rhino Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 My thinking is pretty much in line with Vatican Hit Squad. Of all the things wrong with OAK, the HC position is not near the top. I look at it this way: 1. Remove the HC, and the new HC still has to deal with the malcontents, laziness, and sloppy players. 2. Remove the malcontents, laziness, and sloppy players, and the new players have to deal with the current HC (Shell). I think option 2 is the best option in this case. Another way of looking at it -- I think there'll be more players willing to play for Art Shell than there are coaches willing to coach the malcontent, lazy, and sloppy players in OAK. What did Al Davis say last year when hiring Art Shell -- "We, the OAK organization, did you wrong last time by firing you too early. So, we want to make it up to you and give you another shot, a 2-yr contract." And then Al fires Art too early again? Did Al Davis really think that OAK was only one off-season away from being competitive? I truly believe that OAK improves next year with Art Shell. We saw that with the DEF in 2006. I truly believe OAK goes nowhere next year with a new HC. I can understand one being disconcerted with Shell's lack of emotion on the sideline. But, I have to agree with Vatican again. That's Shell. He believes in coaching during the week, and letting the players play on Sunday. And if I'm correct, my dealings with malcontents have proven that if they don't get it from Monday thru Saturday, there's no sense of losing one's cool on game day. A quiet "I told you so" stare from the sideline lets the player know where he stands. Also, it doesn't give the malcontent a chance to "talk back" or show the coach up on the sideline, on camera. I've watched Dom Capers too long in HOU to know that Art Shell's unemotion is not out of line. Capers had the blank stare AND the open mouth on the sidelines, like, "what do you mean it's 4th and 10? Again?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Didn't shell coach a undisciplined team that didn't live up to it's potential during his last tenure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 (edited) Didn't shell coach a undisciplined team that didn't live up to it's potential during his last tenure? And didn't he get fired too early from that stint? You can't tell me that you expect this team to be turned around, by any coach, in one off-season, right? If that's the case, then why is it justified to fire AShell now? Edited January 6, 2007 by rhino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Didn't shell coach a undisciplined team that didn't live up to it's potential during his last tenure? That's true. They should have won that AFC Championship game he got them to, and his record should have been better than 54-38 over 6 years. Especially with such future Hall of Fame QBs running your offense like Steve Beuerlein, Jay Schroeder, Vince Evans and Todd Marinovich during most of his run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 (edited) That's true. They should have won that AFC Championship game he got them to Was this intentionally a softball? The Raiders lost that game 51-3!!! I don't know if they should have won, but they probably should have played offense or defense a little better. Quote from Thurman Thomas after the game: I really think they weren't prepared for it," Thurman said about the "No Huddle" in the jubilant dressing room after the game. "We've been running it for a long time now, and you would think the LA coaches would know that's what got us this far and would prepare for it. But it seemed they didn't prepare for it until we got down there deep in their territory when they called the timeout." Edited January 6, 2007 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 Was this intentionally a softball? The Raiders lost that game 51-3!!! I don't know if they should have won, but they probably should have played offense or defense a little better. Quote from Thurman Thomas after the game: Yes, because reaching the AFC Championship game and winning it is so easy, Jake Plummer could do it. Sides, I would take any game comentary from a guy who lost his helmet on the sideline DURING the Superbowl with a pound of a salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 To be honest, I think Shell sealed his own fate. When he stubbornly stuck with his buddy Walsh, as his OC, for as long as he did, he put the nails in his own coffin. Heck even in the pre season, the writing was on the wall that the Bed & Breakfast guys offense just wasn't going to work in todays NFL. Shell slowly but surely lost some of NFLs most loyal fans. He & Walsh were deservedly the butt of numerous jokes from both fans & analysts alike and as the regular season wore on & there was zero adjustment to the offense, it really became almost comical. More importantly, Shell lost his players. When Walters spoke up & point blank said what every Raider player wanted to say & the fans & analysts had already been saying for weeks, Shell benched him & there went the team. Finally Shell fired Walsh, but it was far too little & far too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.