News You Can't Use
Mentioning an unsubstantiated rumor makes you a perpetrator of the rumor. Mentioning an unsubstantiated rumor in a major media outlet makes you a gross perpetrator of the rumor. This is a fact, there’s no debating it, case closed.
Which makes many in our local sports media gross perpetrators of unsubstantiated rumors. Nice.
Some weeks ago, Lane Kiffin was mentioned in a speculative report as a potential candidate for the
Now the rumors of Kiffin’s wandering eye have resurfaced, thanks to a site that at least has the self awareness to put its unsubstantiated rumors under the banner of “Rumor Mill.” The site claimed that Kiffin was outraged at not getting the
So, this morning we are faced with more speculative palaver. This is how one Bay Area outlet poured gasoline on the fire while, of course, implying that we not shoot the messenger: “Still, the rumor persisted until Atlanta Falcons coach Bobby Petrino resigned Tuesday and accepted the Arkansas job. That prompted even more Kiffin mentions, though nary a single one cited a named source… When asked if he had any desire to take a college coaching job at any point, Kiffin said: ‘No, no. I
This is how the media perpetrators cling to the illusion of occupying the high road. Of course it’s not okay to initiate unsubstantiated rumors, but, hey, if someone else starts one and we just report on and perpetuate the rumor, well, by golly, it’s all in a good day’s work. Is it 3 p.m. yet? I could use a good vodka tonic. I’m exhausted by all of my original reporting. I wore the leather right off my shoe today.
Let’s be clear about one thing: irresponsible and unsubstantiated rumors can later be proven true, but that doesn’t make them any less irresponsible and unsubstantiated. Could Lane Kiffin jump ship for
The news about Bobby Petrino bolting
Just because a rumor exists doesn’t mean you have to report on it. Really. You could just ignore it. The previous rumor was dead wrong, and the new one doesn’t cite a single named source. You don’t have to bite on every piece of bait in the information ocean, do you? Get a professional grip, folks.
On one final hypocritical note, we should observe that the mainstream media are constantly trying to draw a distinction between themselves and mere “bloggers.” This distinction allegedly rests on the notion of journalistic standards (we know it has nothing to do with writing talent, that’s for sure), to which bloggers supposedly aren’t beholden.
And yet the mainstream media are more than happy to let the blogger tail wag their dog on a slow news day, biting on juicy internet-fueled rumors that should be ignored rather than perpetuated.
And that, Raiders fans, is news you can't use.
P.S. The editor of the aforementioned "Rumor Mill" site is featured in the current issue of Sports Illustrated, in which he admits that he is not bound by traditional journalistic standards (who is anymore?), and in which he is quoted as saying, "We don't report rumors as hard news. We trust our readers to know the difference." And yet we apparently can't trust some members of the local sports media to know the difference. Go figure.Labels: News You Can't Use
242 Comments:
Nice, RT, but I think you let PFT off the hook. Their 2nd post on the subject practically said that Kiffin denying it proves it. I think PFT has grown big enough to start accepting some responsibility for what they write.
I posted the following at the end of your last publication, and I wanted to be sure that Pyscho got the compliment.
Damn, Psycho! Great analysis! You've won me over. I admit that every time I hear "cut Burgess" it sounds like fingernails across a blackboard.
Sapp I don't worry about too much because he could just as easily retire at the end of the year, by his own choice. If he does, I want to bring him back in as a defensive line coach, and groom him as a DC.
memdf was right about the year of the 3-4. We did it because we had Kinlaw (a rock) in the middle, and an over abundance of quality LBs. There was no long term planning in it. It was done almost by accident, Flores just realized we were better suited for it.
However, since there was no long term commitment to the 3-4, the following year we had a very average defense and went 7-9.
I think the style and type of defense you play has to be based on the notion that "that's who we are." What we're talking about here is experimentation to see if SOB works better in the 3-4 because that's the way he started.
This takes us to another problem. I believe that one of the major problems with the Raiders over the last several years has been that the Raiders have lost their identity. How often have you heard owners, coaches, players and prognosticators talk about identity? It is extremely important. That is why Davis wanted to bring back Shell, not because he was the only person who would coach here.
If SOB can't coach a 4-3, I'd say we need to get a new DC. Either that or make him HC and have him define who we are. He's already got the look for it. But I think I pretty much prefer Kiffin.
If there is any merit to the Kiffin rumors, I'd say turn it over to Rob, but I don't think there is any there there.
This just in. According to sources close to the situation, after discovering there are no good looking women in the Arkansas football headquarters facility, Bobby Petrino has decided to resign from his head coaching position at Arkansas.
Sources in Oakland and Arkansas have placed Lane Kiffin back in the mix as the front runner for the job. Someone get Adam Schefter on the phone!
Bastards made me lose sleep for nothing.
Psycho
I saw it, thanks blanda. Now watch me be wrong and our 3-4 D dominates next year.
Psycho
I'm not letting PFT off the hook, I'm just ignoring them, as I would have expected the local media to do in this case.
PFT has done nothing to merit my attention on this "story."
What's newsworthy to me isn't that a site publishes a wild rumor under the banner of "Rumor Mill," but rather that the local media would perpetuate the rumor under the guise of legitimate news.
I find PFT to be entertaining, and at least they call their rumors rumors.
RT, I see your point. But then they've grown big enough to where even their "rumors" take on a merit of their own, and they ought to at least give some hint as to why they think a source might be creditable.
Still, they do not call themselves "journalists" so your point remains intact.
For "rumors" there are two questions you have to ask. Who would benefit from the information being out there? Who would be damaged if it were discovered that they were the source of the information? PFT cites it, not as a source inside the Raider organization, but a source inside the NFL. The only name I can come up with that fits with the source and the answers to the questions is Lombardi.
RT, if you keep mentioning Kiffin being a space alien, I'm sure PFT would like to use you as a "source" on that bombshell. Maybe after the Michigan job is filled and they run out of options.
Psycho
Here's part of the hypocrisy perpetuated in the media.
