Could someone PLEASE explain the Raiders offensive play calling with R (1 Viewer)

[laughinboy_2000]

Last year the Raider spend an obscene amount of money to acquire Moss to form a lethal combo with Collins. The offensive philosophy apparently last year was run the ball to Lamont Jordan and to pass the ball to Lamont Jordan. Granted Moss was hurt last year, but even when he was healthy, he got very few looks.

Enter 2006, another QB in Aaron Brooks forming another lethal combo with Moss. Now, I know it's only week 1, but why the hell are the Raiders not looking for him? They are paying him a lot of money to be their WR but they don't use him? And because of CAP restrictions, Moss will likely be either cut or traded after this year.

My question is, why the hell did they pay him all that money if they were not going to use him. I just don't see the Raiders taking trying to take advantage of Randy Moss on the field. And the worse part is Moss is not getting any younger.

Thoughts???

 

[Mik789fl]

Actually,relatively speaking,they looked for him a lot,he caught 4 passes,no one else on the team caught more than 1,they were/are so inept on offense that his numbers will be the best on the team,for what that's worth.

 

[perry147]

Actually,relatively speaking,they looked for him a lot,he caught 4 passes,no one else on the team caught more than 1,they were/are so inept on offense that his numbers will be the best on the team,for what that's worth.

Also it is hard to pass while laying on your back.

 

[jurb26]

My thoughts are that Oak 2005 did take advantage of Moss until he got hurt. Evidence is in the numbers of the 1st 4 games.

The 2006 Oak coaches don't realize that their playbook and scheme are extremly dated, boarderline prehistoric and no longer work in the NFL. One can only hope that this weeks film sesions will allow them the time to reconcile this. If not, the early week 3 buy is just what the doc ordered. That 7 step/deep drop schmem is just never going to work in todays NFL with the sppen of modern DE's and LBs. Soon enough they will have to come to this conclusion.

 

[imeimex]

Definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

[laughinboy_2000]

Actually,relatively speaking,they looked for him a lot,he caught 4 passes,no one else on the team caught more than 1,they were/are so inept on offense that his numbers will be the best on the team,for what that's worth.

Are you are saying SIX targets for Randy Moss in week one is productive? 4 catches for 40+ yards is pathetic for a guy of Moss' caliber...

 

[packersfan]

Enter 2006, another QB in Aaron Brooks forming another lethal combo with Moss.

I think some of the issues in Oakland reside (at least partially) with this assumption.

 

[cr8f]

Why?

Maybe because by the time Brooks was to let he ball go he was being driven into the ground.

 

[laughinboy_2000]

Enter 2006, another QB in Aaron Brooks forming another lethal combo with Moss.

I think some of the issues in Oakland reside (at least partially) with this assumption.

I was being sarcastic. We all know Brooks isn't exactly the most accurate QB..

 

[laughinboy_2000]

Why? Maybe because by the time Brooks was to let he ball go he was being driven into the ground.

Well if you saw the game, three of his catches came from Moss standing where he lined up and Brook throwing him a screen. Moss then proceeded to gain 10-15 yards!! Brooks only needed to turn and fire the ball to Moss. Not pretty, BUT productive..

 

[jonessed]

Actually,relatively speaking,they looked for him a lot,he caught 4 passes,no one else on the team caught more than 1,they were/are so inept on offense that his numbers will be the best on the team,for what that's worth.

Are you are saying SIX targets for Randy Moss in week one is productive? 4 catches for 40+ yards is pathetic for a guy of Moss' caliber...

Productive for FF numbers? Probably not. Productive based the offenses distribution Monday night? Definitely. They did everything they could to get him the ball in the second half. There was just no time for Brooks to throw. It appeared they started improvising eventually because Jammer was off like 10 yards, but you can't run the same play over and over again and it's not like Moss runs quick slants. Merriman and Phillips were getting to the 7-step drop point before Brooks did and Williams and Castillo were pushing the pocket preventing him from stepping forward. He had like 2-3 second before his entire pocket collapsed.

 

[fatness]

Could someone PLEASE explain the Raiders offensive play calling with R

RottenRidiculous

Repetitive

 

[raidergil]

Actually,relatively speaking,they looked for him a lot,he caught 4 passes,no one else on the team caught more than 1,they were/are so inept on offense that his numbers will be the best on the team,for what that's worth.

