Hire New DC and Replace Hill? (was Vic Fangio, Wink Martindale)

[Critty]

Lulls like 30 minutes of shooting themselves in the foot and then giving the opposing offense the ball on the 19 yard line.....only to have the D hold.
Yeah, that type of complementary football wears out the defense.

Does the 29th defense wear out the 5th offense?

[BayAreaBoltz]

One of my biggest issues with Lombo is ALL THE STALLED DRIVES...and a LOT of those 3-and-outs are due to poor, PREDICTABLE playcalling! That LONG stretch in the Raider game with no scoring by us...just mind-numbing...then later on, sending Ekkie up the gut TWICE vs. a stacked box...dude, seriously? Awful, awful playcalling at times...

I wish someone could look up how many of those 3 and outs were actually only 3 plays and out. Not just a drive stalling after getting past the 50 and then going 3 and out. It seemed that this offense was feast or famine (feast was mostly Herbert heroics, it seems). Quite often, we'd get the ball and, sadly, the drive would be done in only 3 plays - for a few series in a row. One - fine. But no more. Get a couple first downs, at least and flip the field.

[TTThunder]

Top 5 scoring offense in his 1st year and he gets a D.
wow, you're a very tough grader.

1. I'd grade him a D-.

My criteria is - does he maximize Herbert's talent? I don't think he did...

2.This was my append in another topic:

(I only watched our games via NFL weekly highlight from YouTube...)

What I noticed from Herbert:

1. He didn't throw as many deep passes as last year...

(Even if the opponent tries to prevent it, I still think we need to make it work more often. It is Herbert's strength, and I believe we should plan our offense game to MAXIMIZE his strength...

I also prefer us to EXERT our wills on the defense (pro active), rather than taking what they give us (reactive)....

I think our OC often forgets that Herbert can throw deep very well....)

2. I didn't recall seeing his throws batted down at the line of scrimmage at all last year. This year, it was like a few each games!!!

Why is that?? (As short as K.Murray is, his passes didn't seem to be batted down often....)

3. As bad as our OL was last year, I didn't see his throws off target a lot. This year, sometimes I wonder who he was targeting?!?

(Or is it because he didn't do as well under pressure as last year?)

4. So my concern is - does Herbert really improve this year? (In short, do we have proper QB coach & OC for him??)

(Personally, I felt that the QB coach & OC did wonder for him last year. This year, I think they need to do more/better...)

Go Herbert!!!

Go Bolts!!!

[powderblueboy]

1. I'd grade him a D-.

My criteria is - does he maximize Herbert's talent? I don't think he did...

2.This was my append in another topic:



Go Bolts!!!

Seems like a stale-mate, or divided opinion, on Lombardi.

Why don't we have Chaincrusher settle the tie? He's open minded about this.

[Steve]

The Raiders were never going for the tie, that is all post-game bullshit. The are just fucking with everyone at Staley's expense. C'mon, man.

The Raiders would have been content with the tie. They had been running the clock down because if they didn't, we would have won the game. No way any team gives Herbert the ball back with enough time if they can help it. So, yeah they were running the clock down, but they were going to try the FG no matter what. If it had been a 70-yard kick they would have tried, and it was only 57 yards, which is right around Carlson's range (his longest is 56).

They also have Carr at QB. No one has brought this up, but if you were Biassacia, would you have put the ball in Carr's hands that late in a game you didn't have to win? Hell no. Carr goes to pieces so badly people get hurt by the shrapnel. Carr throws a pass late, we get the ball back and have time to get into scoring position, so that was never in the cards for the Raiders.

Was there any reason for the Raiders to not try a long kick at the end of regulation, 60+ yards out? No, giving up field position in OT with time expiring was not an issue for the Raiders. Theoretically, they might have been concerned about Roberts running it back ... but it's our ST, so no not really. Another team, maybe. Not the Chargers ST.

The ball was on the Chargers' 39 yard line before the Josh Jacobs run. That is a 57 yard FG. Not a chip shot, but the guy is on a really good streak at home. No way they don't take the kick, even if we do stop Jacobs. Even if we knock him back 5 yards on 3rd down they take the kick.

Then they broke the long-sh run and the FG became a chip shot.

