Raiders Defense

[Turnobili]

7 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

Of course their are reaches.... if we took Hamler at 12/19 even @MrOaktown_56 would call that b a reach.... 

your point is kinda dumb imo,,, and no offense meant... your not on some next level reasoning/discussion... you just removed all context from what he said.

if he would agree with that then i have no issue. its not what he said, though.

i never said anything about me being on "next level reasoning" or anything like that, i dont get what you're saying there. if we disagree that's fine.

Edited May 28, 2020 by Turnobili

[MrOaktown_56]

9 hours ago, Turnobili said:

if he would agree with that then i have no issue. its not what he said, though.

i never said anything about me being on "next level reasoning" or anything like that, i dont get what you're saying there. if we disagree that's fine.

There are reaches, but the way reach is conventionally defined is ridiculous. Especially when people are saying that a player is graded 2 rounds below where they are taken. I don't buy that at all. There are also players who are taken at positions of need over conventionally better players. I wouldn't call that a "reach" as much as a prioritization of talent.

[jimkelly02]

14 hours ago, Turnobili said:

if he would agree with that then i have no issue. its not what he said, though.

This isn’t bay raider we are talking about here with some “hot take” (that ends up being wrong most of the time btw).

i don’t think sensible people have to add A “within reason” preface to everything..... it’s assumed

[Turnobili]

6 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

This isn’t bay raider we are talking about here with some “hot take” (that ends up being wrong most of the time btw).

i don’t think sensible people have to add A “within reason” preface to everything..... it’s assumed

hey man, bay raider's hot take this time around was that arnette was a low key first round option

[jimkelly02]

23 hours ago, Turnobili said:

hey man, bay raider's hot take this time around was that arnette was a low key first round option

Hey even even a broken clock is right 2x a day.... funny thing is that’s like THE only one he got right and it’s the guy we drafted.... years from now peopleon the board will remember that and not the tons of other misses he had.

[RaidersAreOne]

 

[drfrey13]

8 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said:

 

The key player was not Abram, although I think he will be a good player, but the man in the middle of the screen yelling at other players to make the proper adjustments.  What is most important for this defense is Kwiatkoski learning the defense and being a leader.  I want an all pro MLB but I will settle for one that just knows where everyone is suppose to be.  Going from Whitehead to a competent man in the middle is more important than Abram being an All Pro.

[Turnobili]

Abram should give the defense a shot in the arm but lol at him being the key.

[jimkelly02]

Idk what “the key” as the last 2 posters mentioned EXACTLY is suppose to mean but I do think Abram’s return can be a BIG boost for this defense.  I think he’s going to do a very good job in run defense, covering TEs and RBs, run and pass blitzing.... not saying he’s gonna be Jamal Adams of the Jets but I can see him being 85% of the player and having a 85% similar impact.  What I like about Abrams is he’s not just a box safety, he can cover and play deep.  That’s important to this defense.  
 

I also didn’t take when the video maker said “key” to the defense to mean he’s going to be the star of it, more so that Abrams will be a key piece to the defenses improvement.

[drfrey13]

2 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

Idk what “the key” as the last 2 posters mentioned EXACTLY is suppose to mean but I do think Abram’s return can be a BIG boost for this defense.  I think he’s going to do a very good job in run defense, covering TEs and RBs, run and pass blitzing.... not saying he’s gonna be Jamal Adams of the Jets but I can see him being 85% of the player and having a 85% similar impact.  What I like about Abrams is he’s not just a box safety, he can cover and play deep.  That’s important to this defense.  
 

I also didn’t take when the video maker said “key” to the defense to mean he’s going to be the star of it, more so that Abrams will be a key piece to the defenses improvement.

You are right that the video maker did not say he was going to be the key to the defense.  He said he will be the key to the team.  My overall point is the greatest impact on defense if all goes according to plan will be having a competent player with the green dot.  If we are going to improve most of it will come from the new MLBs understanding of Guenther's system.  Although I am not a fan of Guenther this defense looked like an old man with Alzheimers walking down the street in his underwear.  The players need to know their job and we need a leader that knows what everyone's job is on defense.

[RaidersAreOne]

 

[RaidersAreOne]

 

[Humble_Beast]

On 6/19/2020 at 8:13 AM, RaidersAreOne said:

 

Too bad the Falcons took Terrell Lol

Edited June 21, 2020 by Humble_Beast

[Darbsk]

Just saw this article below and the correlation is unmistakeable:

Boston Sports Info (@bostonsportsinf) Tweeted: NFL turnover margin since 2001

1. Patriots - +189

2. Packers - +88
3. Seahawks - +85
4. Chiefs - +81
5. Falcons - +62

A whopping +101 TO differential than the #2 team

details https://t.co/PcJBrs1bK5

 

The bottom 4 teams are Detroit, Arizona, Cleveland and Oakland being last. The Raiders turnover differential is -98 over that period 😬.

Every single team in the top 10 has a winning record over that period and 6 of them have won Superbowls.

We can talk about yardage, points etc. but when it comes to good defence I feel turnovers and 3rd down percentage are absolutely crucial. Its pretty obvious our turnover differential in 2016 played a massive part in our most successful season in almost 2 decades.

With Carr being notoriously conservative and our WCO scheme we should be relatively frugal in turnovers on offense so our defence has the onus to make a huge difference. Can they create many more turnovers in 2020??

[mct288]

4 hours ago, Darbsk said:

Just saw this article below and the correlation is unmistakeable:

Boston Sports Info (@bostonsportsinf) Tweeted: NFL turnover margin since 2001

1. Patriots - +189

2. Packers - +88
3. Seahawks - +85
4. Chiefs - +81
5. Falcons - +62

A whopping +101 TO differential than the #2 team

details https://t.co/PcJBrs1bK5

 

The bottom 4 teams are Detroit, Arizona, Cleveland and Oakland being last. The Raiders turnover differential is -98 over that period 😬.

Every single team in the top 10 has a winning record over that period and 6 of them have won Superbowls.

We can talk about yardage, points etc. but when it comes to good defence I feel turnovers and 3rd down percentage are absolutely crucial. Its pretty obvious our turnover differential in 2016 played a massive part in our most successful season in almost 2 decades.

With Carr being notoriously conservative and our WCO scheme we should be relatively frugal in turnovers on offense so our defence has the onus to make a huge difference. Can they create many more turnovers in 2020??

I think you nailed it. TO differential is as good of an indicator as there is. 

Sometimes this is flukey and a team will have a single playoff season or two. Our 2016 season, the Bengals ~2005 or so also come to mind as teams that have had a one-off huge TO differential. 

However, in order to achieve this consistently, the team has to be playing with a lead. Hopefully our WCO can both take care of the ball and finish in the endzone more. Teams have to be forced into taking more chances if the defense wants more turnovers. Complimentary football at its finest. 

Edited August 15, 2020 by mct288
Grammar