Are you are saying SIX targets for Randy Moss in week one is productive? 4 catches for 40+ yards is pathetic for a guy of Moss' caliber...

Considering Brooks only had 6 completions, relatively speaking, Moss was productive. Moss was putting up big numbers last yr before he was injured against SD. One of the few times the Raiders mounted some semblence of a drive was when Brooks finally realized the cushion Moss had & popped him a couple quick passes. Everyone in the NFL is laughing this week at the Raiders outdated gameplan so hopefully things will change this week - not that it'll matter too much vs. Balt. The depressing & embarrassing thing is that this is the gameplan they worked on all offseason.

 

[benherover00]

What surprised me, is they never once went to the shotgun! Not even once. That could have bought Brooks some time to throw the ball.

Furthermore, I too believe they are not using Moss enough. The reason Owen seem more productive is QB's still try to get him the ball, whether he is covered or not and as a result it may even open up the running game a little.

Just my thoughts

 

[BoltzNBrew]

Let's try to run, stuffed. Lets try a 3 step drop, sack. Lets try a 5 step drop, sack. Lets try a 7 step drop, sack.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

Actually,relatively speaking,they looked for him a lot,he caught 4 passes,no one else on the team caught more than 1,they were/are so inept on offense that his numbers will be the best on the team,for what that's worth.

Are you are saying SIX targets for Randy Moss in week one is productive? 4 catches for 40+ yards is pathetic for a guy of Moss' caliber...

Did you watch the game? Brooks had no time to throw, none. He only got off 14 passes. 6 were to Moss, so he was targeted 43% of the time. The problem wasn't failure to target Moss, it was failure to protect the QB.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I don't have the exact #s here in front of me, but in the ballpark of 1/2 of the completed passes for Oakland were to Moss, and about 1/3 of the total yardage was Moss. On any other team, that's $. Unfortunately, he plays for the Raiders and you are a FF player, so the #s are dissapointing. When you concider the % of what Moss is getting, you can't say that he is being ignored.

Last year they did go to him plenty. Before Moss got beat up against the Chargers, Collins was a top 5 QB in my league. Unfortunately, Moss never returned to the field at any better than say 70-80% health/speed.

 

[Mik789fl]

Actually,relatively speaking,they looked for him a lot,he caught 4 passes,no one else on the team caught more than 1,they were/are so inept on offense that his numbers will be the best on the team,for what that's worth.

Are you are saying SIX targets for Randy Moss in week one is productive? 4 catches for 40+ yards is pathetic for a guy of Moss' caliber...

You missed my point laughingboy,but others did not,he was very involved,in a putrid offense,expect more of the same this week,the raida's won't fix their problems in a short week and the Ravens at home will show no mercy.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Did you watch the game? Brooks had no time to throw, none. He only got off 14 passes. 6 were to Moss, so he was targeted 43% of the time. The problem wasn't failure to target Moss, it was failure to protect the QB.

At least half those sacks were Brooks fault. A QB can't expect to sit back there for 3+ seconds, it's his job to get rid of the ball in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[Sheriff66]

What surprised me, is they never once went to the shotgun! Not even once. That could have bought Brooks some time to throw the ball.Furthermore, I too believe they are not using Moss enough. The reason Owen seem more productive is QB's still try to get him the ball, whether he is covered or not and as a result it may even open up the running game a little.

Just my thoughts

My thoughts exactly.....:ragingbrooksowner:

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The bed -n- breakfast offense sux0r

 

[Sheriff66]

The bed -n- breakfast offense sux0r

 

[kncks12]

My theory is that Art Shell hired the out dated Offensive coordinator so that noone would be in line to take his job when this team stinks and Shell gets canned. The Raiders do not want to go out and do a league search again when noone wanted the job this year. Shell hires this guy, and there is no way that he moves up as head coach, and his other assistants also stink, so Shell sticks around. They are the pitts!

 

[Pugsley]

What's more disturbing to me about the Oakland play calling was LaMont Jordans receiving statistics, or should I say lack of statistics ? One target with no receptions.

