Bresnahan fields tough questions in wake of Lions debacle

Wonder what Raiders defensive coordinator Chuck Bresnahan thought about his unit’s collapse in the final 5 minutes or so in a 28-27 loss to the Detroit Lions? Wonder no more. Here’s what Bresnahan had to say about that game, as well as other topics in a question-and-answer session with the media:

Q: Did your scheme change when you were up 27-14 on the Lions on Sunday, as everyone assumes?
A: “If you look at the game, we didn’t do that. We stayed with a four-man rush, we stayed with our coverage approach. After a game like that, I’m not going to say I’m discourage. I’m disappointed because, going into a game, every team puts red dots on people. Hue talks about it from us on an offensive perspective, we do the same thing on defense, usually try to take out the opponent’s top one or two, maybe on a certain week, three, red tags in the deal. Well, this week we only had one. We only had one target. At the end of the day, we failed because, when you allow somebody to have 200-plus yards in receiving yardage and making impact plays like he did, we obviously didn’t do a good enough job on defense. At the 7:50 mark or whatever, after the defensive score, if you tell me that our guys weren’t excited to go back on the field for those two drives, you would be completely wrong. They were excited, they were ready to go, and we just didn’t get the job done. The penalties, the lapses in mental mistakes, we’ve got to eliminate. But that comes on my shoulders, and I’ve got to make sure we’re prepared. But they were excited about going back on the field and they were ready to execute the game plan like we had right up until that defensive touchdown, and we didn’t get it done.”

Q: Was there confusion on the zone coverages on Johnson?
A: “I wouldn’t say it’s confusion. Again, it’s trying to do too much at times. Those are things that we’ll discuss in our meetings, as far as who was at fault or how we can make it better and all that type of stuff. But, no, I don’t think it was a confusion standpoint at all. When you talk to the players and you look at the play itself, we just didn’t get it done. We weren’t in the right position to keep that ball in fron of us, and I’m talking about the deep ball at the end. Same thing in the first quarter on the long one. That should never happen, either, because of the way the coverage is designed to keep a high person and a low person on him, Again, we’ll get that corrected. I’m disappointed, not discouraged. You guys asked about the effort to Hue, and the energy, it’s been right back and these guys, they put the play behind them and they’re ready to go. But you can’t do that. We got to play on a more consistent level because you can’t give games away like we just gave that one away.”

Q: On the long pass to Johnson, two guys were in position to make the play. They lose sight of the ball?
A: “Yeah, and, again, there’s things, though, that happened at the beginning of the play that we didn’t execute properly to disrupt the whole timing of that route, and I put that on my shoulders because we didn’t get it done. We did not get it done and we will because, when you have one red dot, that red dot is not going to do what he did to us. They are a unique team, where you have an exceptional individual. That’s not to say all the other guys weren’t effective or guys that we had under control. Our two things were to stop the run game and minimize what Calvin did to us, and we didn’t get it done.”

Q: Any question of using MLB and backup safety on Calvin Johnson in a critical situation?
A: “At this time, it’s our starting safety and that’s our package. Our Mike linebacker is a middle-of-the-field player but not over the top. He’s an inside player looking for the in routes, and our safety is over the top. Again, that’s stuff that we’ll handle in our room. But, no, when you look at the entire play, it should never have gotten to that (point).”

Q: What do you make of the Chiefs offense?
A: “Well, obviously, they have a different quarterback, but this is a team that you still have to go in, and this will be a challenge for us with the run game. They do a lot of things with McCluster. But they got, really, a three-headed monster back there with Jones, Battle an McCluster. They’re going to try to establish the run. They’re going to try to get it on the edge with McCluster. They have the ability to go to the Wildcat, like they did to us in the red zone the last game. But we got to come out and stop the run and then we have to be very disciplined in our coverage. And step it up a notch and really hold ourselves accountable to make up for last week. The guys understand what’s at stake now. Not that they haven’t up until this point, but they definitely know what’s at stake and there’s a real attitude, chip on the shoulder, after the last game to make it right.”

Follow me on Twitter: @corkonthenfl


Steve Corkran

  • Blackmamba_20

    Music to my ears raiderman99


    I don’t think the scheme was the problem. His use of the players is what should get him fired. Should have been Branch at S instead of Boyd or Mitchell.
    Agree that Branch or Mitch or anyone with more speed than Boyd should be the deep help on that play.

