerback blitzing and render any zone blitz ineffective, and force a basic man-for-man coverage.
3) Early motion forces defenses to reveal coverages: Into this we mix motion before the snap, especially the backs from the backfield, or wide receivers from running back positions, to cause the defense to show if it's playing man or zone. We also use motion to stretch the defensive coverage, then attack the seams with a variety of pattern combinations.
4) Multiple launch points keep the quarterback on the move: Against us the defense will see rollouts, sprint passes, one-step passes, three-step passes, five-step passes, and delayed passes which are plays where we throw to a receiver, who then throws back to the quarterback, who then throws. (Yes, I know the throw to the receiver must be such that it's not a pass, else we would throw two passes.)
5) No huddle offense to take advantage of defenses that heavily substitute players: This is pretty straight forward. We give the quaterback the freedom - teach this really - to call plays at the line of scrimmage and have a special package of plays that give receivers option routes so one play has a better chance of working.
That's the approach. Again, this is a rather general presentation as I didn't talk about such things as route design or route combinations. But I'm convinced any Raider quarterback would thrive in my system, but I know JaMarcus Russell would be an all pro in it.
I understand that the Raiders' coaches give Rusell only a few plays, but they're the wrong plays. Even if it's a package of 15 plays, that can be 15 of the best plays the league's ever seen.
If the Oakland Raiders disagree, all they have to do is take me up on my challenge. I know I will prevail.
Comments
I think the idea of 5 wide sets, pre-snap motion, and no huddle offense, just not with this particular team. You fail to mention two key elements needed to make those concepts work, a good offensive line and a QB who has a solid understanding of the game.
When I watch the Raiders, the one thing that stands out most is Jamarcus Russell's lack of preparation. He clearly lacks the work ethic to be a successful NFL QB. He clearly doesn't spend much time studying, which puts his coaches in a bind and doesn't allow them to open up the playbook. If the Raiders implemented all of your ideas into their offense, Jamarcus Russell would likely throw an average of 3 INTs per game.
A more sophisticated passing game would be nice and better coaching would be nice but when it comes down to it, the Raiders are consistently over matched when it comes to on-field talent. There isn't a coach in the NFL that could make Jamarcus Russell look good. He has all the tools, but it takes a lot more than just tools to be a good QB at the pro level.
Overall, I enjoyed your post but I was cracking up when I read "I'm convinced any Raider quarterback would thrive in my system, but I know JaMarcus Russell would be an all pro in it." Bottom line, fancy plays are great in theory they're ineffective without the necessary personnel.