Who Is Raiders Defensive Coordinator John Marshall?
The Shadow
by Sonny
John Marshall is the new defensive coordinator for the Oakland Raider's.
This will be John Marshall's 30th season as an NFL coach.
Mr. Marshall entered the NFL ranks in 1980 and has served as defensive
coordinator for, Atlanta 1983-85, San Francisco 1997-98, Carolina
1999-01 and Seattle 2005-08
What I have found in researching the Raider's new DC was hit right on
the head in an article I had read in The Seattle Times by writer Jose
Miguel Romero in which he writes, "Toughness is Marshall's trade mark.
Its a character trait Marshall has taken with him everywhere he has been."
Mike Homgren once stated, "He requires his player's to be tough guys and
accepts nothing less"
No matter where John Marshall has been the one constant that I find is
that his player's respect him and held him in high regard. While John
Marshall was the LB coach with San Francisco his player's held him in
such high regard that they recommended him for the 49ers defensive
coordinator job in 1997. And in his first year as defensive coordinator
the 49ers were the NFL's No 1 defense..
As taken from the Seattle Times article mentioned above, while LBer
coach with the 49ers. Gary Plummer, Rickey Jackson and Ken Norton and I
am paraphrasing, would act as ring leader's of the LBers. They would
threaten to throw Marshall into the pool if he would not let them out of
their meeting.
"If he didn't let us out, we'd throw him in the pool, "Plummer said. "It
would take all seven of us to get him into the pool. He was fighting us
the whole way. "He'd grab onto anything. "Eventually we would get him in."
Marshall would still have the last laugh and get them to their meeting.
So besides learning that John Marshall has been very successful and
respected in his time coaching in the NFL what might we expect to see
from his defense in Oakland?
John Marshall from what I have learned always runs a very aggressive
defense and does not have his unit sit back and react but attacks an
offense.
His defenses are all fundamentally sound and he teaches his player's
where they must be in terms of the scheme so that the unit plays as a
unit. He does not want his player's doing more then their job and
getting out of position.
From all that I have read coming from his player's is that. The one
thing that will get the hair up on his back the most is, a defensive
player not being where they are suppose to be on a play.
Watching Seattle while he was there I noticed that he does not play much
of the standard nickle defense. He plays a 3-3-5 formation a lot
instead. Out of this formation he would run a lot of exotic blitzes on
3rd down using line stunts and delayed LBer blitzes.
You do not see him using the strong safety in the box much and his LBers
account for many sacks. Julien Peterson had 10 sacks his first year with
Marshall and 9.5 sacks his second year. The other outside LBer Hill had
7.5 sacks.
In 2005 John Marshall'sdefense lead the NFL with 50 sacks and allowed
only (1) 100 yard rusher. Finishing second in the NFL in Red Zone
defense 40.4% and rushing touchdowns allowed (5) in route to Super Bowl
XL with Seattle.
This off season has seen much attention being given to the LBer
position. In the draft the Raider's drafted very fast pass rushing type
player's that have played both LBer and DE in College.
Does this tell us anything?, well looking at what John Marshall has done
in the past it just might and we will just have to wait and see. I for
one cannot wait to see what John Marshall will bring to our defense this
year.
So welcome to the Silver and Black Mr. Marshall, I for one am hoping you
and coach Cable will be putting the Raider back in the Raider defense
and get us back to thumping the offenses we will face this coming year.
Wall Street Raider
like to Blitz. And as long as Davis insists on not Blizting and
insists on a base defense with LBs lining up 5 yards behind the LOS,
there are going to be no sacks and they are not going to stop the run.
Wall Street Raider
> John Marshall from what I have learned always runs a very aggressive
> defense and does not have his unit sit back and react but attacks an
> offense.
> Watching Seattle while he was there I noticed that he does not play much
Gary DeWaay
98e599...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, WallSt...@aol.com Wall
Street Raider says...
> This is all fine and dandy but the bottom line is that Davis doesn't
> like to Blitz. And as long as Davis insists on not Blizting and
> insists on a base defense with LBs lining up 5 yards behind the LOS,
> there are going to be no sacks and they are not going to stop the run.
>
Funny don't remember the Raiders being a no blitz team until SOB
arrived.
grape...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <42605a82-41fd-4724-a384-
> 98e599008...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, WallStrRai...@aol.com Wall
> Street Raider says...
>
> > This is all fine and dandy but the bottom line is that Davis doesn't
> > like to Blitz. And as long as Davis insists on not Blizting and
> > insists on a base defense with LBs lining up 5 yards behind the LOS,
> > there are going to be no sacks and they are not going to stop the run.
>
> Funny don't remember the Raiders being a no blitz team until SOB
> arrived.
Funny that you remember wrongly. But, then what else is new? The
Raiders have always been a low-blitzing team. I for one don't have a
problem with that. What I have a problem with is Al meddling at all.
The game has well passed him by. Marshall will only be as successful
as Al allows him to be. Time will tell. But, the talent Al has put
together is pretty lacking as well, so it doesn't look too good right
now, despite your Al jockin' fantasy dim-witted tirades. I LOATHE
fashion fans.
-JC
Gary DeWaay
@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, grape...@gmail.com
says...
> I LOATHE
> fashion fans.
>
As if any of us cares.
Nuclear Waste
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.24820b672...@news.midco.net...
IAAF
Wall Street Raider
> Funny don't remember the Raiders being a no blitz team until SOB
> arrived.
During the Gruden Era, the RAIDERS did, in fact, blitz. I remember
LBs and even Marquez Pope and Charles Woodson getting into the action
regularly. They also ran the West Coast Offence, which Davis hates.
