Raiders Defense

[jimkelly02]

5 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

You'd likely be giving up either Nixon or Johnson to carry Worley. We've seen what our secondary looks like with Worley playing a significant role, we had one of the worst pass defenses in the league with him on the field. You already have a veteran in Lawson who's a better scheme fit, better player, and under contract in the room. Worley provides nothing that we can't get from another player on the roster as it stands. 

There’s room for 7 CBs and 4 Ss.

we can certainly add 2 CBs, one rookie + one vet. 
If the argument is we should sign someone better for a bit more money... ok I don’t think you’ll have anyone pounding the table for Worley. 
Whether it’s Worley or another FA, I’d like to bring one in so where not forced to start a rookie we draft, from day 1.

Edited April 20, 2020 by jimkelly02

[oakdb36]

3 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

You'd likely be giving up either Nixon or Johnson to carry Worley. We've seen what our secondary looks like with Worley playing a significant role, we had one of the worst pass defenses in the league with him on the field. You already have a veteran in Lawson who's a better scheme fit, better player, and under contract in the room. Worley provides nothing that we can't get from another player on the roster as it stands. 

Does it mean you wouldn't sign any vet CB at this point? Or if you would, who do you think provides something?

[NYRaider]

Just now, jimkelly02 said:

There’s room for 7 CBs and 4 Ss.

we can certainly add 2 CBs, one rookie + one vet. 
If the argument is we should sign someone better for a bit more money... ok I don’t think you’ll have anyone pounding the table for Worley. 
Whether it’s Worley or another FA, I’d like to bring one in so where not forced to start a rookie we draft.

Almost zero chance that we carry 7 CB's on the roster. You don't have to start a rookie to begin the season. You can start Lawson who played better than Worley last season, has started more games, is a better scheme fit, better against the run, and actually on the roster. 

[MrOaktown_56]

9 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

You'd likely be giving up either Nixon or Johnson to carry Worley. We've seen what our secondary looks like with Worley playing a significant role, we had one of the worst pass defenses in the league with him on the field. You already have a veteran in Lawson who's a better scheme fit, better player, and under contract in the room. Worley provides nothing that we can't get from another player on the roster as it stands. 

I mean everyone plays through camp and whatever happens happens. If we can bring in Trumaine Johnson or Dennard, that would be better. But if not, nothing wrong with bringing him into camp.

[NYRaider]

1 minute ago, oakdb36 said:

Does it mean you wouldn't sign any vet CB at this point? Or if you would, who do you think provides something?

What veteran CB is going to make an impact? Trumaine Johnson and Dre Kirkpatrick are both 30 and coming off of season ending lower body injuries. We've already seen what Worley can do in our scheme and that's be one of the worst cover corners in the NFL. We offered Byron Jones the biggest contract ever, we were interested in Bradberry but he signed with NY very quickly, and we inquired about a trade for Slay but didn't want to give up the draft capital or pay him. We wanted to address CB in free agency and we missed. 

We're in the second year of a major rebuild so young players are going to have to play significant roles for us. If we take a CB in the top 20 and he's not starting for the majority of the season there's something wrong. Mullen and Joyner are locked in as starters, you have a solid depth option/veteran in Lawson, then you have your young developmental guys in Johnson/Nixon to round out the group. 

[Darbsk]

3 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

You'd likely be giving up either Nixon or Johnson to carry Worley. We've seen what our secondary looks like with Worley playing a significant role, we had one of the worst pass defenses in the league with him on the field. You already have a veteran in Lawson who's a better scheme fit, better player, and under contract in the room. Worley provides nothing that we can't get from another player on the roster as it stands. 

I'd bring Worley back cheap as competition, I love Jaylon Johnson in the draft but am not so enamoured that I don't think he has skills to polish up and things to improve on if we drafted him, also with interrupted team activities rookies might be at a disadvantage this year. We can have Worley, Lawson, Isaiah Johnson and Nixon all compete with Mullen, Joyner and the rookie. It just gives us options so were not forced to shoehorn in an under seasoned rookie. If Worley plays as terribly as you portray then he wont make it out of camp, though I think you exaggerated a little, Worley isn't great but he's not that bad and he was, like all the secondary, playing behind a very poor pass rush. No harm in bringing him back cheap as he knows the system, coaches and thus off season could be very difficult for new players and rookies IMO. 

[NYRaider]

Just now, Darbsk said:

No harm in bringing him back cheap as he knows the system, coaches and thus off season could be very difficult for new players and rookies IMO. 

He was such a bad fit in the scheme as a CB that they had to move him to safety. 

[Darbsk]

10 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

He was such a bad fit in the scheme as a CB that they had to move him to safety. 

I disagree, we had injuries everywhere and he was the best fit back there and played ok given the circumstances. I prefer Lawson at CB but lets be honest, he's got hands like feet and we'd be hoping the rookie starts quickly aswell. At safety, Abram is an unknown quantity, Randall has very good and very bad reviews and Heath is no Pro Bowler so more options and flexibility at a cheap cost is a good idea. Obviously, if Worley wants 5 mil then we'll not be interested and if he is bad then he'll be cut.