The media crucified Nick Saban when he didn't say he was takeing the Alabama job with some number of games remaining. I think it was four. At the time the fish were still in the hunt, albeit slim, for a playoff berth.
After he was first approached, he turned it down and Alabama offered the job to Rich Rodriguez of West Virginia. He verbally agreed then backed out after the pot was sweetened by UVW.
Alabama waited until the season was over then got Saban. What went on in the interim I don't know.
But Saban was taken to task and treated like the anti-Christ for "lying" to the press in early December. They said he should have said he was going and go.
Now Petrino is being crucified for leaving with three games remaining and jumping ship. Admittedly Petrino snuck out of town through the back door, which is a lot worse than what Saban did.
But the media operates under the rule, "Even if they answer the question, keep asking." They hound people and spread rumors with no evidence then get all pompous and sanctimonious when those same people lie to them.
Much like the pot calling the kettle black.
H
Also, once one position is filled, much like Gruden when he was with us, Kiffins name will surface with the next one.
Sometimes it's the agent trying to get a raise for the coach. But, mostly it is lazy so called journalist with so many words they have to submit to their editor.
H
Here's something from Jerry MacDonald that I hadn't previously heard. It seems we have a back up for JaMarcus next season. JMac is of the impression (although he has not "source" to site) that Culpepper is done, and wants to move on to be a starter. But...
"McCown, on the other hand, has already said he wouldn't mind coming back."
McCown will make a fine #2. He likely won't find a starting spot out there so our chances are good.
Psycho
My god. It took us until week 14 before we put a bullet into our post season hopes. Sad part is, it's been years since we've been in it for this long.
Quite honestly, I always hoped we didn't make the playoffs this year. We haven't been ready for a prime-time game in 3 years. We wouldn't be ready for a playoff game this year. Losses in the post season nowadays takes teams years to recover from, literally.
So I got my wish. Can't say I'm all to excited about the Raiders not making the playoffs... but we are on the rise. Who wants to go into the playoffs with a pretty gun and no bullets? I expect holder of the AFC Western crown to fall flat on their face in the playoffs and their franchise will suffer for quite a while because of it.
We are in the middle of an insane portion of our schedule. We are facing teams that have the ability to go deep into the playoffs (and possibly the Super Bowl) during a crucial time of year for them. We don't get a break until San Diego, if you can call that a break. It's going to be interesting how we weather the storm. If it's anything like what happened in Green Bay it'll be painful to watch as a Raider fan. It'll be great for our future though.
This stretch will give our leaders hours of footage to look over. It will assist on answering the question of who is going to help our team or not. I am already excited about what this offseason and what it has potential for.
The very key thing that needs to happen is we need to have our coaching staff together as much as possible. Another year together will do nothing but good for the franchise. We cannot afford to lose many position assistants, let alone coordinators and the head coach.... again. The coaching carosel has to stop right now, and I honestly feel it has. I would applaud the decision to hire on a true GM for this team however. I feel its needed.
Lane Kiffin and Al Davis are going to argue and fight over personnel this offseason. Al has his ideas, and Lane has his. The plus for Raider fans is Lane is not a "yes man" and Al loves a good debate (as do most guys from Brooklyn, yes I'm generalizing, but prove me wrong....).
I like what direction we're heading in. It pisses me off that I'm writing another piece about how bright the future is. But when you stand back and look at it, we are getting better. All those people who want instant gradification aren't getting their way, but I'm not losing sleep over it. We'll win them back.
Lane Kiffin is handling the JaMarcus Russell situation the right way. He throws a beautiful football. I am not a JaMarcus fan yet because there are just too many question marks to me. However I can tell in the right situation next year that he can shine and he can win me over as a fan. That is difficult to do cause, as those of you who know me on this board, know that I can't stand quarterbacks and it takes me a while to even warm up to Raiders quarterbacks.
One thing I would like to see before we break for the offseason is Michael Bush get some playing time. I question drafting a 1 legged running back and I'm not too comfortable going into this offseason assuming he's going to play well next year. His situation is different that JaMarcus Russells... Russell doesn't have an arm ailment physically.
We have a great core of players that we need to concentrate on making financially happy this offseason.
Nnamdi is a no brainer. Corners like him deserve the money that over-paid mediocre corners get in San Fransisco.
Justin Fargas is another guy. Those who have followed my posts should be shocked to hear that. I have been exceptionally hard on the guy. The zone blocking scheme enables you to not have to pay top dollar to a running back or an offensive lineman, but this guy deserves every dollar he gets. He is a hard worker and is extremely hard to take down. The risk for complatency is very minimal and he appriciates everything. Lane Kiffin really brought out the absolute best in Fargas. Both will win big if they can get the deal done.
Tommy Kelly needs to be looked at for resigning. The only thing that worries me is he ability to stay healthy and help us out in the later months. Other than that, Tommy Kelly is the man!
As far as I know the rest of the productive guys are still under talent. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am prepared to write off this years drafting mistakes. For the most part I think this was Lane Kiffins draft and he learned quickly the translation between college and the pro's. The promising thing to me in this regime is we cut guys we just should not have drafted instead of holding onto them just to save face. That's a huge positive in my mind.
We need to draft lines. Period. Even if Chris Long wasn't Howie's kid I'd say we need to make him our priority. The guy is a game changer. If you never seen Long play all you need to know is his school retired his jersey while he was still active.
It would be nice to find some gems at guard and center in the draft. I am pleased with Jeremy Newberry's performance this year. He didn't play spectacular but he's been the best center we've had in a while. Jeremy's play enhances the play of young Jake Grove and he's just an all around good guy. He's no spring chicken though and I think we got out of him all we can get.
In free agency we need to key in on Albert Haynesworth. If we picked up anyone else in free agency it'd be an added bonus, but Haynesworth is the need. I don't think the character issues are present any more and should disappear with an entire change of environment. A healthy Haynesworth should make us a formidable opponent. Even if we keep the one dimensional Burgess or aging Sapp.