Gruden was the only coach to be able to do things differently than
what Davis likes. We all saw the results and how it ended. Since
Gruden left, Davis has clearly taken the reins again with a return to
the vertical offense and a Man Under, no blitz defense. That is a
fact.
Now you want to argue whether that is the right or wrong approach,
fine by me. That's what we are here for. But the facts are the
facts.
Wall Street Raider
Brit Raider
The Raiders SHOULD be practicing the blitz. I'm not advocating using it all
the time, or even very often. But if the opposition know you CAN blitz
effectively, it can unsettle their O. Particularly if you line up in an
"odd" formation that makes the opposition wonder what you'll do.
Even if all it achieves is confusing the opposition O into calling a
time-out - job done!
As for the Raiders O - who knows?? What we need is receivers who can
actually CATCH the fucking thing!!
Depending on how you play, the ball is either coming hard, fast (and often
low) or it's falling out of the sky and you've got a couple of defenders
making your life hell.
Personally. I slightly prefer the West Coat Offence, but the Vertical
approach should also be available.
Guess that means I'm kinda sitting on the fence as far as the O is
concerned!
--
-=<BritRaider>=-
"Wall Street Raider" <WallSt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5a12098b-18ce-4138...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Gary DeWaay
bc1cac...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> On May 23, 3:32 pm, Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>
> > Funny don't remember the Raiders being a no blitz team until SOB
> > arrived.
>
> During the Gruden Era, the RAIDERS did, in fact, blitz. I remember
> LBs and even Marquez Pope and Charles Woodson getting into the action
> regularly. They also ran the West Coast Offence, which Davis hates.
> Gruden was the only coach to be able to do things differently than
> what Davis likes. We all saw the results and how it ended. Since
> Gruden left, Davis has clearly taken the reins again with a return to
> the vertical offense and a Man Under, no blitz defense. That is a
> fact.
A "JC-fact" sure! SOB has been DC since all but one year
since Gruden left, so I have no frigging clue what your
point is here.
My point stands... I don't remember any DC refusing to blitz
as much as SOB.
>
> Now you want to argue whether that is the right or wrong approach,
> fine by me. That's what we are here for. But the facts are the
> facts.
>
Well yea. Your fact: The Raiders quit blitzing after
Gruden.
My fact: SOB was DC 5 of those 6 years, and the year before
he got the job, we blitzed more.
How Al figures into this is just something you are pulling
out of your ass.
Do they let you do this shit on Wall Street?
>
Nuclear Waste
Do they let you do this shit on Wall Street?
Whoah, isn't that a little personal?
Nightcrawler
*ducking*
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message news:MPG.24848dddd...@news.midco.net...
Do they let you do this shit on Wall Street?
andyrichardson
> In article <5a12098b-18ce-4138-845b-
> bc1cac...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> WallSt...@aol.com Wall Street Raider says...
>
>
>> On May 23, 3:32�pm, Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Funny �don't remember the Raiders being a no blitz team until SOB
>>> arrived.
>>
>> During the Gruden Era, the RAIDERS did, in fact, blitz. I remember
>> LBs and even Marquez Pope and Charles Woodson getting into the action
>> regularly. They also ran the West Coast Offence, which Davis hates.
>> Gruden was the only coach to be able to do things differently than
>> what Davis likes. We all saw the results and how it ended. Since
>> Gruden left, Davis has clearly taken the reins again with a return to
>> the vertical offense and a Man Under, no blitz defense. That is a
>> fact.
>
>
> A "JC-fact" sure! SOB has been DC since all but one year
> since Gruden left, so I have no frigging clue what your
> point is here.
>
> My point stands... I don't remember any DC refusing to blitz
> as much as SOB.
The Raiders have been heavy blitzers a few years out of the last 20 or
so seasons. It is true that pressure is supposed to come from the
front 4 in the "Al Davis D", but there have been D coordinators who
used it more than others. Some years, they blitzed so often that you
could count on seeing it on every opposing offensive series.
The real issue here is that the front 4 is supposed to generate
pressure, and we have not had the talent to make it happen (with the
exception of Burgess) during the Ryan era. Pressure can be coached,
and I think we have a decent chance of seeing more of it this year.
Andy
Gary DeWaay
$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, Andy Richardson
says...
Actually the biggest problem with SOB (and I think Breo
would agree with this because he has mentioned it numerous
times) is that he was entirely too predictable.
Fer instance, I can count on one hand how many times he
blitzed on third and long over the last three seasons... if
I notice this, ya think OC's that get paid to follow
football wouldn't?
If anyone here (besides JC) is going to suggest that Al told
SOB to never blitz on third and long... I guess I give up.
I do think Al might have suggestions for his coaches in the
"Raider philosophy" but for fucks sake.. anyone suggesting
he calls plays from the owners booth is fucking looney toons
stir ass crazy.
Wall Street Raider
> A "JC-fact" sure!
I would have thought that my credibility in here would be a tad
higher, but apparently not.
> SOB has been DC since all but one year
> since Gruden left, so I have no frigging clue what your
> point is here.
My point is that the RAIDERS didn't blitz before Gruden and didn't
blitz after Gruden. The same reason that there was no WCO before or
after Gruden. He was the only HC to be able to put a philosophy in
place contrary to Al's
> My point stands... I don't remember any DC refusing to blitz
> as much as SOB.
I do agree that SOB took it to extreme levels. But look at the stats
on Sacks before and after Gruden. LBs had a much higher % of sacks
during Gruden than before or after. Davis himself has said that he
does not believe in blitzing and it is well known that he covets a
strong front 4 and CBs that can press, and that LBs has ALWAYS been
less of a priority for him.
> Well yea. Your fact: The Raiders quit blitzing after
> Gruden.
And they weren't blitzing before. Not MY fact. A fact
> My fact: SOB was DC 5 of those 6 years, and the year before
> he got the job, we blitzed more.