    Schmuck B gets a partial pass bcz Huff was out and Raid secondary is depleted, but c’mon J, you’ve got to have a CORNER acting as the primary cover in that situation.

    The scheme sucks. You can’t have Slowlando underneath, releasing to a safety deep. At worst, CJ is going to blow past Slowlando and Stafford finds CJ for a 20 yard
    gain down the middle of the field in front of the deep safety help.

    Got to have a corner shadowing CJ the whole way there. Unless you’ve got Ed Reed playing safety. Which the Raids don’t.

    Slowlando releasing to Boyd, against perhaps the best deep threat in the game at a do or die moment ?

    You’ve got to be kidding me.

  • http://www.Raiders.com KoolKell

    Michael Jordan is a Republican ?!?

  • http://www.wasRaider75.com wasbanned

    Did the scheme change? Chuck B says No.

    I say BULLSH!T!!!!

    Rolando McClain was not dropping back 30 freakin yards in coverage during the first 3 1/2 quarters of the game.

    Was there confusion? Chuck B says No.

    Again, I say BULLSH!T!!!!

    Watch the game, guys are shrugging their shoulders, pointing at each other after a completion because they didn’t know what the f@ck they were doing.

    This guy is f’n horrible.

    Please give me a real Defensive Coordinator for Christmas!

  • J Hill

    Slowlando releasing to Boyd, against perhaps the best deep threat in the game at a do or die moment ?


    Incredibly stupid.

  • http://www.wasRaider75.com wasbanned

    RAIDERMAN99 Says:
    December 23rd, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    I don’t think the scheme was the problem. His use of the players is what should get him fired. Should have been Branch at S instead of Boyd or Mitchell.
    Agree that Branch or Mitch or anyone with more speed than Boyd should be the deep help on that play.

    Schmuck B gets a partial pass bcz Huff was out and Raid secondary is depleted, but c’mon J, you’ve got to have a CORNER acting as the primary cover in that situation.

    The scheme sucks. You can’t have Slowlando underneath, releasing to a safety deep. At worst, CJ is going to blow past Slowlando and Stafford finds CJ for a 20 yard
    gain down the middle of the field in front of the deep safety help.

    Got to have a corner shadowing CJ the whole way there. Unless you’ve got Ed Reed playing safety. Which the Raids don’t.

    Slowlando releasing to Boyd, against perhaps the best deep threat in the game at a do or die moment ?

    You’ve got to be kidding me.

    F’N A MAN! Great point.

  • DKnight007

    Heck, the Sac Kings have a better chance at being better than the W’s in this short season.

  • DKnight007

    Chuck B find ways for the defense to blow it and for the Raiders to lose games!

  • http://build-a-bully 909RaiderLifer

    Have you heard about Monta Ellis Sexting scandal?

    benmaller 158 miles separate Warriors Monta Ellis’ home town (Jackson, MS) and Brett Favre’s (Klin, MS.) Seems these boys have a lot in common.
    2 days ago

  • http://www.Raiders.com KoolKell

    Mississippi Sexting, alriiight.

  • Kirk

    Why do Raider DCs always stop blitzing in the fourth quarter?

    The prevent defense only prevents victory.

  • Just Fire Baby

    Sounded like the Sterger chick in the Favre issue was at least interested in flirting a little.

    This chick is making it seem like Ellis was stalking her.

  • raidertalk

    NO NO NO NO more talk about 3-4; that would be DISASTER! We do not have the personnel and it would take 3 years at least to get all the talent and coaches in place…
    Just when when finally get our offense working people want to go back to the Rob Ryan DISASTER!

    Remember all the fans at the colesium booing for Josh McCown when we were wininning! (with the hope that Jamarcus would come in)

  • Just Fire Baby

    Although, this kind of refutes the B@uce’s claims that Ellis was homo.

  • http://www.Raiders.com KoolKell

    Well, in the past Mr Davis didn’t believe in blitzing.

  • raidertalk

    Does anybody exactly how many draft picks we have this draft?

