High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since playoffs

No Bullshit. Just Real Oakland Raiders Talk!

High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since playoffs

Postby DeadRinger » Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:48 pm

Post after post, article after article... People think OAK has the best chance to unseat NE this season. So let's discuss that...

I've said many times here that we were quite a bit worse than our 12-4 record made things look. Why? Because I saw us get lucky too many times to truly believe we were contenders, long before Carr's injury.

So the dickheads here will scoff at me and tell me it's the wins that count. NOT when you're projecting what a team will do for a season, it's not. You have to look at HOW we won to get a really good picture of it. I'll start my point with, as usual, a highly pertinent FACT. And here it is:

Among the 10 teams that had double-digit regular season wins in 2016, we had the THIRD WORST point differential, behind only NYG(24) and MIA(-17). Our PD was 31. I can tell you, that's usually not good enough to make the playoffs. By way of contrast, NE's PD was 191. Atlanta's was 134. For the Freddies and 790s on this board - meaning full-blown morons - that means that we saw the TWO teams with the TWO highest regular-season PDs go to the SB. And the team that was #1 in PD won it. I find that fascinating as hell.

That's one fact. In and of itself it's just interesting, not incredibly compelling. So STFU, Freddie, because I ain't done. I am a master of factual analysis and when I want to make a point that's going to piss people off, I will bury you in it. So let's look at some specific games, shall we?

Start w the CAR win.
- We were 8 points behind with 8:37 left in the game (and we needed a Mack INT return for a TD even to get there - lucky #1)
- Carr threw a TD pass. Of course, we needed a 2-point conversion just to tie the game (lucky #2).
- Tie game, and our defense holds, mainly because of a holding penalty (lucky #3) and conservative play calling.
- On the first play of our next series Carr gets sacked -4 yds. Yet he uses his magic to get in range for Seabass, now it's 35-32.
- Cam has a timeout and 1:45 to work with. He drives his team to the Raiders 44 before Mack ends it w a strip sack (lucky #4).
LUCKY WIN. Everything bounced our way, and Khalil Mack played out of his motherfucking mind. He won that game for us.

Let's move on to the NO win.
- One of our TDs in this game came from a 75-yd Jalen Richard TD rum. (lucky #1)
- At one point, NO scored THREE unanswered TDs on us.
- We were down by 7 points with :47 left on the clock when Derek threw a TD to Seth.
- During that series, we converted on 4th down via PENALTY. (lucky #2)
- We went for the win with a 2-pt conversion and Crab came down w the pass (lucky #3)
- We had to overcome 14 penalties for 141 yds to win this one. Unheard of. (lucky #4)
- Our D was a sieve as Mack chose not to show up for the game (4 tk)
- On his final series Brees drives his team to the Raiders 43 with :05 left. We win when they miss a long FG. (lucky #5)
LUCKY WIN.

Not enough for ya?

How about the BAL win?
- This time we had 12 penalties for 93 yds. Luckily, BAL had 10 penalties for 105 yds. (lucky #1)
- In the end We posted 261 total yds to their 412. (lucky #2)
------ They had 130 rushing yds, we had 62.
-------We had 199 pass yds, they had 282.
- We gained only 13 first downs to their 25. (lucky #3)
- With 6:27 left, Flacco gashed the shit out of us with a 52-yd TD pass to Smith.
- Late in the 4th BAL scored back-to-back TDs when Jalen Richards fumbled at our own 17. (lucky #3)
- We were down by 6 points with 2:12 left on the clock when Derek pitched a 23-yd TD and the extra point put us up 1. (lucky #4)
- On BAL's final drive, Reggie Nelson had 2 PDs within a 10-second span to stop Flacco at mid-field and secure a 1-point win for us. (lucky #5)
LUCKY fucking win. We should have lost this one.

Not enough for you?

Well, we only beat SD the first time because the idiots had a busted FG attempt at our 18-yd-line.

How about the TB game?
- We had to win in OT, even though they didn't have Doug Martin.
- WE COMMITTED 23 PENALTIES FOR -200 YDS IN THAT GAME!!! What the FUCK??
- It went back and forth in OT. On TB's final 3 series, somehow our shit defense held them to THREE straight 3-and-outs. A fucking miracle.
- Carr threw a 43-yd TD to Roberts.
VERY Lucky. Derek Carr had the best game of his career in that win, btw. 40/59-513-4-0

It is BY NO MEANS a stretch to say we could have been 7-9. And IMO it's a fair statement to say that last year we were more like a 9-7 team than a 12-4 team. We fucking ABSOLUTELY should have lost to BAL, NO and TB.
  • 0

They are what I thought they were.