I expect Al Davis to be Al Davis in free agency though. I expect Al Davis to pick up a flashy wide reciever that likes to buck the system, self promote, and piss everyone off that is not on his side. I wouldn't be surprised if we signed Chad Johnson in the offseason. I am ignorant about Chad's contract situation in Kentucky but I just have a hunch.
There is hope... I am just have to drink (alot more than usual) during the month of December to black this beating we about to enbark on out. Then we are in the clear. If we do things I have laid out here, if the advise is followed and my hunches are correct. If the Chargers lay an egg in the playoffs this year....
.... we'll take their spot next year.
If the Raiders do end up looking for a HC next year, do you think Schottenheimer might be interested? HA!! :) JF
BLANDAROCKED,
let me get this straight.
the raiders hired rob ryan to be their DC. ryan likes to run a 3-4 defense, but because the raiders lack enough quality LB's, ryan is forced to use a 4-3 instead.
now, several years later, the raiders still do not have the personnel to play the 3-4 ryan prefers.
it doesn't look as if there is any plan at all to ever use the 3-4 defense. so ryan presses on and the raiders cannot stop the run.
to top it all off, you say if kiffin were to leave for some reason, the raiders should consider ryan, a failed DC, for the head coaching position.
have i got this story straight, or is there something i'm missing ?
oh, and yeah, al davis is great.
let's not forget that one.
A point of note:
Let's assume the Dolts win the division this season (pretty safe assumption).
Now, in this decade the Chefs will have one division championship, the Mules will have one, the Dolts will have three and we will have three. The Dolt's just caught us.
This team as currently constituted is not to far from being a playoff team. Established, consistant quarterback play, a decent left tackle and stopping the run on defense.
Those are the three major needs as I see it. I am keeping it to three because you can't fix everything at once.
Fill those gaps and we will be contending for our fourth division championship this decade.
As for QB, we have the man on the team. Will he work out? We shall see.
On defense, I can't see us moving to a 3-4. I would prefer we get the DT's in that can operate against the run. I like Sapp, but he doesn't play the run well. He isn't double teamed as much as in the past. Sacks are great when you get them from the tackles, but that's more the job of the ends and LB's. I don't understand why a coach who has been around football all their lives doesn't know the nuances between the 3-4 and the 4-3. So if Ryan needs to be replaced by a 4-3 genius, the so be it.
Turdell Sands was given a big contract and has shown very little return on investment for the Raiders. A guy that big should be attracting two or three blockers every run play. He needs to be replaced.
At left tackle, I would prefer going FA. Get a known quantity. Not sure who is out there this year but there is time to investigate.
I know we could use some help at safety, but maybe Eugene can fill in at SS and Huff can move to FS while the other items are being addressed.
Just one man's opinion.
H
Speaking of News You Can't Use, check this out:
http://www.realfootball365.com/nfl/articles/20603.html
Psycho
Well, Raider00, now that you've put a bunch of words in my mouth, I'll spit them out and tell you what my position is.
I don't think Kiffin is going anywhere, nor do I think Ryan is going anywhere. Others here have suggested that Ryan's trouble is that he only knows the 3-4. Just because a post is next to mine, don't assume that I necessarily echo it.
I don't think the trouble is with Ryan, I listen to Sapp who says the trouble is the players' inability to learn to "stay in their gaps, and do their damn jobs."
Is it your problem that you don't think I should be allowed to muse on somebody elses suggestion even if I don't necessarily agree with it? My portion of that conversation is essentially, the 3-4 takes a long term commitment, the team identity is more important, Ryan (physically) fits the team identity if PFT is right (which I've pretty much said repeatedly that they are not).
Now, whoes post do you want me to answer for? It might be easier if you just gave me somebodies quote and I tell you what I think of it.
H,
I'm still a caveman fan for the most part but I feel I should point out something else.
We gave "Turdell" that huge contract last year mostly based on Ryan's opinion of him. Ryan was ranting & raving about what a force he is, and that he is going to be one of the top DT's in the league.
Either Ryan was wrong on that, or he hasn't coached Turdell up right. Either way Ryan owes us one.
Psycho
BLANDAROCKED,
here is what i read in your 9:21 am blog:
"if SOB can't coach a 4-3, i'd say we need to get a new DC. either that or make him HC and have him define who we really are...
but i think i pretty much prefer kiffin...
if there's any merit to the kiffin rumors, i'd say turn it over to Rob".
you seem to be saying we should fire ryan as DC, but consider him for HC, no ?
you also seem to say we must use a 4-3 D, even if we were to hire a HC,(Ryan), that believes in a 3-4 style, no ?
if not your words, where to you get this crazy stuff ?????
Right on the nail, RT! You were right in not mentioning the site and giving them unwarranted PR. I would take it a step further and not even mention the rumors anymore as it become clear that there will always be speculative disharmony following the Raiders until Al meets his maker. Our offseason begins Sunday in terms of player and coaching evaluations, and if we use this time wisely, we may be able to get some bargaining chips for draft picks. Addressing Blanda's point, wouldn't you argue that the identity of the Oakland Raiders, for better or worse, is Al Davis?
It's kind of easy to answer. There is the word "if" in there. Words mean things. "If Rob Ryan can't handle the 4-3..." You see how that works?
Personally, I think he can, and I think his defensive system works - when it's played correctly as it was in Denver. I didn't say "Rob Ryan can't handle the 4-3 so lets make him HC." If you can find that quote, let me know.
There's also another "if" in there. "If PFT is correct..." I did not say, "PFT is right about Kiffin so let's make Rob Ryan the head coach."
So the way this game of "if" is played essentially, "if" one thing happens, maybe another thing should happen.
Lastly, you can be a better HC than a DC and visa versa. It is possible, you know. They are, in fact, different jobs. It just like you can be a better player than a coach, or a better coach than a player. Or do you believe that if you are crappy at one thing, you must be crappy at everything?
If if's and butts are candy and nutts.....How does that go?