  • arkraider

    I have to remain . Maybe T. Jones can help us on the edges,because it looks like another DMC-less Sunday, et make that Saturday. If we win out-it could happen!
    Go Raiders!
    Go Arkansas Razorbacks in the Cotton Bowl!
    Hope the Warriors have a great year, but things aren’t looking good to start w/ Curry’s ankle and Monta’s eh, em, whatever thing.hopeful even with chucky. Bafoon

  • Just Fire Baby

    Quick tangent…..

    Reading the new SI, and there is short piece on this North Korean guy Jong, and all his fables he used to try to pass on as the truth through his “Ministry of Information” including:

    -Kim shot 38 under par including 11 hole in ones, IN HIS FIRST EVER GOLF OUTING.
    -He averaged 3 to 4 hole in ones per round
    -He bowled 300 in his first game
    -He averaged a 297 in bowling
    -During the 2010 Baseball World Cup, he gave his manager “Tactical advice during games” on an invisible cellphone that Kim Jong created.

    LMAO…..thought that was pretty funny.

  • raidertalk

    Is Steve just cutting and pasting from other websites now? I read this article about two days ago

  • arkraider

    That last one got mangled. I was saying that I remain hopeful that we can win out even in spite of Chucky Bafoon. The offense needs to continue to progress and we’ll be allright.
    Go Raiders! Stomp the Chefs!

  • Just Fire Baby

    I love the Brandon Rush trade for the Warriors.

    Need more atheletic wings.

    Klay Thompson ain’t ready.

  • arkraider

    Anyone know the status/ injury wise about Taiwan Jones? I think its time for that young man to show us what he’s all about.

  • http://ggeden.wordpress.com/ GG

    Here’s an example of what is meant by hiring a autonomous GM.

    When Al was running the show from the top down, he had a vision of tactical football, and his draft picks and acquisitions (athletics and scouting) all based off that vision.

    Every other GM has a vision: athletic/scouting tactical approaches. A plan is needed, setting the theme for the entire football department.

    If we hire such a GM, that’s one of the hurdles. Deciding which vision/plan we want — are we looking to continue Al’s vision, or evolving? And tactically, what do we want to be…a smash-mouth offense? a high octane spread passing team? a west coast offense? a 3-4 defense? a 4-3 defense? A defensively-dominant team like the 85 Bears, or an offensively-dominant offense like the Patriots?

    These questions will be asked/answered in the GM search because it will determine to what extent a ‘blowing up’ of the roster is required.

    There are other systems too. Where the HC is also the GM, who has a VP of Personnel working ALONGSIDE him. But this is not something the Raiders should do especially as Hue is such a noob/junior. You can entrust guys like Belichick, Parcells, Cowher, Holmgren, Reid, if setting up such a system, due to vast experience.

    Since Al passed away, Hue has been doing that role, with Mark/Amy/Madden/Wolf serving in a non-official and temporary VP of P role. Hue doesn’t have the cred, experience yet, and has badly erred too with an array of personnel decisions.

    But in short, that’s what Mark/Amy have to decide end of 2011. Which forks they take…

    Hue as HC/GM with a VP of P alongside him? Or hire an autonomous GM?

    If hiring an autonomous GM – someone following Al’s vision/legacy whether to the letter or incorporating it? Or someone with their own vision?

    If we go down the GM with own vision, this will determine to what extent ‘blowing up’ occurs…starting with the HC and coaching staff and the roster. And we will see big changes if so.

    Let me put it all this way, as a question to you all to give feedback on…

    What do you want the Raiders to become?

    1. A defensively-dominant team
    2. An offensively-dominant team
    3. A 3-4 or 4-3
    4. A specialist zone or man D
    5. zone coverages and blitzes or outside press man coverage and single safety high man blitzes
    6. Smash-mouth O or multi-WR passing
    7. West Coast based horizontal YAC passing or vertical passing
    8. Power blocking or zone blocking
    9. Run-stuffing DL or pass-rushing DL

    These questions will determine who is expendable, thru trades etc.

    As an example of all this…if you decide you want to be a smash-mouth O, then McFadden is trade bait, start looking at bigger backs, not explosive burst, dominant run-blocking OL.

    If you decide you want a dynamic offensively-dominant team, with more singleback and multi-WR sets, then Bush and Reece and TEs become expendable, and WRs get a shake-up, looking for more dependable route runners etc.