Am I missing something here ?

I'm not an NFL offensive coordinator by any stretch, but I thought if the defense is getting into your backfield, a screen pass to a RB is a good play call to try and counter. Or at least give the linebackers something else to think about other than teeing off on your quarterback.

 

[Unlucky]

I'm not an NFL offensive coordinator by any stretch, but I thought if the defense is getting into your backfield, a screen pass to a RB is a good play call to try and counter. Or at least give the linebackers something else to think about other than teeing off on your quarterback.

My thoughts exactly. No screens? No draws? How about Brooks rolling out? Anything other than drop back to the same spot and let the D bring a huge pass rush every play. Terrible play calling, no adjustments to counter the SD pass rush, and horrible pass blocking. I admit to eating a whole lotta crow with the Raiders offense this year.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I admit to eating a whole lotta crow with the Raiders offense this year.

It was still just one game. The offensive line is bad, and when they face top defensive front sevens they will be o\/\/ned. But they will have some big games as well if they can figure out a way to give Brooks time to throw (by moving the pocket, using the TE & FB as blockers, establishing a running game and using playaction, etc.).Somebody pointed out in another thread that the Seahawks had -7 yards of total offense one year in their first game, but ended up #7 in the league or something like that in total yardage by season's end.

In FootballOutsiders' power rankings this week, they point out that when it comes to projecting week 2 through week 17, week 1 results are only 1/22 as important as preseason projections (based on results from the past five years).

People often read way too much into week one results.

When all is said and done, the Raiders' performance last week will probably be their worst of the season (or near it), not their average.

That said, Unlucky should be eating a lot of crow if he expected the Raiders to move the ball against the Chargers last week.

 

[Bobcat10]

What surprised me, is they never once went to the shotgun! Not even once. That could have bought Brooks some time to throw the ball.Furthermore, I too believe they are not using Moss enough. The reason Owen seem more productive is QB's still try to get him the ball, whether he is covered or not and as a result it may even open up the running game a little.

Just my thoughts

My thoughts exactly.....:ragingbrooksowner:

Yep. No shotgun. My buddy was yelling the entire time the Raiders had the ball.And I was yelling when SD had the ball and ran all night.

 

[Raider Nation]

Things won't get better until they fire Bob Newhart and hire Wayne Fontes.

 

[TitusIII]

Here's to Moss getting the heck out of Oakland after this season...

 

[Raider Nation]

Here's to Moss getting the heck out of Oakland after this season before the trading deadline in October, because I own him in my most important league and I would like to see him end up in a non-pathetic offensive system where he can once again be dominant, rather than being stuck in a 1930's-style, leather-helmet offensive system which is currently being lead by a punchline of a coaching staff.

fixed

 

[fatness]

Isn't the offensive coordinator the same guy who got Shell fired in his first gig as Raiders' head coach?

 

[Cookiemonster]

What's more disturbing to me about the Oakland play calling was LaMont Jordans receiving statistics, or should I say lack of statistics ? One target with no receptions. Am I missing something here ? I'm not an NFL offensive coordinator by any stretch, but I thought if the defense is getting into your backfield, a screen pass to a RB is a good play call to try and counter. Or at least give the linebackers something else to think about other than teeing off on your quarterback.

Don't give the offensive coordinator so much credit. I'm betting 1/2 of the people answering these boards could be doing as good of a job or better. The other problem is Brooks. He doesn't look for RB as a security outlet, but TEs. Why do you think Boo Williams was going off the board so quickly a couple years ago? If it weren't for Brooks' love of the TEs, nobody here would even know who he was. Now, how many of you think of McCallister as a 70 reception back? Why not? He was never thrown that many balls. From a Raiders' fan's perspective, Jordan wasn't even that good of a reciever out of the backfield, but he got sooooo many looks 'cause that was Collins' favorite outlet and it jived w/ Turner's scheme. Walsh's scheme is all about 20+yard pass routes and seven step drops. If Jordan has any value this year, it should be as a pass blocker.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Isn't the offensive coordinator the same guy who got Shell fired in his first gig as Raiders' head coach?