Blandarocked,
rob ryan is in his 4th season as DC for the raiders. i do not think there is any reason whatsoever for the word "if".
our defense sucks and he is in charge. that is a fact.
i don't put it all on ryan's shoulders. he said when he came here he was a 3-4 guy.
the raiders should have obtained the proper personnel for the 3-4 D, or found a DC who could coach the 4-3 effectively.
that's the real problem here. the raiders are constantly trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
ryan is another example of that.
i have seen good coordinators become bad HC's (norv turner for one), but i have never seen a bad coordinator become a good HC.
can you name one ?
Raider00, not off the top of my head, but it's not a matter of can't, it's a matter of few opportunities. Generally a bad coordinator never gets the chance to be an HC. But the jobs are different. I'll tell you that I think Art Shell is a far better HC than he would be a coordinator. He's never been a coordinator, but I believe he'd be crappy at it. The first time around Shell was a good HC as long as he had good people around him.
An HC can survive by being an effective manager, a coordinator can't.
And I disagree with you. Whenever the players "cover their gaps, and do their damn job" Ryan's defense works just fine. Or are you ignoring the Denver game?
Re "cover your gaps, and do your damn job." It's interesting to note that the Colts had exactly the same problem with their defense last year. They were atrocious against the run. They gave up something like 175 yards a game. According to their coach, it was the same problem. Players weren't covering their gaps. Then, in the playoffs, suddenly they got it, and they've been just fine since.
Blandarocked,
no need to ignore the donks game.
but we won the chefs game too and still gave up tons of yards on the ground.
you can't put lipstick on this pig. we have been a terrible run defense this season.
if ryan returns next year, we'd better get him his players for the 3-4, or else i wouldn't expect much improvemnet.
Apparently, having "rumor" in a name or heading is a license to commit journalistic fraud.
What's the chances of Saban or Petrino ever being considered for NFL jobs again? Zero! Two losers with no personal or professional integrity.
I like the way Petrino linked his desire not to coach for the Raiders as the “best thing for his family,” later stating that his decision to coach for Atlanta was the “best thing for his family,” and now saying that abandoning Atlanta for Arkansas is the “best thing for his family.” What a tool, using “his family” as an excuse for self-indulging gains. News flash Bobby, it’s all about you!
Kiffin wants to be an NFL coach. Hopefully, AD will give him the autonomy he needs to do his job well.
Raider00,
Our players can't stay in their gaps running a simplistic base 4-3 which they've been running for years. The other issue is they can't tackle if they DO manage to fill a gap.
What makes you think a change to a 3-4 will fix these problems? It would probably just complicate matters to the point where we're twice as bad against the run. When you're talking about running the 3-4 you're talking about a complicated blitzing scheme no matter how you cut it.
I'm all for getting some better players here & there, and I'm all for experimenting with the 3-4. But don't get it twisted, it's not a magic wand.
Psycho
Psycho,
no magic needed here, just something the raiders have lacked for 25 yrs now, common sense.
rob ryan believes in the 3-4 defense. he said that when he came here.
the expectation was that the raiders would be switching to a 3-4 defense. that was four yrs ago.
today, we still have a 3-4 D coordinator, coaching a 4-3 scheme.
what sense does that make ?
why won't the raiders go get ryan the players he needs to coach the system he knows best ??
and psycho, are you saying if it's hard, the raiders shouldn't try to do it ?
should the raiders only take the easy way ?
sure doesn't sound like the road to the super bowl to me.
And, BTW, Raider00...
How you "quoted" me:
"if SOB can't coach a 4-3, i'd say we need to get a new DC. either that or make him HC and have him define who we really are...
but i think i pretty much prefer kiffin...
if there's any merit to the kiffin rumors, i'd say turn it over to Rob"
And what I really said:
"If SOB can't coach a 4-3, I'd say we need to get a new DC. Either that or make him HC and have him define who we are. He's already got the look for it. But I think I pretty much prefer Kiffin.
"If there is any merit to the Kiffin rumors, I'd say turn it over to Rob, but I don't think there is any there there."
Very similar, but nuance means quite a bit. I think it's mostly what you left out that's important.
Raider00:
I think it's the HC who generally determines what D we're going to use. I know you'd argue that Al Davis determines everything, but the Raiders have used the 3-4 during his history with the team.
And I agree with Psycho, even though he didn't exactly say what I'm about to say. If you can't do a 4-3, you have no place in the NFL.
Raider00,
I'm not against switching to the 3-4 in the long run. So no I'm not saying take the easy way out. Just trying to put things into perspective (see my late post on previous Take for details).
Realistically though it cannot be done in one season in our current state without a complete overhaul of the front 7. And right now that energy needs to be focused on the offense as much, if not more, than the defense.
So yeah, when looking at D prospects keep the 3-4 in mind and maybe run it a little. But we can't put all our eggs in one basket over it.
And as long as Sapp is on this team I'm completely against running the 3-4 as our primary D. If he retires, fine. But personally, I'd never cut him.
And Burgess? Are you willing to part with him? 5 sacks 16 sacks, I'm not. and I wouldn't expect him to cover TE's in a 3-4 either.
Psycho
Blandarocked,
you know i think al davis determines everything ?
are you putting words in my mouth ??
Psycho,
you are right, switching to a 3-4 defense probably cannot be done in one season.
that is why we should have started the moment rob ryan was hired.
the 3-4 was ryan's strength, and yet we make him coach to his apparent weakness.
to me it's simple. if ryan returns next year, we must begin the proccess of switching to the 3-4 no matter how hard it might be.
if we are sticking with a 4-3 scheme, ryan must go.
Sorry, Raider00, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. And regarding the 4-3, I still think the problem is the horses and not the trainer. I also think that SOB will get a look for HC by the Dolphins and the 49ers in the off season.
I'm curious how Kiffin will use JRuss this weekend. My guess is that JRuss will get the 2nd quarter. That way he can get to a 2 minute drill, and still not have to play with the game on the line.
However, I'm starting to think JRuss will get the start agains SD.