  • raidertalk

    C’mon buffalo, giants, cardinals, detriot & jaxville…oh and GO RRRRAAAAIIIIDDDDEEEERRRRSSSS

  • fingers

    Just Fk’n Win…
    Destroy the Chefs…

  • DKnight007

    Another player I like is DE/OLB Vinny Curry from Marshall. 6’5, 265. Looks like a Round 2 pick, but his stock can go up.

    Big, athletic, long and shows some explosiveness. He can fly all over the place and make plays, but the ideal fit is for him stand up in 3-4…however the Raiders getting him would be a great addition to the D whether they stick to 4-3 or switch to 3-4.

    If they stick to a 4-3, he can be plugged in at RDE and get after the QB and hold the edge and pursue to the sideline if necessary.

  • http://ibabuss.com antispy3

    All season the Madden Simulations of the Raiders regular season games have been unsettlingly accurate. Not only have they proven consistent on picking winners they have been more than ballpark accurate with the final score.

    This week I trepidatiously approached madden after viewing the “talking Heads” assessment for Saturday’s game.

    Shocker? MaddenSim gets history! They have the Raiders extending their winning streak @ Arrowhead to a dominating fifth year to the tune of 27-3. But they had Stansi as the KC QB.

    But I’m going 27-13. . .this time the Raiders display their ability to again shut down Orton & keep the Chefs “O” in “park.” With Seymour regaining a bit of his explosiveness & Huff making an apperance the Raiders extend the season to the last game of the year. . .

  • J Hill

    Could you imagine someone trying to give Kim a 7???

    Of course he shot 38 under.

    Caddie liked having his hands.


    Here’s what I saw on the hail mary to Calvin Johnson, MLB and Safety looking lost even when CJ had to take a few steps back and lean in for a short/poorly thrown ball. It’s as if both of them were afraid of making a play on the ball.

    Hire a top notch GM to run this thing, and lets go from there, enough of these micky mouse trades that mortgage the future of this franchise.

    Havent we RAIDER FANS suffered long enough ?

  • http://ggeden.wordpress.com/ GG

    If we hire a GM, the Raiders as we know it could change forever, or at least, many of the players we have on the roster that we like could go not being schematic fits.

    What Mark/Amy/Madden have to primarily decide is whether the post-Al Raiders continues the legacy of scouting/tactical vision or becomes something else.

    I think they’ll look to continue, and so there’ll be sections of RaiderNation letdown by the scope of change. Could see Hue, a junior, with no credentials to be a HC/GM but ends up being that due to his “answers only to the owner” contract, continuing the Davis roster and athletic/scouting departments, with a token VP of P officially signed to work alongside Hue, but hasn’t the power of an autonomous GM, more of an aid and person who is toeing the line of the Al legacy.

    So guys like McFadden, DHB, Wimbley, Mitchell, etc will be kept. And there’ll be a lot of fans here upset as they wanted a new vision that makes McFadden good trade value because RBs are not a premium in that system.

    What Im getting at is currently, McFadden etc types fit our system and we do grow to love them, and think it stupid to trade them. But really, you don’t need McFaddens and DHBs etc to be successful. You just need a scheme/vision that can be run well and players can be found to fit them. The people in previous blog talking about trading McFadden, the merits of how you can use cheap late round less-speedy less injured bigger backs, are right too. If we do get an autonomous GM etc, and he envisions say a Packers-like multi-WR singleback high octane passing team, then we could see shake up, the Reeces, Bushes traded, shake-up with the WRs, maybe only Ford and Moore kept, etc.


    The reality with the Raider coaches is that Jackson and Cable were/are both just average-and inexperienced-head coaches.
    Al hired them because they were easy to dominate or would do what he said.

    Neither had worked as a head coach before and no team had any intention to hire them in that capacity.

    When Al hired Bresnahan he wasn’t even working and Al hired him as a last resort because no one else would sign on because Al wanted to run everything.

    Al Davis, who built our team, isn’t there anymore.

    What we need now that Al is dead is a strong general manager who will bring the team back and be free to hire whomever he wants as head coach.

    If the Raiders don’t do that, we’re just going to get more of the same.

  • raidertalk

    Right now I think we need another GM BESIDE Hue being GM/HC…He’s a rook and he needs things taken off his plate…obviously.