In many people's opinion, yes. I'm one of them, but they (Walsh and Shell) are both just Al Davis' "yes men." This is Al Davis' offense, taught by these two non-teachers. As I said in a previous post during the preseason panic regarding the Raiders' offense... Those who can, do. Those who can't, coach. Shell's regime could, and did. That does not mean they can coach a lick. Davis' staff is a joke and always will be for two reasons. Al will always pay bottom $ for coaches. He's just cheap that way, and you get what you pay for. Some like to point to Gruden, but when the hire was made, Gruden was a young, unknown. When he had proved his worth and had only a year left on his contract, Davis got what he could for him in the form of draft picks from Tampa since he wouldn't have paid fair market value for him, and been outbid anyways. Secondly, Davis wants a pawn, not a coach. He will call him a coach as long as that "coach" does things Davis' way. If he won't (see Shanahan), he's gone.

 

[falconeyed]

The problem is that the OAK OL cannot protect long enough for the 7 step drops that they obviously had Brooks and Walter doing all game. 7 steps ... you'd better have the likes of The Hogs or Jackie Slater or Anthony Munoz up front if you're going to be screwing around with 7. They need to go to 3 and 5 step drops at the most ... maybe even three for awhile, or run more boots or something.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

... you'd better have the likes of ... Jackie Slater

That's what's so confounding. They DO have Jackie Slater -- as an O Line coach. Paired with another hall of fame coach in Shell, you think that they could bring some expertise and insight to the table to make a little more out of some obviously raw and possibly unready linemen. Maurile's post is a good one -- you can't gauge an entire season by game one. But all through preseason, this O-line has not gelled. That it's not happening now tells me it's an endemic problem with the personnel -- whether that's becasue of all the position shifting over the last few years or the scheme they have this year.I actually feel sorry for Randy Moss having wasted years of his incredible talent while the Raiders fielded mediocre QBs and a saloon-door linemen. And I'm a Raiders fan.

 

[nxmehta]

Enter 2006, another QB in Aaron Brooks forming another lethal combo with Moss.

There are two lethal things about this situation, and neither of them involve Randy Moss:1.) Aaron Brooks' decision making2.) The offensive lineThese two things combined = 1 dead QB + 1 talented WR picking his nose on every play

 

[Billy1x]

Actually,relatively speaking,they looked for him a lot,he caught 4 passes,no one else on the team caught more than 1,they were/are so inept on offense that his numbers will be the best on the team,for what that's worth.

Are you are saying SIX targets for Randy Moss in week one is productive? 4 catches for 40+ yards is pathetic for a guy of Moss' caliber...

6 targets out of 14 total is pretty good - almost 50%. I believe there were 21 attempts of which 7 were sacks.

 

[Bojang0301]

5 step drops and go routes are bad if you don't have an OLine.

 

[Sweetness_34]

I went back and checked out the entire game again (using TIVO). Moss had the CB playing at least 5 to 10 yards off of him on 70% of the plays. Brooks should simply look left, look right, if the CB is 5 to 10 yards off, then independent of what play was called, he simply needs to throw it to Moss and it is a guaranteed 5 yards at least. I cannot believe how they do not takle advantage of something like that. Make the CB come up to the LOS. Also, if you keep doing that, you can also fake it, and Moss can run the hitch and go and be open down the sideline easily

God, I could have gotten the Raiders to get more yards than they did that night. Simply inexcusable

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Bill Simmons on the Raiders.

 

[Traders2001]

Hey listen guys , of course the OL is nt that good but when your head coach and OC are both clowns what do you expect.

To me i still cant understand how you can hire SHell as HC and this other clown at OC , Al Davis deserves what he gets .

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

I went back and checked out the entire game again (using TIVO). Moss had the CB playing at least 5 to 10 yards off of him on 70% of the plays. Brooks should simply look left, look right, if the CB is 5 to 10 yards off, then independent of what play was called, he simply needs to throw it to Moss and it is a guaranteed 5 yards at least. I cannot believe how they do not takle advantage of something like that. Make the CB come up to the LOS. Also, if you keep doing that, you can also fake it, and Moss can run the hitch and go and be open down the sideline easilyGod, I could have gotten the Raiders to get more yards than they did that night. Simply inexcusable

They did have one series in the 2nd Q where they threw the quick hitch to Moss on 2 consecutive plays, gained a total of 15 yards. They never threw it again.

