⏰ to completely clean house

[TLO]

Hate to break it to some of you, but if there was as much talent on this defense as being discussed here, they wouldn’t be 31st in the league in PPG. 

[Rich7sena]

There's also the temptation to go big in FA this year. The Raiders are supposed to have the 9th most cap room in 2022 with around $50 million to spend according to Spotrac. I would not hate offering a guy like Terron Armstead half that and still have some to spend on a receiver and defensive tackle. Something like:

Cut: Kwiatkowski, Littleton, Nassib, Drake brings the total to over $60 million. Even more if the team waits until after June 1.

• Armstead $24 million per year. 5 years.
• Gallup $12 million per year. 3 years.
• Fatukasi $8-5 million per year. 3 years.
• Receiver depth (e.g. Wil Fuller, Sammy Watkins, DJ Chark, Tre'quan Smith, Allen Lazard, etc.) $8-5 million per year. 1 year
• Starting corner (e.g. Steven Nelson, Levi Wallace) $7-5 million per year. 1 year.
• Interior DL depth x 2 $5 million per year. 1 year each.

In this situation, I may even go receiver in round 1 or 2, depending on who's available. The Raiders have had terrible luck at the position, so it's tough to not cover all their bases. Also, depending on who the head coach is, having three capable receivers may be exactly what the offense demands.

Imagine a starting offense bookended with Armstead and Miller, with Gallup, Fuller, Chris Olave, and Darren Waller on the outside. That's pretty exciting.

 

 

[ronjon1990]

2 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

A few weeks back I was thinking when we get a neW coach… if he doesn’t retain Bradley (which I hope isn’t the case) I’d like to see a young, innovative DC who runs a 3 Safety package with 2 high FS’s plus Abram As a hybrid S/LB.  I think a hybrid role is what He’s best suited for.

So, basically Rocky Long's 3-3-5 scheme from New Mexico back in the day? 

If so, I'm totally down to test it out

[NYRaider]

22 minutes ago, TLO said:

Hate to break it to some of you, but if there was as much talent on this defense as being discussed here, they wouldn’t be 31st in the league in PPG. 

The number is skewed because we gave up 89 to the Chiefs.

[NYRaider]

10 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

So, basically Rocky Long's 3-3-5 scheme from New Mexico back in the day? 

If so, I'm totally down to test it out

Abram isn't good enough to be changing the scheme for him.

[ronjon1990]

6 hours ago, Rich7sena said:

I honestly don't think a mobile QB would be much better with this group. And, all things considered, Carr did move well in the Chiefs game and has all season.

The offense tries to mitigate the deficiencies with quick passes--Bisaccia said as much.

I sort of disagree. 

I don't think that simply going to a mobile QB is the fix so many think it is. I think that's a Madden-esque mindset and that overly mobility-oriented QBs are fun but rarely become true stars. It's a phase that comes and goes every few seasons. So we agree there. 

Where I slightly disagree is in regards to what we have now. 

The right side of the O-line is an unmitigated disaster and with our offense being so reliant on deep passes (aka: long developing plays) makes it even worse. I criticized before that if you absolutely had to have a 4.3 or faster guy to have a functional offense then you don't have an offense. 

Carr is a right handed QB who is often losing the right side of the field because Pleatherwhiff and Parker suck wind. Thus, he's often stuck rolling leftwards either to buy time or start running. The former requires him to reset his feet (taking even more time) while the latter becomes a routine that defenses pick up on. 

I wouldn't call Carr a statue, but he's not really a "threat" to run. 

The result, right now, is Carr having to buy time for long developing pass plays, often reduced to one side of the field when things start eventually crumbling.

If we played Mariota, I think some of that could actually be alleviated because of his mobility. He's not as refined a passer, but he might be mobile enough to utilize the right side of the field despite Pleatherwhiff and Parker's poor blocking. 

Instead of the QB being a target, Mariota might be able to buy time and open up the short-intermediate pass game without such a reliance on deep plays that take longer to develop. 

It's not ideal and not something I want to go into next year with, but in the meantime, I think there's a potential benefit to it. We 100% try to mitigate things with the short game, but we don't have very good talent for it, hence "needing" Jackson after Ruggs. It was all about speed and deep passes opening up the field. Maybe taking the same approach to mitigation, but using the QB to buy the time instead of a deep route from a WR is worth exploring. 

[ronjon1990]

8 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Abram isn't good enough to be changing the scheme for him.

For him alone, I wouldn't. 

 

[drfrey13]

31 minutes ago, TLO said:

Hate to break it to some of you, but if there was as much talent on this defense as being discussed here, they wouldn’t be 31st in the league in PPG. 

First a lot of the problems this defense has come from the inability of the offense to function now.  The team is quitting.  If the offense shows up against the Bears, Giants, and WFT we are still 9-4.  Still we do give up to many points.  There is talent on defense but a lot of it is young and needs to develop.  GB adds to the issue because he plays to soft in certain circumstances.  We need to release the animals instead of trying to keep them in check.  I have also seen plenty of times this year that the defense was going to get off the field and the refs pull some BS.  This really has become worse after the Gruden issue.  Speaking of that it has to be really tough for a young team to overcome what they have been through this year and to top it off the interim coach is in way over his head.  I was listening to somebody earlier talk about a power vacuum that has been created because Gruden had so much control.  The coaches have no one to look to for direction and there is not a real leader among them.  This year is over and we should really just see what we have on the roster.  Carr needs to be benched.  He will be worthless if he gets hurts and maybe MM can do something with the team.  If he can not then we have a better draft pick.  Neither him or Carr are going to get us to the playoffs.

[TLO]

42 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

The number is skewed because we gave up 89 to the Chiefs.

And this team isn’t gonna be a threat to anyone as long as that continues to happen. 
 