    I actually like the Palmer trade and the Curry acquisition. I think letting of go of Hagan, one of the few possesion Wrs on the team, was a mistake. Housh has been pretty pedestrian but I guess helped Carson get acclimated.

    As far as Defense Its a big mistake personnel wise to switch to 3-4. We have the Offense right now our D needs to get AVERAGE, then we could have won at least three more games.


    Well this franchise has no other choice but to hire a GM like every other professional sports franchise on the planet, its just that this has been the most poorly managed franchise in all of professional sports combined for the last 3 decades.

    The Raiders are already changing , and is that such a bad thing ? I’ve endured almost 3 decades of crappy teams all the while giving my heart/soul/loyalty that was rarely if ever been recipricated by the late Al Davis with all due respect.


  • http://www.Raiders.com KoolKell

    GG Good Post #73. I’m so used to watching Al’s vision for the last 45 years. I don’t know.

  • http://ggeden.wordpress.com/ GG

    The main thing I think we all agree on tho is the whole D needs to be blown up. The roster and the coaches and the scheme too.

    What my posts were poking at was really a question like…our D has been terrible for a whole decade, we’ve invested so many picks into key speedy sexy offensive players, or CBs. But if someone asked me what I would like i would say…

    I want a defensively-dominant team, don’t care 3-4 or 4-3 etc, just a team that is consistently in the top 3 defenses in the league for a whole decade, having a Dick LeBeau type master system in place, where the scheme is more important than the player, can find streams of less athletic/gifted players in mid-late rounds, football smarts. And to get that system, wouldn’t care if we let go McFaddens, Taiwans, DHBs, Murphys, Palmers, Reeces, etc.

    If it were me, i would prefer a top 3 D team like that which gets by with an offense. Winning games 17-13, 21-3, etc.

    I wouldn’t like a dominant offensive team, with the defense an after-thought. Like a Packers/Saints that win games 45-42, 38-28, etc.

    I am so sick of this defense that annually ranks bottom 5.


    I think we need to drop the man 4 man, that was so 60’s.

    :: : :: UGH : :: : : : :

    Can we move on now ?

  • http://www.Raiders.com KoolKell

    I think I’d prefer a Top Ranked Offense, and a Top 10 Defense.

  • http://ggeden.wordpress.com/ GG

    KoolKell Says:
    December 23rd, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    GG Good Post #73. I’m so used to watching Al’s vision for the last 45 years. I don’t know.

    yeah that’s a really tricky fork. because we all love Raider legacy, Raider football, being unique and different (schematically) too. How our scouting department (that follows a system/vision) plucks out guys like McFadden, DHB, etc, that cause a stir, you kinda love the controversy, and like proving the egg-heads wrong.

    and schematically, i do like Al’s attitude of man on man, all about our individual players beating your individual players, rather than a scheme beating a scheme with X&Os.

    I do have great fondness love for Raider types or players we have…the reeces, dhbs, pryors, etc. Wouldn’t want them gone.

    But at the same time, if we had a ‘new Raiders’, with say a Dick LeBeau Defense exactly, dominating teams, genuine playoff team that other teams are scared of come December, then I could put the past in the past, that ‘Raider football’ and embrace new success.

    An offense behind that system could be so many things too, with each one meaning different players we like currently are trade bait and cuts. If one system meant such and such offensive players were no longer here.

    Deep down I wouldn’t mind an offense with Pryor as the focal point. Elements of option, spread, pro-set. But whatever, the D #1 paramount.

  • DaTruth91

    Raiders 27
    Chiefs 15

    I think they will respond to the pressure. The chiefs arent a great team, esp with there injuries, but there still playing for there coach.
    Keys to Victory
    1. Pound the rock…even though we arent a Bully, we still have to have a mindset of controlling the line of scrimmage.
    2. No turnovers, esp from Carson.
    3. Pass rush…A pass rush hides all the inadequacies of a defense


    Al’s scheme worked last in 1983, that was a long time ago, specificly man on man. As far as our scouting dept plucking out DMAC he pretty much fell into Al’s lap in the 08 draft at #4 dont know how much scouting that took to take a player like that, same thing with DHB although I wanted Crabtree over Bey. However there have been genuine diamonds that Al drafted thru the years, Nnamdi, Moore to name just a few.

