Todd Bowles to interview for head coach

[Bakuron]

I agree that players mean much more than systems, but we have competent enough players mashed together by an incompetent (ChuckB) into a system that exposed all their weaknesses rather brutally. We need some better players in certain positions, LB included, but it will mean nothing if we can expect the same level of management incompetence.

I really don't agree with you about Kelly or Houston, even if the former tailed off at the end and the latter didn't get too many sacks. Right now I still see D-Line as one of the strengths of our team, however, I would agree that (if possible) additions can be made, because Trevor Scott turned out to be generally a non-factor and Jarvis Moss might be on his way. 8 players for 4 positions is vital (if we maintain a 4-3).

Leaders?
Richard Seymour. He's all the things you mentioned. His penalties imo were the natural result of a frustrated guy playing under incompetent management.

Why isn't Satele 'good enough'? He isn't outstanding, but 22 outstanding players is not possible. He's decent, he doesn't make lots of mistakes, or give up sacks, and if he's inconsistent in the running game he's rarely abysmal. That line was responsible for the 7th best rushing attack and the 3rd least sacks, mostly due to the trio of Veldheer/Wizz/Satele on the blindside. Runs up the middle tend to be low-yield...

Overhaul?
The playoffs is the first step.* An Overhaul is no guarantee of future success. Scorched Earth policy can put you unecessary steps back when we already have a generally very young team. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. This has to be considered not reactionary just because the last bunch of Flunkies failed to rub their 2 brain cells together when in pole position for the AFC West title.

*The Offense has the explosive weapons in place (Palmer to McFadden, Reece, Boss, Ford and Moore is too many mismatches for any D) - The D just needs to become at the very least competent, which is why I like the Giants model. Depth gets added over time.

[Ottoman Empire]

I agree that players mean much more than systems, but we have competent enough players mashed together by an incompetent (ChuckB) into a system that exposed all their weaknesses rather brutally. We need some better players in certain positions, LB included, but it will mean nothing if we can expect the same level of management incompetence.

I really don't agree with you about Kelly or Houston, even if the former tailed off at the end and the latter didn't get too many sacks. Right now I still see D-Line as one of the strengths of our team, however, I would agree that (if possible) additions can be made, because Trevor Scott turned out to be generally a non-factor and Jarvis Moss might be on his way. 8 players for 4 positions is vital (if we maintain a 4-3).

Leaders?
Richard Seymour. He's all the things you mentioned. His penalties imo were the natural result of a frustrated guy playing under incompetent management.

Why isn't Satele 'good enough'? He isn't outstanding, but 22 outstanding players is not possible. He's decent, he doesn't make lots of mistakes, or give up sacks, and if he's inconsistent in the running game he's rarely abysmal. That line was responsible for the 7th best rushing attack and the 3rd least sacks, mostly due to the trio of Veldheer/Wizz/Satele on the blindside. Runs up the middle tend to be low-yield...

Overhaul?
The playoffs is the first step.* An Overhaul is no guarantee of future success. Scorched Earth policy can put you unecessary steps back when we already have a generally very young team. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water. This has to be considered not reactionary just because the last bunch of Flunkies failed to rub their 2 brain cells together when in pole position for the AFC West title.

*The Offense has the explosive weapons in place (Palmer to McFadden, Reece, Boss, Ford and Moore is too many mismatches for any D) - The D just needs to become at the very least competent, which is why I like the Giants model. Depth gets added over time.

I think there may be some misunderstanding of what I mean by 'overhaul' here.

Of course I agree that Chucky B was a bad DC. However, it is just too easy and convenient to blame the woeful performance of that unit solely on him. The D has had pretty much the same players for quite some time now. Guess what, they were bad under Marshall, Bad under Ryan - this D has been bad for a long, long time now.  You accept we need some additions on the D line, we need LB's, I also feel you would agree we need DB's too. (both improved starters and depth). This to my mind is an overhaul of the D, not some tweaking.  I have said more than once that I expect this to take time, this will not happen overnight. You said you like the Giants model of added depth over time - so do I, that is an overhaul to my mind. I was never suggesting anything like a 'scorched earth' policy to be clear.  We may have some 'competent' players on the D - that word to my mind means 'average'. We will need more than that to do well in the playoffs and consistently reach them in the years to come.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about Kelly. In any case, discussions of this guy will soon be moot - he will not be on the team next season in my opinion. Houston will survive and be given another chance though, which I think is fair. He had better show some improvement next year or he will go the way of Kelly too.