[drfrey13]

2 hours ago, NYRaider said:

You let Abram cover Kelce, Henry, and Fant. Or you let Randall lineup against the TE and have Abram help over the top.  In a 4-2-5 in the back 7 you'd have Littleton, Kwit, Mullen, Joyner, Lawson/Rookie, Abram, and Randall. Worley should not be seeing the field over Abram or Randall. Why do you guys keep suggesting that Worley is the ultimate TE stopper? Kelce had 12 catches for 197 yards against us last season, why didn't Gruden/Gunther have Worley shut him down if he has that type of ability?

People sometimes try to be too smart.  Worley was containing Kelce but then Reid started scheming Kelce to get him matched up 1v1 on Joseph.  It is a chess match and Worley is a chess piece.  Is he a good CB or S?  Not really but he has the right blend of skills to limit good TEs and that is one of the main weapons for all teams in our division.  I like Abram but if he tries to stay with Hill you can bet Hill will score a TD or 2.  Reid will figure out how to get the match-up he wants.  Having Worley shadow Kelce just makes it harder for him and gives our offense more time to try and build a lead.  Best way to beat Reid is to to keep the offense off the field and slowly make them 1 dimensional because they are playing from behind.  I am not saying remove Abram or Randall but maybe Lawson, the rookie, or Joyner.

[NYRaider]

6 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

I disagree, we had injuries everywhere and he was the best fit back there and played ok given the circumstances. I prefer Lawson at CB but lets be honest, he's got hands like feet and we'd be hoping the rookie starts quickly aswell. At safety, Abram is an unknown quantity, Randall has very good and very bad reviews and Heath is no Pro Bowler so more options and flexibility at a cheap cost is a good idea. Obviously, if Worley wants 5 mil then we'll not be interested and if he is bad then he'll be cut.

He played okay? He was legitimately one of the worst CB's in the league statistically and our secondary was terrible. 

[NYRaider]

9 minutes ago, drfrey13 said:

People sometimes try to be too smart.  Worley was containing Kelce but then Reid started scheming Kelce to get him matched up 1v1 on Joseph.  It is a chess match and Worley is a chess piece.  Is he a good CB or S?  Not really but he has the right blend of skills to limit good TEs and that is one of the main weapons for all teams in our division.  I like Abram but if he tries to stay with Hill you can bet Hill will score a TD or 2.  Reid will figure out how to get the match-up he wants.  Having Worley shadow Kelce just makes it harder for him and gives our offense more time to try and build a lead.  Best way to beat Reid is to to keep the offense off the field and slowly make them 1 dimensional because they are playing from behind.  I am not saying remove Abram or Randall but maybe Lawson, the rookie, or Joyner.

Who does Worley play over though? Mullen is locked in on one side, Joyner in the slot, Abram at SS, and Randall at FS who has more range and way better ball skills than Worley. Kelce put up 197 yards in two meetings against us last season, why didn't we have Worley shadowing him to give our offense the opportunity to build an early lead if he's the elite TE stopping DB? 

What does Abram staying with Hill have to do with anything? Is Worley and his 4.7 forty time going to cover Hill? lol. 

Joyner was meh last season but at least he has played at an elite level in the past and it's pretty clear the staff is dead set at starting him in the slot. Worley at his best was just okay and again that was in a zone heavy scheme where offenses couldn't exploit his lack of speed as much. 

If Worley is playing significant snaps over a rookie we take in the top 20 there's a major issue with the guy we drafted. In an ideal 4-2-5 defense we'll have Mullen/First round rookie on the outside, Joyner in the slot, and Randall/Abram at safety. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by NYRaider

[Darbsk]

1 minute ago, NYRaider said:

He played okay? He was legitimately one of the worst CB's in the league statistically and our secondary was terrible. 

When he went to safety. Given that there was so many injuries and poor pass rush. At CB he was poor, but not as bad as you're trying to say...... again we have to take circumstances into account. 

Ideally, he wouldn't start but you can't have a pro bowler at every position and some average players who perform a role adequately are just fine. That is all I think anyone wants here, not a starter.  

[NYRaider]

Just now, Darbsk said:

When he went to safety. Given that there was so many injuries and poor pass rush. At CB he was poor, but not as bad as you're trying to say...... again we have to take circumstances into account. 

Ideally, he wouldn't start but you can't have a pro bowler at every position and some average players who perform a role adequately are just fine. That is all I think anyone wants here, not a starter.  

You also have to take into account that a slow CB who sucks in press man coverage and run support is the exact opposite of what Gruden wants in the defense. 

He literally was one of the worst CB's in the league last season. He was getting picked on week in and week out. You don't need a pro bowler at every position but you need guys that fit your scheme and can at least be average, Worley provides neither. 

Everyone keeps saying to keep him as the TE stopper when Kelce murked us both times we played. If Worley has that type of ability to shadow an All-Pro and limit him why didn't the staff use him in that way and why didn't he ever display that type of ability? 

[jimkelly02]

It’s one thing to say “hey I think there’s better options out there than Worley” but it’s quite another to advocate that we’d be best with Nevin Lawson starting until a rookie can take the job.  

then post videos of Worley’s bad plays.... when Lawson had the most iconic bad play ever.  (Insert dropped INT play here)

you can’t complain that we didn’t force many INTs and then advocate for Lawson.... he’s the most successful NFL CB to never get an INT.

[Darbsk]

I dont think anyone has claimed he can and often does shut down elite TEs, again more exaggeration ........but he can provide an option there so we dont have to put all our eggs in the unproven Abrams basket.