For the record, I do think the defense is better than prior years, but I think guys are getting overrated since there’s been such a talent deficiency for so long. 

[MrOaktown_56]

2 hours ago, NYRaider said:

 

What a G. Respect. Wish we kept agholor after he threatened to beat up arnette after last year's mishap.

[drfrey13]

1 hour ago, TLO said:

And this team isn’t gonna be a threat to anyone as long as that continues to happen. 
 

For the record, I do think the defense is better than prior years, but I think guys are getting overrated since there’s been such a talent deficiency for so long. 

 

2 hours ago, NYRaider said:

The number is skewed because we gave up 89 to the Chiefs.

That is a horrible argument for our defense since the Chiefs averaged 15 points a game their 5 previous games if you do not count the Raiders games. (3,20,13,19,22)

[NYRaider]

1 hour ago, TLO said:

And this team isn’t gonna be a threat to anyone as long as that continues to happen. 

For the record, I do think the defense is better than prior years, but I think guys are getting overrated since there’s been such a talent deficiency for so long. 

We've given up 30+ 4 times this season, the two Chiefs games, the Cowboys game, and the Bengals game. Last year we gave up 30 points in 10/16 games. The Cowboys number is skewed because 7 points came off of a returned kick and the Bengals game is skewed because they got 10 points in garbage time when the game was over after Carr turned the ball over. 

The defense didn't give up 30+ once in our first 8 games but has in 4/7 weeks. I think a lot of that has to do with the offense though. On the season we have 17 turnovers, 9 of them came in the two Chiefs games and the Bengals game. And outside of the Cowboys game in each game we've allowed 30+ the offense has been held under 300 total yards. Our inability to sustain drives and turnovers have put the defense in bad spots in the games that we've given up a lot of points. 

Against the Bears we allowed 249 yards/20 points, against the Giants we allowed 252 yards/23 points, and against WFT we allowed 298 yards/17 points and we lost each game. Hell against the Bengals we held them to 288 yards and they were still able to score 32 points. That wasn't really on the defense.

[NYRaider]

1 minute ago, drfrey13 said:

 

That is a horrible argument for our defense since the Chiefs averaged 15 points a game their 5 previous games if you do not count the Raiders games. (3,20,13,19,22)

 

Just now, NYRaider said:

We've given up 30+ 4 times this season, the two Chiefs games, the Cowboys game, and the Bengals game. Last year we gave up 30 points in 10/16 games. The Cowboys number is skewed because 7 points came off of a returned kick and the Bengals game is skewed because they got 10 points in garbage time when the game was over after Carr turned the ball over. 

The defense didn't give up 30+ once in our first 8 games but has in 4/7 weeks. I think a lot of that has to do with the offense though. On the season we have 17 turnovers, 9 of them came in the two Chiefs games and the Bengals game. And outside of the Cowboys game in each game we've allowed 30+ the offense has been held under 300 total yards. Our inability to sustain drives and turnovers have put the defense in bad spots in the games that we've given up a lot of points. 

Against the Bears we allowed 249 yards/20 points, against the Giants we allowed 252 yards/23 points, and against WFT we allowed 298 yards/17 points and we lost each game. Hell against the Bengals we held them to 288 yards and they were still able to score 32 points. That wasn't really on the defense.

 

[drfrey13]

5 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

We've given up 30+ 4 times this season, the two Chiefs games, the Cowboys game, and the Bengals game. Last year we gave up 30 points in 10/16 games. The Cowboys number is skewed because 7 points came off of a returned kick and the Bengals game is skewed because they got 10 points in garbage time when the game was over after Carr turned the ball over. 

The defense didn't give up 30+ once in our first 8 games but has in 4/7 weeks. I think a lot of that has to do with the offense though. On the season we have 17 turnovers, 9 of them came in the two Chiefs games and the Bengals game. And outside of the Cowboys game in each game we've allowed 30+ the offense has been held under 300 total yards. Our inability to sustain drives and turnovers have put the defense in bad spots in the games that we've given up a lot of points. 

Against the Bears we allowed 249 yards/20 points, against the Giants we allowed 252 yards/23 points, and against WFT we allowed 298 yards/17 points and we lost each game. Hell against the Bengals we held them to 288 yards and they were still able to score 32 points. That wasn't really on the defense.

I am not saying the defense is trash.  In fact I have been defending the defense for a while.  I just brought up the bolded idea earlier stating we are 9-4 if the offence shows up in those 3 games.  My point was that the argument about the Chiefs was a bad one since the had not put up 30 points since week 6.  Also they have put up 40 3 times this year.  Tice was against us.

[NYRaider]

1 minute ago, drfrey13 said:

I am not saying the defense is trash.  In fact I have been defending the defense for a while.  I just brought up the bolded idea earlier stating we are 9-4 if the offence shows up in those 3 games.  My point was that the argument about the Chiefs was a bad one since the had not put up 30 points since week 6.  Also they have put up 40 3 times this year.  Tice was against us.

I don't think the defense is some great, elite unit but it is definitely much improved in comparison to last season. 

When you look at the first Chiefs game the defense was actually holding up pretty well and then the offense turned the ball over twice late so it got out of hand. We held them to a FG in the third quarter and were driving down 24-14 before Desean Jackson fumbled the ball and the defense was back on the field a minute later, KC scored again. That was followed by Carr throwing an interception so the defense was on the field again a minute later and KC scored again which sealed the blow out.

During our first 6 drives to start the game last week we only had possession of the ball for 10 minutes running 22 plays and gained 84 total yards. We also had two turnovers, one on the first play of the game that was returned for a touchdown. The defense didn't play well but the offense couldn't sustain drives so they were literally on the field for basically the entire first half, it's impossible for any defense to play well under those circumstances.