User avatar
DeadRinger
BR Scourge
BR Scourge
Reputation: 565
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:41 pm
Highscores: 0
Medals: 1

Re: High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since play

Postby Forbiddenraider » Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:25 am

We are definitely not as good as that 12-4 record. We barely won half those games and should have lost them. Carr's play and LUCK is the reason we were 12-4. That's what I've been saying! We played like shit and still won! Imagine if we played the way we are capable of playing? Instead we shit penalties all over the place, our defense couldn't communicate and got lit up for 30 points a game. You generally don't end up 12-4 when you give up 30 + points a game. We should be improved this year with what we've done getting Lynch & Cook. If we play smart football, witch we don't we could challenge NE. I'm looking for us to have a big year but not if we fuck up like last year. Norton is still a bum
  • 2


Forbiddenraider
RF Refugees
RF Refugees
Reputation: 272
Posts: 3737
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:41 pm
Highscores: 0

Re: High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since play

Postby bigboy3333 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:50 am

Forbiddenraider wrote:We are definitely not as good as that 12-4 record. We barely won half those games and should have lost them. Carr's play and LUCK is the reason we were 12-4. That's what I've been saying! We played like shit and still won! Imagine if we played the way we are capable of playing? Instead we shit penalties all over the place, our defense couldn't communicate and got lit up for 30 points a game. You generally don't end up 12-4 when you give up 30 + points a game. We should be improved this year with what we've done getting Lynch & Cook. If we play smart football, witch we don't we could challenge NE. I'm looking for us to have a big year but not if we fuck up like last year. Norton is still a bum



Luck??? who to say, that if Carr had not broken his leg..that the Raiders would had beaten the Broncos to finish instead of 12-4 but 13-3 and then had a bye in the first round of the playoffs. As far as Luck goes >> all teams, and I beg that U name one team!" at some time that didn't has some luck from time to time. The past is the past, I'm moving on to 2017...."Yes, Raiders are stronger on both sides of the ball . I think that the Raiders has a good draft on the defensive side, plus the signing of John Pagano,
Assistant Head Coach - Defense. So I could care less what somebody think happen in 2016 !!!! btw, have U never heard...I rather be Lucky then good ? :D
  • 0

Sell the Fucking team Mark Davis!!

User avatar
bigboy3333
The Mercs
The Mercs
Reputation: 84
Posts: 1175
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:30 pm
Highscores: 2

Re: High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since play

Postby silver & black » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:37 am

No matter how you look at it, there was a bit of luck involved last season. It ran out when Carr went down (read: we were exposed).

I think we are better this season. I'm not sure we will have the same record, but we are a better team. We'll see how it plays out. Having said that.... every team has a certain amount of luck during a season, even the Pats. I'll take all of it we can get.

I know a few of you will bash DR for his post.... but he's not wrong... and you know it.
  • 0


User avatar
silver & black
Teh ROC
Teh ROC
Reputation: 138
Posts: 1175
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 5:34 pm
Highscores: 0

Re: High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since play

Postby Forbiddenraider » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:48 am

bigboy3333 wrote:
Forbiddenraider wrote:We are definitely not as good as that 12-4 record. We barely won half those games and should have lost them. Carr's play and LUCK is the reason we were 12-4. That's what I've been saying! We played like shit and still won! Imagine if we played the way we are capable of playing? Instead we shit penalties all over the place, our defense couldn't communicate and got lit up for 30 points a game. You generally don't end up 12-4 when you give up 30 + points a game. We should be improved this year with what we've done getting Lynch & Cook. If we play smart football, witch we don't we could challenge NE. I'm looking for us to have a big year but not if we fuck up like last year. Norton is still a bum



Luck??? who to say, that if Carr had not broken his leg..that the Raiders would had beaten the Broncos to finish instead of 12-4 but 13-3 and then had a bye in the first round of the playoffs. As far as Luck goes >> all teams, and I beg that U name one team!" at some time that didn't has some luck from time to time. The past is the past, I'm moving on to 2017...."Yes, Raiders are stronger on both sides of the ball . I think that the Raiders has a good draft on the defensive side, plus the signing of John Pagano,
Assistant Head Coach - Defense. So I could care less what somebody think happen in 2016 !!!! btw, have U never heard...I rather be Lucky then good ? :D





I'd rather be good than lucky. We got EXTREMELY lucky in more than half our wins. NE is good and they win most of thier games comfortably. Our one to Two point wins at the end of games could have easily gone against us if it wasn't for Carr's excellent play and some damn lucky plays. We put so much on Carr cause our defense was fucking dog shit on a hot day every week. All teams have luck but not in the last seconds multiple games or in overtime like we did. We will be better this year but that 12-4 record is deceiving. Not to mention our defense was one of the worst in the league in every category. So to come out 12-4 with a defense like that is definitely lucky. Can't say they were good
  • 1


Forbiddenraider
RF Refugees
RF Refugees
Reputation: 272
Posts: 3737
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:41 pm
Highscores: 0

Re: High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since play

Postby DeadRinger » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:02 pm

Luck is not a strategy.
  • 0

They are what I thought they were.

User avatar
DeadRinger
BR Scourge
BR Scourge
Reputation: 565
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:41 pm
Highscores: 0
Medals: 1

Re: High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since play

Postby DeadRinger » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:32 pm

silver & black wrote:No matter how you look at it, there was a bit of luck involved last season. It ran out when Carr went down (read: we were exposed).