Seymour? Well he is the closest we have to a leader - but this is not the Seymour of old we have. He is now way too inconsistent in his play. I just don't accept the excuse for the penalties I'm afraid. I don't understand this willingness to absolve players of responsibility for these and not hold them accountable - this attitude is part of the problem from a coaching and organisational standpoint I think, it's one of the reasons this problem has persisted for so long, so it's a problem when fans do it to. The final point I will make is this - true leaders do not get ejected from games.

Satele to my mind is just too inconsistent. To often he gets stood up or knocked back at the line. He rarely, if ever opens up big holes at the point of attack. He commits to many penalties. I am not saying he is abysmal or is the most pressing need on the line at the moment - but sooner rather than later, an upgrade should be found as the starter.

Of course you are right that an overhaul is no guarantee of success - what in life is? However, resting on your laurels and believing that a change of coordinator and scheme will cure all the ills of  this team - is a guarantee of  continued failure.

I actually think our positions are a lot closer together than each of us think. There just may be some misunderstanding of the meanings of certain words in this context. I hope I have explained what I mean a little better this time.

[Bakuron]

This Defense has changed players far more frequently than it has changed system. The Al Davis Defensive philosophy was simply not working for the last 10 years, and the inherent problems with it were exacerbated by the death of Al leaving a flunky like Chucky B in charge of running it.

The simplest point is that the D is very much imperfect, but that on talent it was not as awful as it was made to look. It's pretty standard for 3 to 5 starters to change year on year with any NFL unit these days, so that level of change isn't unusual. But the level of change in the defensive philosophy and organisation will be the most significant the Raiders have ever had. So in that sense it's overhaul by default.

The fact is that you DON'T need a significantly better than average Defense if you want to do well in the playoffs, on the condition that you have an outstanding Offense. Something that's entirely possible to achieve with this team. As such, the goal should be 9-7 next year, nothing less.

I would be shocked if Kelly wasn't here next season and I know that Houston is regarded by many as a candidate for being one of the best linemen of his generation. We'll see in the fullness of time.

I don't believe Seymour was absolved of any responsibility for anything. In terms of devastating play Seymour's as good as he's ever been (check PFF for some hard evidence), but the difference between a Bellicheck team and a Bresnahan team is fucking enormous.

[Ottoman Empire]

[quote author=Bakuron link=topic=3577.msg20715#msg20715 date=1327001333

I don't believe Seymour was absolved of any responsibility for anything. In terms of devastating play Seymour's as good as he's ever been (check PFF for some hard evidence), but the difference between a Bellicheck team and a Bresnahan team is fucking enormous.
[/quote]

Had a quick look at PFF , trouble is I can't find anything I would call hard facts (not too familiar with the site). Do you have a link or a reference by any chance?
Just in case I'm being a bit hard on the guy.

Edit: Not sure what happened with the quote thing there.

[Bakuron]

  You missed the ] on the first quote tag.

Here was a red-letter-day for Sir Dick and the unit: Marquee Matchups Review | ProFootballFocus.com

His play as a Raider up to this season: Making the Grade: 4-3 Defensive Tackles | ProFootballFocus.com

From the Chiefs game before the end of the season: Three to Focus on: Raiders @ Chiefs, Week 16 | ProFootballFocus.com

Some more from before the Dolphins game: "The Raiders’ defensive line features four players with a grade of +11.0 or better; none higher than Richard Seymour‘s +15.3. Seymour has managed six sacks, six hits and 18 pressures as a pass rusher while adding a grade of +7.6 against the run – the only blemish on his year being the eight penalties he’s been called for. In passing situations, look out for Kamerion Wimbley (+34.1) who has already shown this year that he can flat out take over a game against a sub-par pass blocker … like Marc Columbo, for example. Wimbley has registered six sacks, 12 hits, and an impressive 35 pressures."

[Ottoman Empire]

Ah yes - the damn pesky ]
 
Thanks for posting the links, I will have a read later when I get a chance (new baby and all), and get back back to you.

[Bakuron]

There will be loads of stuff I missed and post-season analysis will be worth waiting for.