That again is not YOUR fact, it is A fact. Another fact, the DC for
that other year was the same DC that worked under Gruden/Callahan with
the same defense.
> How Al figures into this is just something you are pulling
> out of your ass.
Yes, I am pulling out of my ass that Davis is intimately involved in
all aspects of the RAIDERS operations... <sigh>
> Do they let you do this shit on Wall Street?
Well researched opinions? Yes, that's what they pay me for.
Apparently, you must have a job where they encourage putting on
blinders and ranting to anybody that disagrees with you.
Bottom line: The RAIDERS have been the worst team in the NFL the past
5 years. If you are happy with that and don't want to hear other
people's opinions on the matter, the solution is simple. Don't come
to this NG, don't talk football and just stick your head in the sand
until September. However, if you are going to come in here to a
DISCUSSION forum, you need to expect some opinions contrary to your
own.
Izzy and Pirate have a much less "analytical/objective" (struggling to
find a better word) view of the RAIDERS/Sports than I do. We have had
many discussions on the way to approach sports. Yet somehow, even
though we come from a completely different point of view, they have
never made it personal. Even you and I in the past have had many
civil discussions. Yet somehow this past couple of years it seems
like you can't take any opinions contrary to yours (not just from me
but from anybody). You have the longest runnning feud in here to the
point that virtually all regulars have asked both you and JC to take
it somewhere else (the only time this has ever happened to my
recollection). Perhaps it is time to take a look in the mirror...
Wall Street Raider
Wall Street Raider
> Actually the biggest problem with SOB (and I think Breo
> would agree with this because he has mentioned it numerous
> times) is that he was entirely too predictable.
Yes, I do agree with that.
> Fer instance, I can count on one hand how many times he
> blitzed on third and long over the last three seasons... if
> I notice this, ya think OC's that get paid to follow
> football wouldn't?
Indeed
> If anyone here (besides JC) is going to suggest that Al told
> SOB to never blitz on third and long... I guess I give up.
>
> I do think Al might have suggestions for his coaches in the
> "Raider philosophy" but for fucks sake.. anyone suggesting
> he calls plays from the owners booth is fucking looney toons
> stir ass crazy. - Hide quoted text -
The managing partners on my fund also don't tell me every second when
to buy or sell each stock that I manage. But I do have to follow a
certain investment philosophy. I am assuming your boss doesn't look
over your shoulder and tell you what to do every minute of your day,
but I am sure you have a set of rules and guidelines of what you are
supposed to do. I don't think that is such a difficult concept to
understand and see how it may apply to the RAIDERS.
Wall Street Raider
R. J. Salvi
----
<rant> I have a question: What is it with you and JC to resort to
name-calling whenever a debate devolves into irreconcilable differences? I
don't believe I've EVER heard Breo diss anyone. And I know damn well you
(and JC) are more than smart enough and educated enough to know better.
</rant>
--
RJ
Gary DeWaay
rjsalvi.@nospam.ambianceacoustics.com R. J. Salvi says...
> <rant> I have a question: What is it with you and JC to resort to
> name-calling whenever a debate devolves into irreconcilable differences? I
> don't believe I've EVER heard Breo diss anyone.
Bullshit.
And I know damn well you
> (and JC) are more than smart enough and educated enough to know better.
> </rant>
>
Ok, the Wallstreet remark was a low blow, but lets face
it... he brings his job up every fucking chance he gets (as
if it adds validity to his football opinions or something)
so IMO, that makes his job fair game. I mean he even calls
himself "WALLSTREET RAIDER" for fucksake.
What else did I say that was so bad?
"Pulling facts out of his ass?"
If thats what you call "name calling" I suggest you remove
yourself from Usenet. There are literally thousands of
comments being made on Usenet this hour a hundred times
worse.
Gary DeWaay
e5360d...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> The managing partners on my fund also don't tell me every second when
> to buy or sell each stock that I manage. But I do have to follow a
> certain investment philosophy. I am assuming your boss doesn't look
> over your shoulder and tell you what to do every minute of your day,
I haven't had an actual boss since I was in my early 20's,
thank you.
> but I am sure you have a set of rules and guidelines of what you are
> supposed to do. I don't think that is such a difficult concept to
> understand and see how it may apply to the RAIDERS.
Look... all Al cares about is winning... and if you think he
is blind enough to insist that SOB not calls blitzes so we
lose games, its still kinda crazy.
Who knows... maybe SOB was another Kiffin and purposely
didn't call blitzes as a way to give Al the finger? Thats
not an Al problem, thats a coaching problem.
The Al problem is not firing SOB after his fourth year...
that much most of us can agree on.
But there is NO WAY I will ever believe that Al has anything
more than a philisophical influence on any playcalling.
Oh, and back to the firing of SOB... I think keeping him had
less to do with SOB being an Al puppet than Al childishly
keeping him because Kiffin wanted him gone.
Gary DeWaay
a1f2ad...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> On May 25, 1:14 pm, Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>
> > A "JC-fact" sure!
>
> I would have thought that my credibility in here would be a tad
> higher, but apparently not.
Maybe that is why I am so dissapointed in it, Breo?
>
> > SOB has been DC since all but one year
> > since Gruden left, so I have no frigging clue what your
> > point is here.
>
> My point is that the RAIDERS didn't blitz before Gruden and didn't
> blitz after Gruden. The same reason that there was no WCO before or
> after Gruden. He was the only HC to be able to put a philosophy in
> place contrary to Al's
I don't think Gruden has much to do with the defense AT ALL.
He certainly didn't bring the defense he had at Oakland
along with him to TB. He let Monte handle all of that.
Why do YOU think he had anything to do with it in Oakland?