Bama7
We need to simply figure out who's in charge of the D and what scheme we want to run on D. Seems there's no clarity. Why? I suppose Coach Davis & Coach Ryan aren't jelling well. Ryan did seem to be a 3-4 guy that was being allowed to try a 3-4 initially, with one caveat... he had to try it WITH AL'S personnel... Brayton, Irons etc etc. An experiment that really never had a chance. We need a fresh start on D next year. We need a DC that will do like Kiffen and try to be his own man... push Al aside. I bet anything Monte has heard his son talk about this and is advising him of DC's he should push for. You can bet Monty will help him diagnose the D and I bet personnel and placement is most of the problem. Has Caveman spoke up and said, "I need this guy" or "get me this guy in FA"? Doesn't look like it.
I like Howie's kid, but what top offensive tackles has he went head to head with? I don't watch much ACC. I know Virginia thumped Pitt but the tackle for Pitt is supposedly round 1 material... how'd Long do in that game? How'd he do against VA TEch, the best team in the conference? I like Long, but the ACC is so weak right now, we'd need to be careful.
I think competition in college is a big key to evaluating draft picks.
We need to start abiding by two things when we draft:
1. Did they produce in college against good competition? If they didn't, then chances are they won't produce in the pros.
2. Do they fit our schemes?
Kiffen has a definite scheme and plan... and should look to add players suited for his scheme... particularly at WR. As for the D, I'm not sure what the hell we're trying to run, all I know is the talk about not filling gaps and assignments is getting old... I still contend that we do not have personnel on D that WANT to be in those gaps. No physicality. Very little. Plenty of combine talent and speed, but very little blue collar types.
I watch mostly SEC (I don't think it is necessarily the best conference, just a little up right now... I think USC is probably the best team) and I'll be a bit of a homer here: I really like Quenten Groves of Auburn. A lot. I think he can make the transition to OLB in the NFL and would make for a very nasty LB trio if we had him alongside Morrison and Howard. Groves is a very physical player. Nasty like Takeo Spikes and Karlos Dansby.
I also like Kelin Johnson of Georgia. I nice hitter who might could play SS in the nfl and be had in a later round.
>>>>
It would probably just complicate matters to the point where we're twice as bad against the run.
>>>>
We are already one of the worst in the NFL against the run for four fucking straight seasons... I, for one, am SICK OF IT. How much worse can it be? If we go from 30th to 32 next year, I don't think we are losing much.
SOMETHING has to change. How can anyone argue with this?
>>>>
I also think that SOB will get a look for HC by the Dolphins and the 49ers in the off season.
>>>>
For gawd sake... if there is a god!
I agree here... we either have to throw everything we have at the 3-4 or get this moron off our staff.
Four years of sucking against the run is enough for my taste.
SOB's run defenses:
2004: 22nd
2005: 25th
2006: 25th
2007: 31st
We've had nearly an entire new defense since 2003 and the only constant is we still suck. Sorry, it's the coaching... not the players.
Raider00,
I understand your frustration. But just because you feel we "should've" been preparing for a 3-4 doesn't mean we're in position to just shoot from the hip and decide we're going to make the change, and expect results. What I'm trying to do is look at our current situation and go from there.
And I think you may be onto something when you say "If we're sticking with the 4-3 then Ryan must go". That could very well be true. Maybe it's just not in the cards.
Gary,
We're all SICK OF IT. But adding complicated schemes to a group which is seemingly clueless half the time in a simple scheme may not be the most prudent thing in the world.
My first response sometimes is to 'blitz first and ask questions later' too, but that doesn't mean it will work in the NFL.
I still think we should blitz more in the 4-3, which is what we'd expect the 3-4 to give us. So given the personnel situation we should start from there, IMO. Oh, and tackle once in a while.
Psycho
Psycho... I am reminded of the general in the movie "War Games"... "I'd spit on a spark plug right now if I thought it would work".
All I know is something is completely broke that needs to be fixed before ANYTHING is accomplished. Whether its a 3-4 or a new DC, I really don't care. Just please don't give me the same ol' shit next year. It's not just the players fault because they have all changed and it's still the same... no actually... ITS GETTING WORSE!!!!!
Gary,
Relax guy, Kiffin will fix it. And I guarantee you it won't involve a complete rehaul of the front 7. New Coordinator? Maybe. This time last year that was the last thing on my mind but ya' never know with these things.
We've got some puzzle pieces, and we've figured some things out. Losses teach you a lot more than wins, afterall.
Psycho
A few questions that I would love to ask SOB ...
Hey SOB, why don't you blitz Thomas Howard from the edge once or twice a game? Is he not the fastest LB in the NFL? Wouldn't the opponent's QB shit in his pants seeing Howard's 4.3 speed blazing right at him? Wouldn't this (a) cause a sack (b) a hurried throw (c) an interception (d) shock and suprise the hell out of the opponent? Just wondering ... sincerely, Calico Jack
Soooooo......How 'bout those Texans, huh?
Psycho
I second that, Calico. -Psycho
Calico,
great questions, but i doubt rob ryan would have any answers for ya.
the man doesn't have a clue.
Gary,
thanks for listing those stats of our fearless run defense.
wow, horrible against the run every year with Sob.
the man sucks, let's move on.
has anybody seen Charlie Sumner ?
Raider00,
See what I mean by shooting from the hip? In the coarse of a few hours you went from:
a) Running a 3-4 because Ryan knew it best, affecting our organization for years to come in our commitment to Ryan. To...
b) "The man sucks"
We would've lost Sapp, Burgess, maybe Morrison, Richardson, who knows....To satisfy the preference of an average (unless you count run D) coordinator.
Like Al says, it's all about the players. The players we currently have are tuned to the 4-3, so IMO we run it, one way or another.
