It's true the Raiders are improving ... despite 0 and 2 preseason record
by Sons-of-Blanda on Aug 23, 2010 11:01 PM PDT
Email
PrintThat's correct, two losses so far as evaluated by Starters vs. Starters. When Romo and the Cowboys went in for halftime, 3-0 - ahead by a field goal - the characteristic Cowboy arrogance expressing itself by smirks on several of their faces, the Raiders had lost the opener; for despite Oakland's defensive dominance, our O could not generate a single point against a Dallas top 5 NFL defense.
Against Chicago, when the Starters played an entire half, the score at midway was Oakland 13, Chicago 14. Yes, Oakland lost again by a thin margin despite controlling the clock and dominating most of the stats - but three critical mistakes, like lightening, undid 30 minutes of effort.
Looking at those games scrimmages with cool detachment, those tests served us well. Oakland lost those contests by a combined 4 points not for lack of heart or talent but for want of execution. Execution comes with concentrated practice and the Raider system is generously giving playing time and learning opportunities to most of its non-blue-chip rookies - Veldheer, Bruce Campbell, Walter McFadden, Travis Goethel, Jacoby Ford, Stevie Brown, and even Jeremy Ware. Over time, all that experience and opportunity to polish and perfect execution will serve us well.
So, keeping it all in focus, being critical while staying positive, I expect the Raiders to end the first half this Saturday with more points on the board than the solid (but loathsome) 49ers they'll meet - despite S.F.'s impressive defense and rushing prowess. We are on a very positive improvement curve that - given our players gifts and characters - should continue upward with every passing week.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If you want to get technical, we actually won the Bears because Ware is not a starter, basically-
There was 0 % chance in hell that Nnamdi would’ve been burned like that. We are 1-1. Just my opinion, not meant to piss you off Sons… The starters did lose the Cowboys one though…
The RaiderLaker
I still can't figure out what Ware was doing.
Seriously, it’s not like we play zone.
Cable Bumaye! Raiders Bumaye!
That was miscommunication and also the safeties were at fault as well.
Its 4th and 7 in the red zone, where were they?
Cowards die many times before their deaths
The valiant never taste of death but once.
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, Julius Caesar
Ware hesitated between covering the receiver and coming up to stop Cutler - we might as well have had 10 players
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Aug 24, 2010 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I like the 9ers matchup for game 3.
It’ll be a good test for the run D. I expect to see a heavy dose of hand-offs and then on the flip side, it’ll be a good test for the O.
When you're chewing on life's gristle, don't grumble give a whistle and this'll help things turn out for the best.
I agree
This is probably one of the best teams to test our weaknesses against since their strengths are run defense and running the ball. I’d like to see us torch their passing defense and equally dominate against their passing offense.
I hope we see DHB and McFadden make a positive contribution this game so we can get some excitement going coming into the season. We need the WR corps to make a good showing overall with Chaz out for however long it will be…it’d be nice to see some of them step up other than Z Milller.
You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea.
by Buster Bluth on Aug 24, 2010 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Too bad Coffee retired - he ran all over us last time it would have been nice to compare.
…also I remember someone on this blog last year said “The 49ers left a Coffee stain on us.” lol
Cable Bumaye! Raiders Bumaye!
I wouldn’t call the “losses”. Scrimmages is a very good word though. No one loses in a scrimmage, but everyone wins.
I think if we would’ve played a full game against both of those teams, we’d be 1-1 now. A loss to Dallas and a win against Chicago. I’m real excited to see us play San Fran. It’ll be a great test.
True knowledge consists in knowing that you know nothing
Had we played full games against both teams
We’d have put Romo and Cutler out of the game with the pressure we were putting on them and sent them to the IR.
You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea.
by Buster Bluth on Aug 24, 2010 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions
I wonder how many sack Wimbley would have gotten.
Also Scott and Houston were do one. I mean the last Wimbley sack was a direct result of Houston pushing the Tackle into the pocket.
Cable Bumaye! Raiders Bumaye!
Considering what we've been thru !!!
I say, both were wins, considering in the red zone, all we’ve given up is field goals !!! From a defensive point of view, and what I think will be relied on, until the offense, FINDS ITSELF !!!
From that standpoint - comparing ourselves to our former selves - absolutely. At some point we must compare ourselves
to the elite teams regardless of the pain that may involve.
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Aug 24, 2010 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Samson Satele seems to be the only big loser in either game.
