Jump to content

Raiders Defense


Rolni

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Jraider91 said:

Once you get into redzone the playbooks change dramatically, why are the 8 other teams above us in turnovers not so abysmally bad in the redzone then? Dunno why you are so invested in a D that gives up points whenever they play a decent offense. 

Look at time of possession, look at average starting field position we’ve already established the offensive mistakes makes the defense look worse than they really are.

I agree redzone and turnovers are where the defense struggles. I don’t agree that it’s a below average defense. So I guess we agree to disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

Look at time of possession, look at average starting field position we’ve already established the offensive mistakes makes the defense look worse than they really are.

I agree redzone and turnovers are where the defense struggles. I don’t agree that it’s a below average defense. So I guess we agree to disagree. 

It's probably about average, good in coverage & okish against the run. Doesn't get enough sacks or turnovers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Styrian Raider said:

It's the end of Bradley's first season and our defense is not elite yet? How dare he...

Let's be honest, our defense made a significant step forwards this season and we have definetly room to improve and the question will be if Bradley gets the trust that he can improve the D  further.

I'd rather have Fangio if we're getting Harbs.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Styrian Raider said:

It's the end of Bradley's first season and our defense is not elite yet? How dare he...

Let's be honest, our defense made a significant step forwards this season and we have definetly room to improve and the question will be if Bradley gets the trust that he can improve the D  further.

For me, it's not about being elite. It's situational scheming. 

The D took a huge step forward from Guenther, but we were practically rock bottom with him. 

In a division with Herbert, Mahomes, and whoever Denver gets (God forbid they actually land Rodgers), Gus' scheme is going to be disastrous, regardless of who plays in it short of a couple of HoF level guys. 

His comical reluctance to blitz is going to continue giving top tier QBs time to go through progressions, and all 3 division opponents have a ton of weapons. 

The coverage schemes he calls are softer than a Brazilian bikini model's ***. Rodgers, Mahomes, and Herbert will continue tearing that coverage to shreds. 

His play design constantly leaves RBs open in the flats, barely accounts for TEs, and, again, ascribes too rigidly to the "bend, don't break" mantra. Even when players are in place and disciplined, he designs super soft coverages that give up big chunks on 3rd and long's. He routinely gambles that the defender will stop the offensive player in a 2-3 yard window before the sticks instead of attacking and forcing the QB to go down the field- and it bites us often. That's just not sustainable while refusing to deploy blitzes. On the rare occasion we get a stop on 3rd after something like a 3rd and 16, it's almost always a 4th and 1-2 situation. That leaves us open to 4th and short plays, trick plays, gives the opponent a shot at a FG instead of a punt, or puts the offense deeper in our own territory. 

Gus had an all-time setup in Seattle and has never come close to replicating it. There's a reason he's bounced around- his defenses rarely actually improve from year to year, and if they manage to, it's always short-lived. And, again, it's the fundamental aspects of his scheme and the offenses we play twice a year that are the problem. It's a bad fit. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mayock for all his faults has been really good at mid season Signings to fill holes from Injuries, IE. Facyson.

But…. Seeing how weak we’ve been at S, even before the injury to Abrams, why haven’t we brought in a better backup S?  

leavitt shouldn’t ever be playing on defense.  Teamer really shouldn’t be a starting SS.  There’s gotta be a Safety we could bring in to keep leavitt of the field on defense.  He did make one play tonight but he’s playing 30% of the defensive snaps…. Even 100% versus Denver and is horrible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

Mayock for all his faults has been really good at mid season Signings to fill holes from Injuries, IE. Facyson.

But…. Seeing how weak we’ve been at S, even before the injury to Abrams, why haven’t we brought in a better backup S?  

leavitt shouldn’t ever be playing on defense.  Teamer really shouldn’t be a starting SS.  There’s gotta be a Safety we could bring in to keep leavitt of the field on defense.  He did make one play tonight but he’s playing 30% of the defensive snaps…. Even 100% versus Denver and is horrible.

We should've kept Karl Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the offseason:

Resign:

Hayward (2 year deal)

Facyson (1 year deal, nice depth but I don't want him starting).

Philon (off injury, feel for him but he'll be cheap)

Jefferson 

Hankins (if price is right)

Let Thomas walk. He's okay but the least good of the bunch.

Draft/Remainder of FA:

WR: Need a guy who is dynamic in some aspect, either speed or separation. Edwards/Zay/Renfrow are an okay trio, but we need someone to bump Zay/Edwards down to 4.

OG/OT: Want a plug and play guy at either/or position.

CB: Better to draft one on day 2/3. Mullen is a guy I still have faith in. Pre injury he looked really nice. 

DT: Still looking for a true week to week game changer.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

I'd rather have Fangio if we're getting Harbs.

Does he bring us in every relevant statistic in the top 10 immediately? Because I think that's what is expected from a DC for us.

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

For me, it's not about being elite. It's situational scheming. 

The D took a huge step forward from Guenther, but we were practically rock bottom with him. 

In a division with Herbert, Mahomes, and whoever Denver gets (God forbid they actually land Rodgers), Gus' scheme is going to be disastrous, regardless of who plays in it short of a couple of HoF level guys. 

His comical reluctance to blitz is going to continue giving top tier QBs time to go through progressions, and all 3 division opponents have a ton of weapons. 

The coverage schemes he calls are softer than a Brazilian bikini model's ***. Rodgers, Mahomes, and Herbert will continue tearing that coverage to shreds. 

His play design constantly leaves RBs open in the flats, barely accounts for TEs, and, again, ascribes too rigidly to the "bend, don't break" mantra. Even when players are in place and disciplined, he designs super soft coverages that give up big chunks on 3rd and long's. He routinely gambles that the defender will stop the offensive player in a 2-3 yard window before the sticks instead of attacking and forcing the QB to go down the field- and it bites us often. That's just not sustainable while refusing to deploy blitzes. On the rare occasion we get a stop on 3rd after something like a 3rd and 16, it's almost always a 4th and 1-2 situation. That leaves us open to 4th and short plays, trick plays, gives the opponent a shot at a FG instead of a punt, or puts the offense deeper in our own territory. 

Gus had an all-time setup in Seattle and has never come close to replicating it. There's a reason he's bounced around- his defenses rarely actually improve from year to year, and if they manage to, it's always short-lived. And, again, it's the fundamental aspects of his scheme and the offenses we play twice a year that are the problem. It's a bad fit. 

 

 

 

That may all be right. I won't deny that.
But as I said: it's Bradley's first year with us and you can't expect that he or any other coach comes in and bibbidi bobbidi boo we're the best in the league. But it seems that's the expactation from some guys here.

I have no problem if we replace Bradley, but you also have to give an other DC the time to develop his scheme and player personnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Styrian Raider said:

Does he bring us in every relevant statistic in the top 10 immediately? Because I think that's what is expected from a DC for us.

That may all be right. I won't deny that.
But as I said: it's Bradley's first year with us and you can't expect that he or any other coach comes in and bibbidi bobbidi boo we're the best in the league. But it seems that's the expactation from some guys here.

I have no problem if we replace Bradley, but you also have to give an other DC the time to develop his scheme and player personnel.

Fangio is one of the best defensive coordinators in the league. A defense he installs guaranteed will:

1. Be more matchup dependent than ours

2. Have better redzone defense/situational awareness

3. Be more aggressive when it counts

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Fangio is one of the best defensive coordinators in the league. A defense he installs guaranteed will:

1. Be more matchup dependent than ours

2. Have better redzone defense/situational awareness

3. Be more aggressive when it counts

from day one on or does he needs time to develop the defense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...