Psycho
Psycho,
nice try, but you should read my blogs again. there is no inconsistency in what i said.
yes, we should have run the 3-4 because that is what ryan is best at. but we didn't.
and yes, ryan does suck at running the 4-3. as evidence i will offer up about 12 games so far this season.
if you need further proof, check out the stats GARY posted showing our terrible run defense every year that ryan has coached the D.
i do agree with you that players are very important. but before you draft/sign players, it would help a lot if you know what scheme you are going to employ.
it would also be smart if you know the scheme before you hire a DC.
this way you do not end up with a 3-4 coordinator, coaching a 4-3 scheme.
i don't think anyone in their right minds would sit down and plan things out this way.
at least, it doesn't make any sense to me.
so if we have to wait for howie long, mike haynes, and ted hendricks to walk through that door,(this is my rick pitino impression), well, they are not walking through that door.
hell, i'd settle for BUDDY ryan to walk through that door and kick his adobted son in the ass !!!
The bottom line on our run defense may, I repeat may, lie in the interior line. Since Warren was injured, our DT's have really stunk. I include Sapp, but especially Sands. A guy 6' 7" with a 17 million dollar contract shouldn't be single blocked. Not with any success anyway.
When Albert Haynesworth of Tennessee went down, so did the teams sack average and they started giving up 25 to 30 yards more per game on the ground.
We all thought Sands would become that type of player. We were wrong.
That, in my humble opinion is the biggest hole on defense to fill. Way bigger than safety or defensive end.
H
The last 4 year's run D stats do not tell the whole picture.
Remember, we've had no offense to press teams into high-scoring affairs. Last year, teams literally ran regardless of their success because they knew we couldn't score.
This year is another story... of pure collapse. SOB plays a read and react D which is killing us. I've said before, pressure is better than coverage. SOB obviously prefers coverage.
Blitzing Howard makes incredible sense. But let's not limit it to Howard. A good D will always keep the O off guard by bringing different players to the line, and not revealing their intention (pressure or coverage) until the snap. Conversely, our base D alignment is the same on every play. Where's the mystery?
When was the last time we witnessed a safety blitz, or even a corner blitz?
Yeah, but we have seen our entire D line drop back into coverage. Yikes!
what is funny is that in light of the "rumors" of kiffin throwing a chair and temper tantrum when petrino was named head coach, jerry mac of inside bay area sports, wrote on his blog last night:
"Kiffin threw a chair through his office window and challenged Al Davis to fight when he found out Norm Chow was interviewing for the UCLA job, according to a non-industry source who made up the story."
freaking hilarious j!
hey blanda and raider00. i'm the one who originally posted that rob ryan has had problems with the 4-3 scheme on the last blog post or so. he is a 3-4 guy, which is why he tried to use it in his first year under turner. we are not far removed from having the tools of a 3-4 defense (or even a 4-4- defense). we have the corners to run it. we also have speedy linebackers in morrison, howard, and thomas. ricky brown could fit this mold if he gets more time to play. we need one or two more decent linebackers, and a big defensive tackle to make it happen. this is a big reason why i thought we would have kept donovin darius, but we may need a safety since schweig is not working out. either that or do what was suggested, move huff to ss, and eugene to fs. either way, we not far removed from having key players set to run a 3-4 scheme.
our first pick of the draft may be chris long, who won the ted hendricks award. he is a defensive end though, a position we don't really need unless burgess flies the coup. i think some people want him though, because of who is dad is, and not his talent; the "reviving the old raiders" mentality. i just want someone who will be physical.
we need a defensive tackle and a left tackle more than anything, which is why i think our pick could also be jake long (michigan).
just my two cents.
oh yeah, schefter is reporting that kiffin is talking to ucla.
This just in:
Lane Kiffing is considering a run for the Presidency and will be entering the South Carolin Primary.
According to sources there is a connection as Kiffin stated, "I have fond memories of flying over the great sate of South Carolin on a trip to visit my family in Tampa."
However, Kiffin was informed late on Thursday it was to late to file papers with the State Elections Committee. Upon hearing this it was reported by a league source Kiffin threw Al Davis' walker through a window then slammed his thumb in his desk drawer while cussing.
The news was especially troubling to defensive coordinator Rob Ryan who was expected to be the nominee for Secretary of Defense in a Kiffin cabinet.
Persons close to the situation speaking on the condition of anonymity said Ryan immediately dunked safety Stuart Schweigert in the whirlpool and held his head under water until he hollered "Uncle."
Story developing - Film at 11:00.
H
Why is www.nfl.com showing in their first page Kiffin and head coaching jobs at UCLA and more college programs!
h!
your last post! HILARIOUS MAN!!!!
because Shefter is a tool...
because Shefter is a tool...
Raidercoachella,
Thanks, gotta keep your sense of humor.
As for Adam Schefter,
Here is a quote from Wikipedia on the man:
"He is noted for his on-screen professionalism as well as his ability to get accurate inside information, and was the one who reported on NFL Total Access that the Raiders were to fire then Head Coach Art Shell. As no one could have possibly predicted this firing, colleagues of Schefter's were most impressed with his hard work."
His claim to fame is predicting the firing of Art Shell. I must be pretty good, I predicted that myself. Hell, 3/4 of us probably did that.
Adam Schefter is a Mule sycophant who covered the Mules for the Denver Post and probably has an agenda against the Raiders.
I nor anyone here can say with 100% certainty Kiffin will be here next season. But, Kiffin has stated he is not looking and doesn't know where these rumors are coming from. Thus far he has been fairly open and honest.
Until he shows me different, I believe him. I hope and believe he has more committment to this team than Petrino did to his.
H
Yeah Schefter don't reference any actual proof, or even convincing evidence that Kiffin would even consider a move. It's pure speculation.
http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story?id=09000d5d8050d192&template=with-video&confirm=true
Two or three days ago I had more respect for the guy than I do today. I thought he had good sources out there but on this issue he seems to just be another blind sheep following the heard of ignorance. Over the past few days he's been blabbing on about it all over NFL Total Access & other NFL Network shows at every opportunity. It's all speculation there, too.
He seems to be trying to force the issue. You know, if you say something enough times maybe even Kiffin himself will start to believe it and it will become reality.