I don’t understand why they kept the starters in the game after they went up 10-0. I think Campbell got into a good groove and the only reason he somewhat floundered afterwards is due to fatigue possibly since he hasn’t played in a real game like atmosphere as long as that in over 6 months. Another questionable move was seeing Shaunessey in the game well into the 3rd quarter. I thought the dress rehearsal was always the 3rd not the 2nd game. I just don’t understand they will hold out certain players up until the start of the regular season just “to play it safe” and yet they have other valuable starters like Satele, Shaunessey and Houston last week playing almost the full game. Either those injuries to the other players are more serious than we thought or maybe the team depth leaves much to be desired are the only reasons that make sense.
Cowards die many times before their deaths
The valiant never taste of death but once.
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, Julius Caesar
Looked like Hugh kept Shaughnessy in longer b/c Matt needed the work. He lost containment a couple of time - his responsibility
is from end to sideline – and Jackson could be seen talking with Matt quite a bit on the sideline in both halves.
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Aug 24, 2010 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions
That would be my third reason after assessing why he was still in.
He was on the side of a couple of weak sweeps including the 2 point conversion that Chester just walked in on. I can understand from that standpoint however after seeing Dick Seymour’s face during his sideline interview on the 90 yard TD run meant someone was going to address him afterwards.
Cowards die many times before their deaths
The valiant never taste of death but once.
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, Julius Caesar
They are just measuring stick opportunities
2 weeks ago we learned our defense could hang with Dallas’ offense, and our offense could not hang with Dallas’ defense. This weekend we learned that the Raiders defense can hang with the Bears offense…they could actually beat them if they eliminate the big plays. Also, our offense can beat the bears defense.
good critical thinking
but i must say, even though the starting team (offense at least) isnt a top 5 or top 10, we are showing some very good depth throughout the team and cohesiveness that i havent seen in other teams (at least not our opponents anyway)
also, having them only be up by 1 and 3 points is pretty impressive considering we would usually be trailing by alot more after the first half of play in last years regular season
It's really too bad you had to put a negative spin on something wonderful
We won 2 games (or scrimmages if you prefer) in a row. Something we failed to do last season. I’ll bask in the glory for a while, as I realize this isn’t the year we win the whole thing. This is about building confidence in a team that got used to losing so many games. Sometimes you take the small victories in order to build to greater heights.
"God will understand. And if he does not understand, then he is not God, and we need not worry." -Orlando Bloom, Kingdom of Heaven
Confidence cannot be built on a foundation of illusion. It's better to look at our actual strengths and weaknesses and know
where we really are. Blowing smoke, especially during preseason is disastrous. Btw, we’ve done as well in preseason in the past and ended with 11-14 loses during regular season.
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Aug 24, 2010 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions
You can look at it both ways.
Campbell looked good and the defense looked good although neither of our starting WRs or CBs played. Also you can say it is only preseason. One year we started the preseason 4-0, got smacked around by Seattle in the final game & went on to finish 2-14 in the regular season.
Cowards die many times before their deaths
The valiant never taste of death but once.
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, Julius Caesar
That's right. The main thing is we are consistently moving in the right direction and if that improvement continues
there’s no telling how far we’ll go … especially if we pick up a couple of OLmen and a good WR in Sept.
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Aug 24, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Well I think this Saturday will be the most telling.
If you remember the 3rd preseason game last year we got throttled by New Orleans 45-7 and our QB pretty much looked the way he would the entire season, maybe career.
Cowards die many times before their deaths
The valiant never taste of death but once.
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, Julius Caesar
Here's your argument
It’s better to look at our actual strengths and weaknesses and know where we really are.
If there is one consistent theme throughout this offseason, it has been what our weaknesses are: QB, run defense, #2 corner, right side of the o-line, and WR. If i was to be a debbie downer and look at it from an alternate point of view I could easily say we have done nothing that would improve us.
Negative points
Jason Campbell will not improve this team because you can’t build a franchise around him.
We traded a upper tier MLB and now have a rookie manning the middle.
1st and 3rd tender for Stanford Routt shows we’re still the same team.
We lost our right tackle and replaced him with a guy the Bills cut. That we cut first.
Our lone big name wideout was released in the offseason and we have a bust at the position starting with a guy who can’t stay healthy and a guy who wasn’t the number one where he was at in college.
Run by Forte shows we still can’t block the run and are susceptible to the big play.
Positives
Stability at the Qb position for the first time in ages.
Promising defense, although young.
Zach Miller is still here, as is Nnamdi Asomuchbetterthanrevisugha.
The work ethic of the team seems better.
The right side seems better, but not by much.