>
> > My point stands... I don't remember any DC refusing to blitz
> > as much as SOB.
>
> I do agree that SOB took it to extreme levels. But look at the stats
> on Sacks before and after Gruden. LBs had a much higher % of sacks
> during Gruden than before or after. Davis himself has said that he
> does not believe in blitzing and it is well known that he covets a
> strong front 4 and CBs that can press, and that LBs has ALWAYS been
> less of a priority for him.
>
> > Well yea. Your fact: The Raiders quit blitzing after
> > Gruden.
>
> And they weren't blitzing before. Not MY fact. A fact
>
> > My fact: SOB was DC 5 of those 6 years, and the year before
> > he got the job, we blitzed more.
>
> That again is not YOUR fact, it is A fact. Another fact, the DC for
> that other year was the same DC that worked under Gruden/Callahan with
> the same defense.
Ok, I looked it up... the Raiders the year before SOB had 25
sacks, 10 were not from the line.
After SOB took over, we had 24 sacks, 6 were not from the
line (and this was from the year we ran the 3-4).
The second year with SOB, there wer 36 sacks, and 4.5 were
not from the line.
It sure seems to me SOB doesn't like to blitz much.
The SB year (after Gruden left, remember) we had 43 sacks,
and 10.5 of them came from the LB's.
You tell me... we went from double figures every year from
non-interior linemen sacks, to around 5 after SOB took over.
>
> > How Al figures into this is just something you are pulling
> > out of your ass.
>
> Yes, I am pulling out of my ass that Davis is intimately involved in
> all aspects of the RAIDERS operations... <sigh>
>
> > Do they let you do this shit on Wall Street?
>
> Well researched opinions? Yes, that's what they pay me for.
What research have you done for this opinion Breo? Cite
please.
> Apparently, you must have a job where they encourage putting on
> blinders and ranting to anybody that disagrees with you.
>
> Bottom line: The RAIDERS have been the worst team in the NFL the past
> 5 years. If you are happy with that and don't want to hear other
> people's opinions on the matter, the solution is simple. Don't come
> to this NG, don't talk football and just stick your head in the sand
> until September. However, if you are going to come in here to a
> DISCUSSION forum, you need to expect some opinions contrary to your
> own.
>
> Izzy and Pirate have a much less "analytical/objective" (struggling to
> find a better word) view of the RAIDERS/Sports than I do. We have had
> many discussions on the way to approach sports. Yet somehow, even
> though we come from a completely different point of view, they have
> never made it personal. Even you and I in the past have had many
> civil discussions. Yet somehow this past couple of years it seems
> like you can't take any opinions contrary to yours (not just from me
> but from anybody).
That is a lie.
Wall Street Raider
> > <rant> I have a question: What is it with you and JC to resort to
> > name-calling whenever a debate devolves into irreconcilable differences? I
> > don't believe I've EVER heard Breo diss anyone.
>
> Bullshit.
Name ONE person that I picked a fight with that had not attacked me
personally first (excluding the trolls I used to get on for fun with
the El Padrino persona back in the days)
> Ok, the Wallstreet remark was a low blow, but lets face
> it... he brings his job up every fucking chance he gets (as
> if it adds validity to his football opinions or something)
> so IMO, that makes his job fair game. I mean he even calls
> himself "WALLSTREET RAIDER" for fucksake.
I started posting here in 1994. I NEVER brought up my job online
until a few years ago (when I changed my handle) when tRoaR mentioned
it (and he was at my wedding - hell he was the ONLY person at my
wedding - so it is not odd that he happened to know what i did for a
living). Frankly, other regs generally bring it up more than I do.
You are correct that sometimes I do bring it up to add validity, not
to my opinions, but to the process through which I develop my
opinions, saying that this is what I do for a living.
In terms of my handle a lot of people have here handles that have
something to say about themselves. Location is a common one, you and
Mike had a sport (volleyball and skating), Robert used to have the
name of his company, so I don't know what your issue is. And the term
"Wall Street Raider" has a double meaning with the corporate raiders
that take over companies which are also called "Wall Street Raiders",
hence I thought the handle was appropriate and slightly humorous.
Wall Street Raider
Wall Street Raider
> What research have you done for this opinion Breo? Cite
> please.
Fine, here it is. Before Gruden Era here are 3 Random years (and I
swear to you I picked these 3 at random, if you want to do a more
comprehensive research, be my guest):
1991 - 42 Sacks 8 not from the line
1993 - 45 Sacks 5 not from the line
1995 - 43 Sacks 5 Not from the line
As I have said before, you know I generally don't talk out of my ass
without some hard facts behind my opinion, so why don't you, instead
of pissing on anybody that may disagree with your opinion, try to
listen to what they have to say, and may be we all can gain a little
knowledge from each other through a civil discussion.
Wall Street Raider
Wall Street Raider
> I haven't had an actual boss since I was in my early 20's,
> thank you.
Great.
> Look... all Al cares about is winning... and if you think he
> is blind enough to insist that SOB not calls blitzes so we
> lose games, its still kinda crazy.
No. I think he is blind enough to THINK THAT HE CAN ACTUALLY WIN with
an outdated offense and defense, without computerized data backing his
draft analysis, and with just speed.
> But there is NO WAY I will ever believe that Al has anything
> more than a philisophical influence on any playcalling.
This is not a difficult concept. Owners/CEOs set the strategy of a
company and management implements it. But the strategy is set in
stone. I don't understand why you are having trouble understanding
this.
Wall Street Raider
Wall Street Raider
> > I would have thought that my credibility in here would be a tad
> > higher, but apparently not.
>
> Maybe that is why I am so dissapointed in it, Breo?