    As far as a dominant defense I’m with you there,however it needs to be balanced with a high powered offensive attack.

  • http://ggeden.wordpress.com/ GG

    Just one point someone mentioned…

    At first I was okay with Palmer trade. Conceptually the “must win” now approach especially if Palmer would take us all the way.

    But in hindsight now, I hate the decision. Combination of it being us not reaching the playoffs yet, could miss out, and also because Palmer has not elevated us to a Packers/Patriots offense that can outscore teams despite the D’s problems. Sure, Palmer is an upgrade over JC, that part no problem. But the whole thing hasn’t elevated the team. And we just threw away a 1st and a 2nd.

    Palmer too will only have 2-3 years starting.

    Pryor was supposed to be the future, so in hindsight, it would’ve probably been my idea to cut Boller immediately, and sign someone on the cheap to manage the offense, like an Orton, McNabb etc, and fast-track Pryor along to start. And if that meant we did not make the playoffs after being 4-2, then so be it. There wasn’t a “must win” attitude here UNTIL Hue decided to throw away two 1st round picks on Palmer.

    But Palmer has not elevated us, and Hue is actually just still utilizing Palmer in the same way he used Jason Campbell. Just Palmer is a little ‘better’. In other words, it was a terrible GM decision because it’s like trading two firsts for a Manning (say) and then fitting him into THIS current JC system of check-downs, curls, end-arounds, dives, and STILL ending up 7-7

    We could’ve still gotten JC-like play out of an Orton/McNabb on the cheap and reached 7-7, and NOT blown the two 1sts. We really need them to blow up this D and build something newer and better.

  • Just Fire Baby

    All you McClain bashers will eat some crow tomorrow when we hold the Chiefs to 60 yards rushing and dominate them defensively.

  • olinesux

    what are you talking about the raiders smashed the afc west last year with man to man….rivers, cassell and orton can hit against tough man to man…on th other hand megatron destroyed the raiders zone def

  • Just Fire Baby

    I don’t think we lose this game unless:

    -Palmer has a stinker, multi-turnover game


    -Arenas or McCluster break one on us in the return game

    Other than those circumstances, we are just a better team that matches up pretty well with them.

  • olinesux

    and bey is doing better than craptree this year

  • http://ggeden.wordpress.com/ GG

    December 23rd, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    As far as a dominant defense I’m with you there,however it needs to be balanced with a high powered offensive attack.

    Unfortunately, that’s not always realistic. Look back thru history, there aren’t many if any teams that were say a high-powered D and high-powered O, equally, and none that I can think of that won a Super Bowl off the top of my head. Can only draft 7 at a time, and of that half end up busting, so it’d take forever to build such a team, meanwhile Not For Long league interrupts that process with new coach hires etc.

    Another point being, with our 2 late round picks in 2012, acknowledging the D is paramount to fix, has to be blown up, dont have too many trade value players on O or D (i count 11 on D and 15 on O) then if we are to fix the D, with only 2 picks, might mean we have to sacrifice some of that “explosive offense” by trading McFadden, etc.

  • DaTruth91

    I agree with must of what you said, but i think people are putting too much pressure on Carson Palmer. I never imagined him to be a Brady or Rodgers type QB, but we dont need him to be. I am fine with the trade, because one, Draft picks are unpredictable, and yet Valued so greatly. This year the Patriots had like 6 drafts picks in the first day alone, and yet how many of them can you name today. I understand draft pick are important, but Hue thinks we can win now and he acted as such..

    Another note is Pryor is not ready and he’s not going to be ready for awhile. His game needs to mature as well as the way he approaches the game.

  • http://ggeden.wordpress.com/ GG

    Post #91 in reference to the idea that Hue as HC/GM with a VP beside him is ok, that Hue has done a bunch of good personnel moves.

    I disagree.


    Actually I think I was the first to say that we trade DMAC for a pick/picks not that that really matters.

    But my point is you do have to have balance to win a super bowl unless you have the Ravens D from a few years back that was absolutely devastating/dominant.

  • Pingback: Oakland Raiders Links That You’ll Want To See December 23, 2011 « Raiders Central - The Ultimate Oakland Raiders Blog()