WR is still a question, but the guys we have seem to be getting better.
Thanks, now I’m off my happy cloud.
"God will understand. And if he does not understand, then he is not God, and we need not worry." -Orlando Bloom, Kingdom of Heaven
by angelesoterica on Aug 25, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
damn, block quote fail of epic proportions
"God will understand. And if he does not understand, then he is not God, and we need not worry." -Orlando Bloom, Kingdom of Heaven
by angelesoterica on Aug 25, 2010 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
You can thank yourself for that analysis was your own. I don't think a critical look at the team should bring anyone down
unless a) they had some unrealistic views about the Raiders to begin with, or b) they’re fans of another team.
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Aug 25, 2010 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Both games have shown promise on offense and defense
Campbell taking the raiders downfield for a touchdown drive is something we didnt get to see much of last season and is something that will keep us in games and the penetration the defense is getting in the trenches will help stopping the run for losses and make opportunities for the secondary
While I usually agree with the starter v. starter concept
I think really the Raiders have realistically tied both sets of starters. Against Dallas on Campbell’s last drive, the Raiders went for it, when really they’d probably let Janikowski kick the game tying FG.
Against Chicago, had they not had long snapper issues, it probably would’ve been 13-13 (although, I don’t know who calls for the shot gun on the first play after the starting C goes down). Had the Bears actually gone for it in that situation, something tells me Ware and Cooper wouldn’t have been in, which may have may a huge difference.
And I think with the pounding we were dishing out to their QBs, it would have been tough for either team to generate much in the second half.
Minus 3 on the road at the half............
is not a loss by any means not to mention that Dall-ass already played a pre-season game also we had our best player out against the Beers if Cambell doesnt throw that errant ball and hits Miller on the slant were up 17- 0 also minus 1 on the road with a team that were better then is hardly a loss either !
Keep getting better boyz!!!! GO RAIDERS!!!!
Bongsmoke
Your missing a very important thing sons.
The fact that we, and the other teams as well, were only running vanilla offenses. Just to see what is working, what is not. Get players some chances to see who is better than the other, and who gets cut.
The pre-season is all about evaluating your team, and it’s players, and how they perform with each other. JUST evaluation. I doubt Cable was putting together plays designed for regular season play.
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
Our recent history is basic vanilla but we saw more against Chicago than Dallas.
The Bears have a complex playbook and used some of it. So, if I understand what you’re saying, our real advantage is going to be our superior playbook and its execution unleashed on opponents.
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Aug 24, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions
What I'm saying is...
is that the type of plays we run will dictate how our team will perform.
In the first pre-season game, we were only running basic plays. Nothing fancy. No taking advantage of our weapons. So I can’t say which team would have been better that game, simply because of the type of plays the raiders were purposely running.
The second pre-season game, Cable and Hue seemed to call a little more complex plays. They decided to utilize their weapons A BIT more than last week, by calling screens, and play-actions. We saw more of what we expect from our offense against the bears, but it’s probably not what we’ll fully SEE in the regular season. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hue has more complex plays to work with, and see how we’ll perform them. I would only say though, that we saw more from our offense last week, SIMPLY BECAUSE Cable and Hue allowed themselves to call slightly more diverse, and complex plays, but they may not be all of them.
So as far as my knowledge goes, they are just experimenting still. Nothing more. We’ll probably see some of the same stuff we saw against the Bears, going against San Fran, but we have to keep in mind that Cable and Hue are just having the players warm up, and get comfortable with the schemes they will be using for the regular season. I don;t expect Cable and Hue to lay out the full offensive playbook, ALONG with the gameplan(why would we want San Fran to know our gameplan for them when we face them in the regular season right?) against San Fran.
So that’s why I wouldn’t take the scores too seriously just because our starters were in there.
I'm also a Raider Fan dammit!!! RAIDER NATION!!!!
Down with Big Brother!
Preseason is very telling but requires care while interpreting the data. We are, for example, transitioning from 100% ZBS
to a blend w/ PBS – as we saw Saturday. We are moving players around into new positions for them. All in all, we are probably more in flux than most teams – and certainly more than Dallas when we met them. So, while I’m not going to call our preseason (thus far) a major success – I might depending on how it goes against S.F. and Seattle. We seem open to Defense sets and stunts and O-line sets and position arraignments that would have been unthinkable (excluding this site) the past 3 seasons.
S-O-B: ITS HOW I ROLL, DEAL WITH IT.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Aug 24, 2010 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
- Terrell Owens is still clinging to the NFL dream
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