Then why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt. You have been
here for at least 10 years and I don't recall you and I agreeing on
much. But we never had anything but civil discussions. Since your
thing with JC started, you seriously have just started pissing on
anybody that disagrees with you.
> I don't think Gruden has much to do with the defense AT ALL.
> He certainly didn't bring the defense he had at Oakland
> along with him to TB. He let Monte handle all of that.
>
> Why do YOU think he had anything to do with it in Oakland?
Gruden (Or the Gruden led coaching staff) was the only coach that has
been able to do things contrary to Al's traditional offensive and
defensive philosophies.
> Ok, I looked it up... the Raiders the year before SOB had 25
> sacks, 10 were not from the line.
This was the same DC that Gruden/Callahan had
> The SB year (after Gruden left, remember) we had 43 sacks,
> and 10.5 of them came from the LB's.
Again, same coaching staff and DC that Gruden had
> You tell me... we went from double figures every year from
> non-interior linemen sacks, to around 5 after SOB took over.
Look at the years before Gruden (on my other post), same trend. Like
I said, if you want to go back in time and do a 30 year study, be my
guest. The 3 years I checked at random before I started with this
thread supported my (and the generally accepted) view that Davis does
not like to blitz. I insist once again, I don't oull shit out of my
ass. If you do a 30 year study and you come up with comprehensive
data that refutes my sample based conclussions I will will be more
than happy to accept I was wrong. Actually, I would welcome it since
that would mean I have leaned something I didn't know (which is the
whole point of NGs, to exchange ideas, not to jump down the throat of
anybody that disagrees with you).
>> Yet somehow this past couple of years it seems
>> like you can't take any opinions contrary to yours (not just from me
>> but from anybody).
> That is a lie.
That is my perception (and that is why I used the word "seems", not
stated it as a fact) and from comments that I have read these past
couple of years a few of the other regulars seem to share it too.
Look Gary, I don't know everything there is to know about football or
the RAIDERS. And I don't have time to know everything and that's why
I don't post that much. But when I do post I TRY to actually have
those opinions thought out and backed up by facts. Those opinions can
still be wrong and I welcome anybody contradicting them with thought-
out arguments. I have NO agenda in this NG but to learn as much as I
can about the RAIDERS (thanks Shadow once again). And for the 3rd or
4th time, you have been in this NG long enough to know all this...
Wall Street Raider
Nightcrawler
I'd like to state something that seems to be another Alism
that is not fact.
"Al does not like to blitz."
Al believes that if you "have" to blitz you have a weak
front four and that "ideally" you would not have to
blitz to get pressure on the QB. That said, he also believes
that things aren't always "perfect" and that adjustments need
to be made. (note: a 3-4 defense, by nature, will blitz)
Furthermore, Al does not dictate what coaches teach other
than by removing ineffective coaches from service. Madden
had a style/system, Flores had a different style/system and
Gruden had a different style/system, as does Cable, now.
What Al wants is effective teaching.
Maybe Al thought there was huge potential in SOB and did
not want to give up on him, or...just maybe, he did not make
that decision until Cable said that SOB had to leave. None of
can do anything other than speculate on the subject i.e. spew
forth a bunch of non-informed drivel. I know, for some,
stereotypes are hard to get over, but let's keep it real, fella's.
The fact is that we don't know, and probably never will know
the whole skinny on what goes on in Raider land.
"Wall Street Raider" <WallSt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:158d2da8-c5e4-4747...@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
On May 26, 3:46 pm, Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
> What research have you done for this opinion Breo? Cite
> please.
Fine, here it is. Before Gruden Era here are 3 Random years (and I
swear to you I picked these 3 at random, if you want to do a more
comprehensive research, be my guest):
1991 - 42 Sacks 8 not from the line
1993 - 45 Sacks 5 not from the line
1995 - 43 Sacks 5 Not from the line
Wall Street Raider
Gary DeWaay
> On May 26, 3:46 pm, Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>
> > > I would have thought that my credibility in here would be a tad
> > > higher, but apparently not.
> >
> > Maybe that is why I am so dissapointed in it, Breo?
>
> Then why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt. You have been
> here for at least 10 years and I don't recall you and I agreeing on
> much. But we never had anything but civil discussions. Since your
> thing with JC started, you seriously have just started pissing on
> anybody that disagrees with you.
Thats a lie. You just are not used to anyone doing anything
besides agreeing with you.
If you look at my posts carefully here, I don't have any
problems with other peoples opinions UNLESS I think they are
simply making shit up and stating it as a fact. I think I
am consistant with this. What FACTS do you have that Al is
calling ALL the shots on defense... that is what you
insinuated at the beginning.
Here is exactly what you said:
...quote...
Since
> Gruden left, Davis has clearly taken the reins again with a return to
> the vertical offense and a Man Under, no blitz defense. That is a
> fact.
...end quote...
I called you out on it, and now you are the one getting into
a pissy fit because I did it.
WHERE DID YOU GET THIS "FACT" Breo?
How do you know Al has "taken the reins?"
If that is your opinion FINE.. but to act like its a fucking
FACT is disingenuous and I am going to fucking call you out
on it every time. Deal with it. I do the same thing with
everyone at the Raidertake.
Its kinda my pet peave in sports.
>
> > I don't think Gruden has much to do with the defense AT ALL.
> > He certainly didn't bring the defense he had at Oakland
> > along with him to TB. He let Monte handle all of that.
> >
> > Why do YOU think he had anything to do with it in Oakland?
>
> Gruden (Or the Gruden led coaching staff) was the only coach that has
> been able to do things contrary to Al's traditional offensive and
> defensive philosophies.
I call bullshit on this too. Al hates the 3-4 but Madden
won a SB with it... how do you explain that? I think Al
allows you to do anything you want as long as it WORKS.