Speaking of which here is their AFC West team of the year including Seymour, Satele and Houston... 2011 PFF All-AFC West Team | ProFootballFocus.com

[Ottoman Empire]

This Defense has changed players far more frequently than it has changed system. The Al Davis Defensive philosophy was simply not working for the last 10 years, and the inherent problems with it were exacerbated by the death of Al leaving a flunky like Chucky B in charge of running it.

The simplest point is that the D is very much imperfect, but that on talent it was not as awful as it was made to look. It's pretty standard for 3 to 5 starters to change year on year with any NFL unit these days, so that level of change isn't unusual. But the level of change in the defensive philosophy and organisation will be the most significant the Raiders have ever had. So in that sense it's overhaul by default.

The fact is that you DON'T need a significantly better than average Defense if you want to do well in the playoffs, on the condition that you have an outstanding Offense. Something that's entirely possible to achieve with this team. As such, the goal should be 9-7 next year, nothing less.

I would be shocked if Kelly wasn't here next season and I know that Houston is regarded by many as a candidate for being one of the best linemen of his generation. We'll see in the fullness of time.

I don't believe Seymour was absolved of any responsibility for anything. In terms of devastating play Seymour's as good as he's ever been (check PFF for some hard evidence), but the difference between a Bellicheck team and a Bresnahan team is fucking enormous.

Firstly, apologies for the late reply. My baby girl had to go into hospital on Friday, so I’ve been a little preoccupied.

Interesting articles there on PFF. I must admit I am surprised that Satele was rated so highly by them. They did say he was very inconsistent also to be fair, which was part of my displeasure with him. The low sack number for the O line is a little misleading I think. The early very low number had a lot to do with Campbell’s mobility and ability to move away from pressure. Looking at the numbers, Campbell was sacked 5 times; Palmer on the other hand, was sacked 17 times. Of course I am not putting that all on Satele, but I still think that Center, RG and RT are in need of an upgrade.

As for the D - I agree completely that the Al philosophy was not working. However, as I mentioned before, I am sceptical that there will be a huge improvement simply with a change of co-ordinator, or system for that matter. I will take the PFF view on Seymour for now, but this D needs playmakers and it needs them badly. Houston, I am aware is touted as a great prospect with potential. My point was about production, not perceived potential – he has not produced so far. As you say – we will see. As for Kelly, I of course have no real proof that he will be cut. I just have this feeling that McKenzie will not feel he is worth anywhere near the money he is being paid – will he restructure? I doubt it.

I can’t agree that you don’t need an above average D to do well in the playoffs – this year I think has pointed to the fact you can’t progress too far without some sort of balance between both O and D. Having a great O but a poor D will not get you too far, even in today’s pass friendly league. Even the Pats have played some really good D once the playoffs arrived, same goes for the Giants.

I may of course be being a little greedy (or old fashioned?). I do not really want to see the Raiders playing in high scoring shootouts each week – I want to see some shutdown D as per Raider days of old.   

[Bakuron]

Firstly, apologies for the late reply. My baby girl had to go into hospital on Friday, so I’ve been a little preoccupied.

No need for apologies man. Hope all is well.

Interesting articles there on PFF. I must admit I am surprised that Satele was rated so highly by them. They did say he was very inconsistent also to be fair, which was part of my displeasure with him. The low sack number for the O line is a little misleading I think.

I agree Satele is imperfect, as is our line, but in the grand scheme of things he is a reasonable option for next season whereas Carlisle and Barnes generally aren't.

Changing Schemes- Yes absolutely right to be sceptical about a change in co-ordinator bringing immediate improvement. It has to be the right one first, and they will need time, and we need some better players. But I think the quickest most substantial changes can be made to this team by creating a system that protects against the weaknesses of some players, rather than forcing players into a system because of what they CAN do and regardless of what they can't do.

On production > potential- You can't use sacks as an indicator, it's just too limited a subset of statistics. Sacks are great but it's almost like judging a cornerback on interceptions, too many other things outside of the players control have to happen. 'Pressures' are a much better indicator and they are incorporated into PFF's rating system. That's why Wimbley was so highly rated by them, because despite almost all his sacks coming in only 2 or 3 games, he was consistently getting into the QB's face.