Psycho
There is no question in my mind that Schefter is getting this crap from Lombardi. Schefter says his sources are inside the Raider organization.
PFT gets crap directly from Schefter at times. So follow...
PFT reports it first.
Schefter reports it later that same day.
Schefter has long time ties to the donkeys.
Lombardi works for the donkeys, and now hates the Raiders who he worked for up until last year.
Lombardi was accused of being a mole last year, and Schefter was the one saying that he had confirmation from inside the organization that Shell was going to be fired.
Does this only strike me as very convenient?
The reason they're so desperate to push this story is because they know that Kiffin is turning the Raiders around. The Raiders will soon be force to be delt with, AGAIN. No one, other that us, wants that to happen.
>>>>
When was the last time we witnessed a safety blitz, or even a corner blitz?
>>>>
Well.. one thing is for sure. If SOB was coaching during the tuck game, there would have been no controversy.
Woodson came in on a corner blitz.
I can't think of the last time I have seen that. Prolly under Breshnahan?
As someone said earlier this year... we are giving away for free what NE was trying to steal... the defensive signals. We have the same play 95% of the time.
We have the fastest defense in the NFL and all we use them for is back-peddling. Simply amazing.
>>>>
we need a defensive tackle and a left tackle more than anything, which is why i think our pick could also be jake long (michigan).
just my two cents.
>>>>
I'm guessing Al would rather have a root-canal than take another tackle that high again after Gallery's struggles (although he looks very good at guard now).
I'm thinking SOH, if he's still there, or a D-tackle. Al usually attacks our biggest problem... and run defense is it this year.
Even the Indy media has our number on Run D.
"Running behind a banged-up line, Addai hasn't had a 100-yard game in six weeks. Over the past five he has averaged 54.2 yards a game and 3.1 a carry."
That should change this week. Sorry, go ahead and read on...
"Addai should find more room against a defense that ranks 31st against the rush at 131.2 yards a game. Nine backs have run for more than 100 yards against the Raiders. San Diego's LaDainian Tomlinson managed 198, and the list includes three backups: Houston's Ron Dayne (21-122), Kansas City's Kolby Smith (31-150) and Minnesota's Chester Taylor (22-164). Tackling has been a problem."
That's an understatement.
There is much collective wisdom in these parts, so I want to ask all of you for some theoretical answers to the following question: After seeing more bad angles followed by feeble arm tackles displaying an utter lack of fundamentals, week after week, what is the subsequent conversation between coordinator and players?
Are these fundamentals just too hard to grasp? Is there some reason why they aren't observed? Are the players just incapable of performing them? What gives?
Think of your own job, and your own boss. Surely you have something in your job that compares to tackling fundamentals for a professional football player. For mailman, that would be putting the right mail in the right box. For a welder, that would mean finishing the weld properly so that the bridge doesn't collapse. You know, basic job fundamentals, stuff that sort of comes with the job. And what would your boss say if you simply couldn't grasp or execute these fundamentals?
Sometimes I just have to wonder, what is the conversation? Am I missing something, is it much more mysterious and complex than I could have ever imagined, and if not, what gives?
Kiff hung this quote by Winston Churchill in every players' locker today...
"A competitor will find a way to win. Competitors take bad breaks and drive themselves just that much harder. Quitters take bad breaks and use them as excuses to give up. It’s all a matter of pride."
Jerry Mac has 12 for the over/under on how many players know who Winston Churchill was.
H, wasn't he our RG in 1969? ;-)
RT, you have me stumped. How many time have we hear, as each new coach comes in, that he's putting the team through tackling drills, and stressing fundamentals in practice. Then, when all is said and done, we get more of the same.
The core of these Raiders seem to have more quit in them than any team I've witnessed, and I haven't a clue as to how you get rid of it other than just pick 'n' pull, and weed - a process that takes a good deal of time.
It is possible that in the present case, the "we don't rebuild, we reload" philosophy has painted us into a corner. Teams that aren't afraid to rebuild, and rebuild quickly, are not afraid to replace more than half the team in a single season and suffer the consequences for a season or two until they get back on track.
Added...
RT, what truly perplexes me is that these guys, to a man, know how to tackle. They even do it from time to time - as a team!
After such games, we here sit around talking about how we've finally turned the corner, only to watch them stop tackling the following week.
Both Shell (last year) and Kiffin (this year) seem to be of the belief that the problem is attitude. Both coaches use diametrically opposed systems to try and turn that attitude around. While the players this year are far more "in," the tackling is just as bad. So maybe it's not attitude.
Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! I know! It's not Kiffin who is the alien. It's the players!
PatriotsDynasty
Go Raiders! Beat the Colts this weekend! A Colts loss assures that my Patriots will have home field advantage throughout the playoffs, so lets go Silver and Black. I hope JaMarcus gets in there and puts 300 yards and 3 TD's on the board!! Lets Go Raiders!!!!! Lets Go Raiders!!!!!
NY Raider: The excerpt you quoted was very generous to the Raiders poor run D.
"Addai should find more room against a defense that ranks 31st against the rush at 131.2 yards a game. Tackling has been a problem."
We actually give up 150.4 yards a game vice 131.2. Here are our season Rush D #s:
Games: 13
Att: 405
Avg. Carries: 31.2
Total Yards: 1995
YPC: 4.8
Avg: 150.4
First Downs: 101
TDs: 21
20+ yard carries: 16
The number of 20+ yard gains of 16 is staggering in comparison to the league average which is close to 7.
In answer to your question RT, I think the poor rush D is an overall lack of physicality. The physicality should stem from an aggressive attitude yet fundamentally sound principles.
Some of the problems that I see:
1. Raider defenders seem to absorb blows instead of exploding into the ball carrier.
2. Raider defenders don't seem to square up and meet the ball carrier head on.
3. Raider defenders rarely penetrate the interior line and get into the backfield
4. Our SS & MLB have a difficult time shedding blockers.
5. Too many defenders tackle too high
6. Lack of gap control and assignment discipline
7. Our LBs play too far off the LOS
Churchill himself probably has a better answer:
"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."