Marshall as the new DC could prolly bring in the Tampa 2 if
he wanted to, and it would last as long as it works... if
not... You would see a more traditional Raider defense. As
CEO, I think Al has the right to do this.
I think maybe I would to.
>
> > Ok, I looked it up... the Raiders the year before SOB had 25
> > sacks, 10 were not from the line.
>
> This was the same DC that Gruden/Callahan had
>
> > The SB year (after Gruden left, remember) we had 43 sacks,
> > and 10.5 of them came from the LB's.
>
> Again, same coaching staff and DC that Gruden had
Uhh, you are making my point.
>
> > You tell me... we went from double figures every year from
> > non-interior linemen sacks, to around 5 after SOB took over.
>
> Look at the years before Gruden (on my other post), same trend. Like
> I said, if you want to go back in time and do a 30 year study, be my
> guest. The 3 years I checked at random before I started with this
> thread supported my (and the generally accepted) view that Davis does
> not like to blitz. I insist once again, I don't oull shit out of my
> ass. If you do a 30 year study and you come up with comprehensive
> data that refutes my sample based conclussions I will will be more
> than happy to accept I was wrong. Actually, I would welcome it since
> that would mean I have leaned something I didn't know (which is the
> whole point of NGs, to exchange ideas, not to jump down the throat of
> anybody that disagrees with you).
JFC Breo, I made one fucking snide comment.
I apologize.
I should not have said it. Fair enough?
>
> >> Yet somehow this past couple of years it seems
> >> like you can't take any opinions contrary to yours (not just from me
> >> but from anybody).
>
> > That is a lie.
>
> That is my perception (and that is why I used the word "seems", not
> stated it as a fact) and from comments that I have read these past
> couple of years a few of the other regulars seem to share it too.
>
> Look Gary, I don't know everything there is to know about football or
> the RAIDERS. And I don't have time to know everything and that's why
> I don't post that much. But when I do post I TRY to actually have
> those opinions thought out and backed up by facts.
Thats why I called you out on it Breo. What FACT do you
have that Al took over the team? That sounds like standard
JC bullshit to me.
I am going to call it as I see it, when I see it.
No apologies for that.
Those opinions can
> still be wrong and I welcome anybody contradicting them with thought-
> out arguments. I have NO agenda in this NG but to learn as much as I
> can about the RAIDERS (thanks Shadow once again). And for the 3rd or
> 4th time, you have been in this NG long enough to know all this...
>
Its all good in the end Breo... you know that.
Gary DeWaay
Dirty...@doneferfree.net Nightcrawler says...
> The fact is that we don't know, and probably never will know
> the whole skinny on what goes on in Raider land.
>
Thats exactly what I mean.
I don't see how anyone can spout out bullshit denigrating
the Raiders as a FACT when so little is known about what is
going on here.
SOB certainly didn't throw Al over a cliff when he had a
chance to... after Kiffin accused Al of calling the shots.
Kiffins is a proven liar, so who do we believe?
Like I said, and I think it is an important point... I can
count on one hand how many times SOB had an all out blitz on
third and long the last three years.
WHO IS CALLING THE DEFENSIVE PLAYS?
AL?
Pulease.
Would SOB have lost his job if he blitzed more on third and
long?
Thats fucking nuts.
Al might have dictated the philosophy, but SOB carried it to
a complete extreme. Thats SOB's fault. Not Al.
Gary DeWaay
98e599...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>
> This is all fine and dandy but the bottom line is that Davis doesn't
> like to Blitz. And as long as Davis insists on not Blizting and
> insists on a base defense with LBs lining up 5 yards behind the LOS,
> there are going to be no sacks and they are not going to stop the run.
>
>
I guess we will have to see, wont we?
If Marshall has a more agressive defense and SOB places a
more passive defense with CLeveland, I think we can put this
puppy to rest.
And btw... just because SOB comes out with a 3-4 next year
will be meaningless. He did the same thing with the
Raiders.
Its his PLAYCALLING that is what I will be looking at.
If non-interior linemen have a ton of sacks next year at
Cleveland, I will admit I might be wrong here.
They had 12 non-interior sacks last year... I don't see that
doing anything besides SINK!
I'd bet anyone that has Paypal 50 bucks it will be less than
7.
Wall Street Raider
wrote:
> Thats a lie. You just are not used to anyone doing anything
> besides agreeing with you.
Gary, by definition of what I do (and sorry to bring my work up again)
my life is defined by people disagreeing with me. IN FACT, the only
way I can make money is if people DISAGREE with me (I can never buy a
cheap stock unless the market things it is worth less than I do).
> Here is exactly what you said:
> ...quote...
> Since
> > Gruden left, Davis has clearly taken the reins again with a return to
> > the vertical offense and a Man Under, no blitz defense. That is a
> > fact.
> ...end quote...
>
> I called you out on it, and now you are the one getting into
> a pissy fit because I did it.
> WHERE DID YOU GET THIS "FACT" Breo?
> How do you know Al has "taken the reins?"
Actually, If you look at the structure of the sentence, the "taken the
reins" is being modified by "clearly" (strong opinion modifier, not
factual). The factual part is the return of the Man Under, no blitz
defense (which is, indeed, a fact). If you tell me that my sentence
structure is not 100% clear, I will concede the point in advance given
that English is not my native tongue.
> If that is your opinion FINE.. but to act like its a fucking
> FACT is disingenuous and I am going to fucking call you out
> on it every time. Deal with it. I do the same thing with
> everyone at the Raidertake.
You can call me out on anything you want. I just ask that you do so
in a civil manner. Had you given me the benefit of the doubt (like I
believe I have earned) and asked for a clarification, or put forth an
argument that you do not believe this was done by Al's design
(questioning my modifier "clearly"), we could have had a good
discussion about the RAIDERS tendencies over time and come, perhaps,
to a consensus.