Needing a D- Again, I agree absolutely 100% about balance and it's something I said myself earlier in another thread, I wasn't plagiarising, honest  - I don't wish to sound wise after the fact, but that Pat's D was and is universally regarded as probably the weakest since Bill's been their Head Coach. Like the Giants, they were just about good enough to keep mediocre Offenses at bay when required. Imo that's exactly the type of team we aren't far short of being.

[Ottoman Empire]

Firstly, apologies for the late reply. My baby girl had to go into hospital on Friday, so I’ve been a little preoccupied.

No need for apologies man. Hope all is well.

Interesting articles there on PFF. I must admit I am surprised that Satele was rated so highly by them. They did say he was very inconsistent also to be fair, which was part of my displeasure with him. The low sack number for the O line is a little misleading I think.

I agree Satele is imperfect, as is our line, but in the grand scheme of things he is a reasonable option for next season whereas Carlisle and Barnes generally aren't.

Changing Schemes- Yes absolutely right to be sceptical about a change in co-ordinator bringing immediate improvement. It has to be the right one first, and they will need time, and we need some better players. But I think the quickest most substantial changes can be made to this team by creating a system that protects against the weaknesses of some players, rather than forcing players into a system because of what they CAN do and regardless of what they can't do.

On production > potential- You can't use sacks as an indicator, it's just too limited a subset of statistics. Sacks are great but it's almost like judging a cornerback on interceptions, too many other things outside of the players control have to happen. 'Pressures' are a much better indicator and they are incorporated into PFF's rating system. That's why Wimbley was so highly rated by them, because despite almost all his sacks coming in only 2 or 3 games, he was consistently getting into the QB's face.

Needing a D- Again, I agree absolutely 100% about balance and it's something I said myself earlier in another thread, I wasn't plagiarising, honest  - I don't wish to sound wise after the fact, but that Pat's D was and is universally regarded as probably the weakest since Bill's been their Head Coach. Like the Giants, they were just about good enough to keep mediocre Offenses at bay when required. Imo that's exactly the type of team we aren't far short of being.

My daughter had a life threatening condition, but was in for an operation by Saturday. It's just a matter of her getting over the op. Everything will be fine with my girl.   Thanks very much.

Back to the Raiders - I would agree pretty much with all you said there. The only reason I mentioned the sack comparison was just as an indication that the O line was not quite as solid as might be believed from a low sack rate (as you mentioned this in defense of the O line in a previous post). The sack rate would be much higher say, if Palmer had been the starter all year, was all I was saying, and therefore, more in the middle of the pack or mediocre looking. I wonder how the o line would look according to PFF and QB pressures?

Anyway, as I said before - maybe I'm a little too old school. I just want the Raiders to be strong on D too - not like the Pats. Then again, I would settle for it if it brought the Lombardi. 

[Bakuron]

Very glad to hear she's OK.

Hey I'd love a D like the 49'ers and Ravens too, it's just more realistic with the current group of players to be more like the Pats or Giants. Sooner rather than later.

But hey if Allen's going to be our HC, this is what he has to say about D:

He described his defensive philosophy this way before the Broncos started in the season in an interview on the club’s Web site:

“We’re going to be built off of speed and athleticism. We want to be a very fast, violent, aggressive type of defense. I firmly believe that defensive football is not nearly as much about X’s and O’s as it is about the way you play the game, the culture of your defense. I think if you look at where i’ve been in the past, speed and athleticism and aggressive football players is the type of thing we’re looking for.”

He's going to f'ing love some of our players.

[psj3809]

The Al Davis Defensive philosophy was simply not working for the last 10 years, and the inherent problems with it were exacerbated by the death of Al leaving a flunky like Chucky B in charge of running it.

To be fair to Hue he wanted his own guy in Dennis Thurman but the Jets wouldnt let him come over, also the Pack wouldnt let him try to take Perry or Moss. Bresnahan was only here for the LB's, as we couldnt get anyone else he got the job.  To be fair despite the defense being dire we were 7-4 and looked like we were headed to the playoffs, I dont think you go changing co-ordinators then or during the season when Al just died.

I truely believe that even with a new system/def coach, yep these things take time to get working properly but i cant believe the defense can be worse than last year, can only see an improvement.  Just a 'small' improvement will give us a few more wins as the defense was so bad last year

P.S Glad to hear your daughter is on the mend, keep us updated fella