 

[secretid]

I went back and checked out the entire game again (using TIVO). Moss had the CB playing at least 5 to 10 yards off of him on 70% of the plays. Brooks should simply look left, look right, if the CB is 5 to 10 yards off, then independent of what play was called, he simply needs to throw it to Moss and it is a guaranteed 5 yards at least. I cannot believe how they do not takle advantage of something like that.

If they followed your advice it would've been even a little bit worse. In the 2Q they did this twice in a row. The 3rd time the CB stayed off again but the route was jumped and if they had done it again it would've gone the other way for 6.It's really easy to line that CB up 5-10 yds off and either have him charge the line or have the LB slide over on the snap and be in position to mess things up.

 

[jurb26]

I went back and checked out the entire game again (using TIVO). Moss had the CB playing at least 5 to 10 yards off of him on 70% of the plays. Brooks should simply look left, look right, if the CB is 5 to 10 yards off, then independent of what play was called, he simply needs to throw it to Moss and it is a guaranteed 5 yards at least. I cannot believe how they do not takle advantage of something like that.

If they followed your advice it would've been even a little bit worse. In the 2Q they did this twice in a row. The 3rd time the CB stayed off again but the route was jumped and if they had done it again it would've gone the other way for 6.It's really easy to line that CB up 5-10 yds off and either have him charge the line or have the LB slide over on the snap and be in position to mess things up.

My lord then you don't throw it and send Moss deep on the next play with a 3 step drop fade for 6. This is not a complex change.FYI, that is exaclty what you want the D to do... if they start moving the LB out, you can hammer the run down their throats. If they bring the CB up, Moss will run by him. If Moss runs by him, the Safety has to roll over the top even more and takes himself out of the play from the very start. All of these are good things for your offence.

 

[Bojang0301]

I went back and checked out the entire game again (using TIVO). Moss had the CB playing at least 5 to 10 yards off of him on 70% of the plays. Brooks should simply look left, look right, if the CB is 5 to 10 yards off, then independent of what play was called, he simply needs to throw it to Moss and it is a guaranteed 5 yards at least. I cannot believe how they do not takle advantage of something like that.

If they followed your advice it would've been even a little bit worse. In the 2Q they did this twice in a row. The 3rd time the CB stayed off again but the route was jumped and if they had done it again it would've gone the other way for 6.It's really easy to line that CB up 5-10 yds off and either have him charge the line or have the LB slide over on the snap and be in position to mess things up.

My lord then you don't throw it and send Moss deep on the next play with a 3 step drop fade for 6. This is not a complex change.FYI, that is exaclty what you want the D to do... if they start moving the LB out, you can hammer the run down their throats. If they bring the CB up, Moss will run by him. If Moss runs by him, the Safety has to roll over the top even more and takes himself out of the play from the very start. All of these are good things for your offence.

Raiders don't do 3 step drops anyway... Their plays are designed for 5 steps and sack.

 

[jurb26]

I went back and checked out the entire game again (using TIVO). Moss had the CB playing at least 5 to 10 yards off of him on 70% of the plays. Brooks should simply look left, look right, if the CB is 5 to 10 yards off, then independent of what play was called, he simply needs to throw it to Moss and it is a guaranteed 5 yards at least. I cannot believe how they do not takle advantage of something like that.

If they followed your advice it would've been even a little bit worse. In the 2Q they did this twice in a row. The 3rd time the CB stayed off again but the route was jumped and if they had done it again it would've gone the other way for 6.It's really easy to line that CB up 5-10 yds off and either have him charge the line or have the LB slide over on the snap and be in position to mess things up.

My lord then you don't throw it and send Moss deep on the next play with a 3 step drop fade for 6. This is not a complex change.FYI, that is exaclty what you want the D to do... if they start moving the LB out, you can hammer the run down their throats. If they bring the CB up, Moss will run by him. If Moss runs by him, the Safety has to roll over the top even more and takes himself out of the play from the very start. All of these are good things for your offence.

Raiders don't do 3 step drops anyway... Their plays are designed for 5 steps and sack.

Exactly the problem.