> Its kinda my pet peave in sports.
And I believe that because of that you might tend to overreact to
statements that were not meant to illicit any major belligerant
controversies.
> > Gruden (Or the Gruden led coaching staff) was the only coach that has
> > been able to do things contrary to Al's traditional offensive and
> > defensive philosophies.
>
> I call bullshit on this too. Al hates the 3-4 but Madden
> won a SB with it... how do you explain that?
That is a good point. I had not gone back that far with my sample.
My counter argument would be that this is 40 years ago (and that is
why I looked at an early 90's sample) and may not be representative of
Al's current frame of mind, which I still strongly believe is that he
can win with the same philosophy that worked in the 70's and 80's.
Now this is not just my opinion but the general consensus, as well.
Consensus could in fact be wrong.
Again, this could have been a good counter-argument, and then perhaps
we would have spent further time looking back at the historical
defensive tendencies of the RAIDERS, rather than rely on the past 20
years, and we could have made reached some interesting insights as to
the RAIDERS defensive schemes and you me and everybody else in the
group could have learned something new. Instead this evolved into a
pissing thread.
> I think Al
> allows you to do anything you want as long as it WORKS.
> Marshall as the new DC could prolly bring in the Tampa 2 if
> he wanted to, and it would last as long as it works... if
> not... You would see a more traditional Raider defense. As
> CEO, I think Al has the right to do this.
Al has the right to do anything he wants. We as fans have also the
right to voice our displeasure.
> JFC Breo, I made one fucking snide comment.
> I apologize.
> I should not have said it. Fair enough?
Indeed.
> Thats why I called you out on it Breo. What FACT do you
> have that Al took over the team? That sounds like standard
> JC bullshit to me.
> I am going to call it as I see it, when I see it.
> No apologies for that.
Here is my biggest beef with all this. This is the 3rd or 4th time in
this thread that you have called my comments "JC Fact" or "JC
Bullshit". I am not JC, I thought this would be clear. You have a
beef with him, that's your issue. But that beef you have with him
seems to be affecting the way you interact with other people. Just
because JC is Anti-Al doesn't mean that all Anti-Al posts are JC-
ish.
> Its all good in the end Breo... you know that.
I hope it is.
Wall Street Raider
Gary DeWaay
@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WallSt...@aol.com Wall
Street Raider says...
> On May 27, 12:08 am, Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Thats a lie. You just are not used to anyone doing anything
> > besides agreeing with you.
>
> Gary, by definition of what I do (and sorry to bring my work up again)
> my life is defined by people disagreeing with me. IN FACT, the only
> way I can make money is if people DISAGREE with me (I can never buy a
> cheap stock unless the market things it is worth less than I do).
>
> > Here is exactly what you said:
> > ...quote...
> > Since
> > > Gruden left, Davis has clearly taken the reins again with a return to
> > > the vertical offense and a Man Under, no blitz defense. That is a
> > > fact.
> > ...end quote...
> >
> > I called you out on it, and now you are the one getting into
> > a pissy fit because I did it.
> > WHERE DID YOU GET THIS "FACT" Breo?
> > How do you know Al has "taken the reins?"
>
> Actually, If you look at the structure of the sentence, the "taken the
> reins" is being modified by "clearly" (strong opinion modifier, not
> factual). The factual part is the return of the Man Under, no blitz
> defense (which is, indeed, a fact).
Uhh, that is NOT a fact. I still say that the no-blitz is
all SOB. BTW, I just "randomly" clicked on another year...
try 1984... 21 non-interiour linemen sacks. 1985? 19.
1986? 17
The 70's teams didn't record sacks... so I can't look at
that.
If you tell me that my sentence
> structure is not 100% clear, I will concede the point in advance given
> that English is not my native tongue.
>
> > If that is your opinion FINE.. but to act like its a fucking
> > FACT is disingenuous and I am going to fucking call you out
> > on it every time. Deal with it. I do the same thing with
> > everyone at the Raidertake.
>
> You can call me out on anything you want. I just ask that you do so
> in a civil manner. Had you given me the benefit of the doubt (like I
> believe I have earned) and asked for a clarification, or put forth an
> argument that you do not believe this was done by Al's design
> (questioning my modifier "clearly"), we could have had a good
> discussion about the RAIDERS tendencies over time and come, perhaps,
> to a consensus.
Actually, I had given you the benefit of the doubt
previously to this, but this was like the fourth time I had
read something like this from you. I had enough.
>
> > Its kinda my pet peave in sports.
>
> And I believe that because of that you might tend to overreact to
> statements that were not meant to illicit any major belligerant
> controversies.
>
> > > Gruden (Or the Gruden led coaching staff) was the only coach that has
> > > been able to do things contrary to Al's traditional offensive and
> > > defensive philosophies.
> >
> > I call bullshit on this too. Al hates the 3-4 but Madden
> > won a SB with it... how do you explain that?
>
> That is a good point. I had not gone back that far with my sample.
> My counter argument would be that this is 40 years ago (and that is
> why I looked at an early 90's sample) and may not be representative of
> Al's current frame of mind, which I still strongly believe is that he
> can win with the same philosophy that worked in the 70's and 80's.
Al's mid-80's teams blitzed like crazy Breo.
Wall Street Raider
wrote:
> Al's mid-80's teams blitzed like crazy Breo.