Sir Winston Churchill
i do not beleive kiffin is going anywhere, anytime soon.
let's face it, all coaches have a bit of opportunist in them, and i'm sure kiffin is no different.
but the raiders have an ace in the hole here, and that is jamarcus russell.
we have barely scratched the surface of this mans abilities and, who knows, we could be sitting on an all time great one with russell.
no head coach with any brains is going to walk away from that.
kiffin is smart enough to let the russell situation play itself out.
is russell is a star, kiffin turns the raiders around and is a big time hero.
if russell flops, well, then maybe kiffin starts looking for unlocked doors.
any coach would know that there's no replacement for winning.
look at bill cower. the man is sitting pretty, like a king on a throne, waiting for the world to be offered to him.
he didn't get there by leaving the steelers after one season to grab some faceless college job.
he got there by sticking to it through the tough times, turning things around, and becoming a champion.
if kiffin is smart, i believe he is, this is the raod he will take.
to grab a college job, and become just another face in the crowd, and to leave the talented Jruss to another coach. that would be down right stupid in my book.
also raider00,
just look at the way Kiffin has handled Russell.....right? he's not taking any chances of J-Russ being mishandled. If he wasn't dedicated to this team, and trying to build it's future, he most certainly would be gambling with our future and pushing J-Russ into more playing time and starting.
not that we really need to prove to anyone that Kiff's our man........but you know...another way to look at it
Blandarocked,
Close, Winston Churchill was drafted as a tightend in '68 and converted to RG in '69.
On Jerry Mac's over under. There was a survey done in Britain and almost 50% of people under age 25 didn't know who Winston Churchill was.
If Kiffin is quoting Churchill he's not only trying to motivate he's checking the intelligence level of the team.
If he wants historical warriors, Patton would be a good one too. But, it wouldn't be very politically correct.
Further, in my humble opinion, if he's going that far, he's also trying to find out just who want's to stay around.
H
Calico- that’s funny. They did short our run D about 20 ypg. Maybe they were just subtracting one (per game) of the staggering 20+ yard run gains... because no team should have 16.
RT- as far as our D, are you sure it’s the players who have lost sight of fundamentals?
They are being told to play read and react D, which I attribute to failure nos. 1, 3, 6 and 7 of Calico’s 7:37pm post:
1. Raider defenders seem to absorb blows instead of exploding into the ball carrier.
This has got to be a trademark of a read and react D.
3. Raider defenders rarely penetrate the interior line and get into the backfield
This comes from relying 99% of the time on our base 4 DL to control the line without help from LB (see #7) or blitz packages. Worse yet, occasionally sending DL into coverage.
One of my biggest complaints is that we never disguise our D alignments. We simply allow opposing teams to identify their assignments before each play, and we never move players around unless the other team does (read and react).
6. Lack of gap control and assignment discipline
I believe the players would like to be more aggressive, and that’s partly why they over-pursue and leave their gaps (aside from discipline issues).
7. Our LBs play too far off the LOS
The SOB philosophy is “coverage is better than pressure.” That’s why we see Warren Sapp twenty yards off the line covering a RB, or our entire line back in coverage on a critical game-determining 4th down.
Also notable: The Huff experiment should end. He’s not a SS. Play him at corner or FS, and place either Routt or Washington at the other.
What we have here (with coaching and management), is a failure to communicate.
I understand the problems. I'm wondering about the conversations, like the kind of conversation a postmaster might have with a mailman who can't put mail into the right box. I shall demonstrate, using examples from Calico and NY Raider:
Caveman says: Stu, how many times have we talked about squaring up and meeting the ball carrier head on? Now look at this clip from Sunday's game. You had him, but then you didn't square up and tried to arm tackle. I can't tell you how sick I am of seeing you do this? What gives? This is basic stuff. What's your problem?
Stu says: (fill in the blank)
OR
Stu says: Caveman, this read and react defense is killing us. We're absorbing blows, not giving blows. The proof is in the rushing stats and yards after catch. Week after week. We're hamstrung by your approach. What gives?
Caveman says: (fill in the blank)
I'm just curious about these things, because as fans, we watch this stuff week after week, and we have to wonder how it's discussed among the perpetrators themselves when they watch the same film week after week. Remember, I'm not talking about some random missed assignment, but pure, simple fundamentals that are essential to the job description.
i think the coaching should be up in their faces for the crappy arm tackling. put a body on the guys.
you know willie brown isn't teaching that. someone said, and i agree with it, that they are bracing for impact, and not swarming to the ball. the exception to that is morrison and howard. stu is always near the play, but he usually has his hands in his pockets, watching the others tackle.
i think the problem is we have talented players, but they're soft. they seem to be focused more on the fundamentals, and are overthinking things when they have to make a play; instead of being aggressive on the play.
i think our coaches are teaching, and hammering away on "fundamentals," getting the right angles, putting yourself in position to make plays, etc. our guys are overthinking these things. i agree that fundamentals are important, but they seem to be forgetting that being aggressive to the ball, and making tackles are more important to these fundamentals. i agree rt, what do you say as a coach there? it's like they are almost "over-teaching" these things.
This is going to be a, well, uhh interesting game... I wonder if Manning will even do his no-huddle calling of the play (based on the defense)... why would he bother? It's the same look every play. And will SOB even TRY to play a chess match with him, or just do the same ol some ol all game while they march up and down the field?
If GB can stick 38 on us with one of the worst running games in the league... what will Indy's number twelve do to us, especially with Manning having "5 apple, 6 apple" to pick us apart?
This could get ugly early... kinda looking forward to seeing Russell again, and thats about it. Maybe he will get to play the entire second half if we are down by 30 at half?
RT- When it comes to simple things, like mail delivery, I'm at a loss. If the players are not putting the mail in the right mail slot, game after game, they should be fired. Unfortunately, supply and demand forces have given the