I think we are better this season. I'm not sure we will have the same record, but we are a better team. We'll see how it plays out. Having said that.... every team has a certain amount of luck during a season, even the Pats. I'll take all of it we can get.

I know a few of you will bash DR for his post.... but he's not wrong... and you know it.

I agree we're better this season. I've been bitching about our TEs for years. Jared Cook, while not in the top 5 in the league, is the best thing we've had since Miler. He's a matchup nightmare. The motherfucker is 6'5", 254 and moves like a big WR.
Can you fuckin' believe we actually have a TE who's a WEAPON for us? NONE of our opponents even had to think twice about that position last season. Cook is finally going to have a high-caliber passer throwing to him. He could have his best season ever - Maybe 750 yds, 6 TDs.

Imagine you're the defense facing us and we've got 3 wide - Coop - Seth - Crab, and Cook out there, and Beast Mode behind Carr.

You've got 2 guys who can blow the lid off the defense, two guys who know how to get open and use their bodies to shield the catch, and a big, shifty moron in the backfield who WANTS to inflict pain on everyone, including himself. If i'm the DC, I say "I got nothin'." Because you have to respect the run and be ready to cover short, medium and deep. We'll have one-on-one matchups all over the field.

Try a dime or prevent and Lynch is going to blow through your little guys like they're not even there. Anything less than that, and whoever gets the one-on-one will make you pay. Shit, You could get a 10-yd pass to Cook through trash in the middle, basically at will. Because there's no way a D can adequately cover the middle against Cook when they're worried about Coop and Crab as well, .

Or how about this one (I expect to see it often):

Crab and Coop outside, Cook on the end, and Lynch AND Jalen Richards in the backfield. Now, you tell me how the FUCK you handle that formation?? Can't be done. In that formation, we can hurt you in every single conceivable way an offense can hurt you.

I like our OL better just because they have a full season working together under their belts. And I think our depth there is decent. And I hope to see them do more run blocking this year.

That's the good stuff. And it's really damn good, no doubt.
  • 0

They are what I thought they were.

User avatar
DeadRinger
BR Scourge
BR Scourge
Reputation: 565
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:41 pm
Highscores: 0
Medals: 1

Re: High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since play

Postby DeadRinger » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:58 pm

I think Reggie went about the offseason in exactly the opposite way he should have. He SHOULD have signed proven defenders in FA, and drafted offense. I fucking cringe every time the asshole picks a DB. It's a damn good thing Jack is there to guide him. I have some hope for that 2nd rd safety.
  • 0

They are what I thought they were.

User avatar
DeadRinger
BR Scourge
BR Scourge
Reputation: 565
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:41 pm
Highscores: 0
Medals: 1

Re: High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since play

Postby FreddieB25 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 4:35 pm

Here's this fuckin asshole Deadstinker telling us how lucky we were to go 12-4 as he bailed on this board in November!!! We watched the games asswipe...we were lucky to have an offense that pulled points out of their ass when we needed them because our defense fuckin sucked in most games. You fuckin piece of shit yet comes back again lecturing us on what we already know...fuckin cocksucker!!!
  • 0


FreddieB25
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Reputation: 271
Posts: 3137
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:02 am
Highscores: 0

Re: High on the Raiders? - My first real analysis since play

Postby DeadRinger » Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:43 pm

FreddieB25 wrote:Here's this fuckin asshole Deadstinker telling us how lucky we were to go 12-4 as he bailed on this board in November!!! We watched the games asswipe...we were lucky to have an offense that pulled points out of their ass when we needed them because our defense fuckin sucked in most games. You fuckin piece of shit yet comes back again lecturing us on what we already know...fuckin cocksucker!!!

R|Freddie, you don't know a fuckin' thing. What you know can balance on the head of a pin.

What you THINK you know could fill the ocean. But what you ACTUALLY know is jack fucking shit.

The only reason you even thought we got lucky AT ALL last season is because I was talking about it a long time ago.

I didn't do this for you or the other fuck stains, because you don't understand what numbers are. I actually did this for ME and other thinkers on the board who might be interested in seeing exactly how many games we should have and could have lost if things had gone just a hair differently. If a ref had missed a call. If a QB had thrown it just an inch to the left. If a guy had made a 53-yd FG.

Because that helps us as we look ahead to next season and contemplate exactly how good we really are. while the whole media world is blowing smoke up our asses. WE know better.

See, I'm not satisfied with having an opinion. I want it to be HIGHLY informed by factual analysis. And that's the difference between my own football IQ of, say, 120, vs YOUR football IQ of, say, 75 (and you should actualy be flattered by such a high estimate). I'm an ANALYST. You're an OPINIONIST. And you suck at it.

\end random Freddie destruction.
  • 0

They are what I thought they were.

User avatar
DeadRinger
BR Scourge
BR Scourge
Reputation: 565
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:41 pm
Highscores: 0
Medals: 1

Next

Return to Oakland Raiders Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Forbiddenraider and 13 guests