Great, so now I have learned something (the whole point of posting
here). Now the conclussion of all this is that Al HAS INDEED in the
past hired people that implemented schemes that were contrary to his
preferred modus operandum (vertical pass and no blitz man-to-man
defense). The next observation is that these schemes/hires have
coincided with the greatest success for the RAIDERS (Madden with his
3-4 defense, early 80s heavy blitzing defense, and Gruden/Callahan era
with WCO and blitzing defense). Now what will be interesting to see
is whether the 2009-10 RAIDERS will (under the leadership of Al and
the implementation of the coaching stuff) stick to the systems that
(we all agree) have not been working the past 5 years or will
implement different offensive and defensive systems more in tune with
the times.
Wall Street Raider
Gary DeWaay
@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, WallSt...@aol.com Wall
Street Raider says...
I AM ALL IN ON THIS!
I honestly don't see what all the gloom and doomers are
seeing at all right now.
We ended the year on a 180 degree different positive note.
Cable either jettisoned or completely avoided all the non-
team players and head cases (Walker might be the exception,
but I think our hands were tied contractually) SOB is
GONE... we put in place veteran coaches with an emphasis on
TEACHING, we are developing some of the most exciting draft
picks of the last three years, albeit raw and unpolished.
I dunno.
I see more hope than gloom and doom here. Call me crazy.
Arkansan Raider
---Jeff
andyrichardson
There should be plenty of hope. Start with the competition - San Diego
fought like hell in the playoffs, but they looked over and done with
for most of the season. KC and Denver have embarked upon rebuilding
projects that will take at least a year to return positive results.
I'm not predicting 6-0 in the AFCW, but those are 6 very winnable
games. The Raiders should improve on their division record this year,
and should be no worse than 2nd place in the AFCW. Even the pundits on
TV seem to agree with my prediction (not sure that is such a good
thing, but ok).
Look at what the team accomplished last year and consider that Russell,
McFadden and Bush all turned in less than stellar efforts (overall).
I'm trying to keep it real -- Russell is younger and probably less
mature than Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco. Bush has been ignored by the
coaches. McFadden has been trouble by turf toe. You could easily
predict that the lack of output would continue and be able to defend
that position. But I don't think anyone could seriously expect that we
won't see some improvement from these guys - not even the haters. It
wouldn't take much of a step forward to see a difference. Hell, you
only need one of them to start living up to their potential to win a
couple more games! There are three potential stars returning from last
year and I like the odds of having at least one of them start to play
like it.
I'm disappointed that we didn't bring in more talent on D, especially
on the line. But bringing in a new coordinator while keeping a fairly
similar base scheme might help. At least they didn't try to adopt a
whole new scheme when they aren't really prepared for it. Again, not
expecting a world of difference, just enough to turn 1-2 more games
into wins. I don't expect to be any worse on defense, at the very
least.
I am cautiously expecting a winning record this year. I'm expecting to
be more competitive, even in the losses. The Raiders won't blow many
people away, but they'll win some games.
Andy
Gary DeWaay
Richardson says...
Jmac seems to think he see's a very noticible difference in his quick
burst in the practices so far. If true, and he can remain healthy, this
offense can work. I don't see Jruss, Bush or most certainly Fargas
carrying the team at all.
You could easily
> predict that the lack of output would continue and be able to defend
> that position. But I don't think anyone could seriously expect that we
> won't see some improvement from these guys - not even the haters. It
> wouldn't take much of a step forward to see a difference. Hell, you
> only need one of them to start living up to their potential to win a
> couple more games! There are three potential stars returning from last
> year and I like the odds of having at least one of them start to play
> like it.
>
> I'm disappointed that we didn't bring in more talent on D, especially
> on the line. But bringing in a new coordinator while keeping a fairly
> similar base scheme might help. At least they didn't try to adopt a
> whole new scheme when they aren't really prepared for it. Again, not
> expecting a world of difference, just enough to turn 1-2 more games
> into wins. I don't expect to be any worse on defense, at the very
> least.
Just eliminating all the 30 to 50 yard runs will add 3 wins alone, IMO.
SOB provided all the "ra ra's.. GO KILL THEM" but none of the
discipline.
I wouldn't be surprised if Cleveland wins NO games next season.
ZIP. Zero.
>
> I am cautiously expecting a winning record this year. I'm expecting to
> be more competitive, even in the losses. The Raiders won't blow many
> people away, but they'll win some games.
>
I think there might be some real blowouts if MCF has a break out year.
Izzy
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.24848dddd...@news.midco.net...
In article <5a12098b-18ce-4138-845b-
>WallSt...@aol.com Wall Street Raider says...
>> On May 23, 3:32 pm, Gary DeWaay <dewaay2spike...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Funny don't remember the Raiders being a no blitz team until SOB
v> > arrived.
>>
>> During the Gruden Era, the RAIDERS did, in fact, blitz. I remember
>> LBs and even Marquez Pope and Charles Woodson getting into the action
>> regularly. They also ran the West Coast Offence, which Davis hates.
>> Gruden was the only coach to be able to do things differently than
>> what Davis likes. We all saw the results and how it ended. Since
>> Gruden left, Davis has clearly taken the reins again with a return to
>> the vertical offense and a Man Under, no blitz defense. That is a
>> fact.
>A "JC-fact" sure! SOB has been DC since all but one year
>since Gruden left, so I have no frigging clue what your
>point is here.
>My point stands... I don't remember any DC refusing to blitz
>as much as SOB.
>
> Now you want to argue whether that is the right or wrong approach,
> fine by me. That's what we are here for. But the facts are the
> facts.
>
>Well yea. Your fact: The Raiders quit blitzing after
>Gruden.
>My fact: SOB was DC 5 of those 6 years, and the year before
>he got the job, we blitzed more.
>How Al figures into this is just something you are pulling
>out of your ass.
>Do they let you do this shit on Wall Street?
So Gary, I guess this post of yours kinda refutes your claim of being a
level headed football guy. You got yourself a JC sized attitude with Breo
that is not warranted. Get a grip.
>