[DallasEire]

The Raiders would have been content with the tie. They had been running the clock down because if they didn't, we would have won the game. No way any team gives Herbert the ball back with enough time if they can help it. So, yeah they were running the clock down, but they were going to try the FG no matter what. If it had been a 70-yard kick they would have tried, and it was only 57 yards, which is right around Carlson's range (his longest is 56).

They also have Carr at QB. No one has brought this up, but if you were Biassacia, would you have put the ball in Carr's hands that late in a game you didn't have to win? Hell no. Carr goes to pieces so badly people get hurt by the shrapnel. Carr throws a pass late, we get the ball back and have time to get into scoring position, so that was never in the cards for the Raiders.

Was there any reason for the Raiders to not try a long kick at the end of regulation, 60+ yards out? No, giving up field position in OT with time expiring was not an issue for the Raiders. Theoretically, they might have been concerned about Roberts running it back ... but it's our ST, so no not really. Another team, maybe. Not the Chargers ST.

The ball was on the Chargers' 39 yard line before the Josh Jacobs run. That is a 57 yard FG. Not a chip shot, but the guy is on a really good streak at home. No way they don't take the kick, even if we do stop Jacobs. Even if we knock him back 5 yards on 3rd down they take the kick.

Then they broke the long-sh run and the FG became a chip shot.

I disagree. Biasaccia is a special teams coach. He is well aware of the fact that a 57 yd attempt has risk associated. The longer the kick the lower the trajectory. I don't believe they attempt a long FG. If the Chargers make a stop on /hat down I believe the Raiders run out the clock. I think the stupid TO ended up having the effect of not trusting Staley and it all became moot after the brilliant run defense call ended up getting gashed.

I do think the TO was a terrible call and impacted the outcome greatly - just not as much as a shit defense not being able to execute a reasonable run stop

[Bolt-O]

Again, the last time out had very little to do with the outcome of the game, so why is this important to Coaching Staff Changes

[Bolt4Knob]

Again, the last time out had very little to do with the outcome of the game, so why is this important to Coaching Staff Changes

Back to the topic - if Staley were to make a change to Fangio, that would tell me a lot about how he perceived the assistant coaches and how he wants to move forward. We all know (think), Anthony Lynn kept George Stewart, one, if not two years too long. And maybe Renaldo Hill did a good job in his role as DC. But really if Staley is calling plays, Staley is the DC too.

So, if Staley does reach out and hire Fangio - that would be him admitting maybe he needs to change some things. To me, would be a positive move for a guy after one year of coaching. Meaning, he doesn't have all the answers.

[Boltjolt]

Seems like a stale-mate, or divided opinion, on Lombardi.

Why don't we have Chaincrusher settle the tie? He's open minded about this.

Lol, yeah Chainy is as open minded.

[powderblueboy]

Again, the last time out had very little to do with the outcome of the game, so why is this important to Coaching Staff Changes

I can see this argument going on and on and on.......it will introduce itself into off topic, forbidden, heated political discussions.

[powderblueboy]

Back to the topic - if Staley were to make a change to Fangio, that would tell me a lot about how he perceived the assistant coaches and how he wants to move forward. We all know (think), Anthony Lynn kept George Stewart, one, if not two years too long. And maybe Renaldo Hill did a good job in his role as DC. But really if Staley is calling plays, Staley is the DC too.

So, if Staley does reach out and hire Fangio - that would be him admitting maybe he needs to change some things. To me, would be a positive move for a guy after one year of coaching. Meaning, he doesn't have all the answers.

I think that Staley is the defacto defensive coordinator
and that Hill has a lot of responsibilities in helping him put together the defensive game plan on Sundays.

However you slice it, at the very least one can comfortably say that they did not have a lot of success with the defense this year.
Staley does need to change some things. If he feels it is just a matter of a few additions and then they can roll on D, then i don't think they will bring in Fangio.

If he is not so certain, but does not reach out for fear of admitting failings on his part - then we have the wrong head coach.

[Riverwalk]

You’re dreaming if you think Spanos would spend more money on an experienced DC.

Many seem to forget the recent litigation regarding the inadequate finances of this enterprise.