Week 7 GDT: Raiders vs Saints

[BobbyPhil1781]

BeNcHEd

 

[drfrey13]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

Oh don't get me wrong, there wasn't a single positive that can be said for the offense today. Nothing. Not a single one. 

Just pointing out that it wouldn't have mattered either way. The Saints offense looked virtually unstoppable today as we allowed Alvin Kamara to have his way with us, had zero answers for Taysom Hill despite him never being a real threat to throw, and making Andy Dalton look like a franchise type QB. 

The only intrinsic value in not putting up a giant doughnut on the scoreboard would have had would be for people to continue making excuses for Josh McDaniels' deficiencies as a HC and play caller. 

 

Look at it this way: 

We should not be losing to lesser teams, which is what we've done. 

The defense is bad. It's inexcusably bad, given that we make bad QBs look like very good QBs, can't make stops on 3rd (forced 2 punts all game....), and Graham has zero clue how to scheme against any single weapon everyone can see abusing us from a mile away. He needs to kick rocks. 

Had we lost 24-21, the narrative would not be that McDaniels' scheme sucks wind and looks like a broken record playing all the worst hits. It would be that the defense gave us ample opportunity to win- which anyone with two functioning eyes could see was not the case. 

Had we lost 35-28, the narrative would be that the defense didn't get enough help from the offense, not that Patrick Graham sucks and his schemes do not work. 

The core point is tha McDaniels has been given excuse after excuse. I'm glad we scored 0. That embarrassment is likely what prompted Davis to have another meeting with McDaniels, and a 24-21 loss or whatever probably stalls that from happening despite things very clearly being broken. 

At the same time, however, it cannot simply be glossed over that the offense would have been hard pressed to keep pace with the Saints because our defense has regressed to the point of absurdity. 

The internal reflection that needs to happen from Josh is something like this:

"Even if our offense had a near-perfect day, it would have been wasted. The offense needs to be fixed, but what good is fixing it if the defense merely acts as a punching bag by which opponents drain the clock before inevitably scoring?"

If the offense scored a bunch of points but we continue to lose, the excuses for both sides of the ball would simply continue. 

Josh McDaniels isn't an Offensive Coordinator anymore, he's the Head Coach. He doesn't, or rather shouldn't, get the luxury of worrying only about the offense and not the defense, which is what would have happened with yet another close loss despite a poor defensive performance. 

Had the Saints kept running a real offense instead of rushing Taysom Hill 10 times and going low key scrimmage mode, they would've put up near 40 on us. 

The offense looked like hot garbage today. No doubt. No debate. As I said, it needs to be fixed. But it only highlights, or at least should, that as long as Graham continues to fail as a Defensive Coordinator, it's likely for naught. Why? Because the Saints D has been far better than ours this year, as have most defenses we've played. But their offense has been significantly inferior by almost every metric. 

Other teams aren't going to stop playing offense or defense for us. Maybe our offense gets to scoring points against their D. But we may as well just allow every kickoff to be returned for a TD and hope we can get the ball last and hit a 2 pointer, because right now all the defense is good for is giving up a score while more time gets eaten away, which negates any functional gains the offense might make. 

The offense had an abysmal day at the office. The defense has had an abysmal season while seemingly getting worse every game. What good is a top 5 offense when your defense simply cannot stop anyone? 24-0, 24-21, 40-0, 40-35, losses are losses regardless of the score, and other teams don't score on our offense very often but have almost routinely outpaced us in points despite us being like 3rd in ppg coming into today. 

Giving up big plays and points to lesser talent hasn't embarrassed Josh enough to make necessary changes, because he doesn't have a HC outlook. A giant nothingburger on offense while Andy Dalton looked like Drew Brees in his prime out there may finally do the trick. 

 

 

 

Completely understand where you are coming from but dot necessarily agree completely.  Point being teams we have lost to have had plenty of motivation to score against our team or at least keeps drives going at the end of the game because before today we have given the offense the ball back with plenty of time for a game winning drive.  If we are truly the 3rd best offense, which I do not think we are close to, no way any team wants to put their defense up against us to try and hold onto the win.  So far our offense has not been up to the challenge.  Now the defense needs to improve plain and simple but I believe the offense has failed us more than the defense for multiple reasons.  If the offense can just pull off a game winning drive in half the of our chances we are 4-3 right now and easily in playoff hunt and depending on who we beat we would currently be in the top 7 teams.  Realistically 3 of the 4 loses where easily within reach and should have been won.  Just something about this team this year.  Coaching, luck, player effort after getting paid, Al Davis curse,...  I do not know the exact cause but we are not there.  All of the stuff I said about the team not doing this well was all based upon probabilities and when you have that many stack up the chances of it being a lost season is to high.  That is why I wanted to sit on our hands last offseason and be frugal and smart with new players and extensions.

I do not disagree with you in regards to the defense just the level.  I also believe that even if, not an excuse for him, Graham is/was a good coach he does not have the necessary players for his scheme.  I did not know who he was when he was announced and only heard NY Giants DC and my first thought was we do not have the monsters in the middle for it to work like NY has had.  Now is that McDaniels fault or is it Davis' fault for hiring McDenials?  I do not know how high up the food chain this goes but I do know that if I was Davis none of this would have been the direction I would go.  If I was Davis and McDaniels/Ziegler told me this is what they wanted to do year 1 in the offseason I would have moved on right away.  It showed a lack of patience, planning, and humility.  Possibly them trying to blow smoke up my skirt just to get hired and paid.  

I am not going to lie it feels good to be right so far but it does not make up for having to watch my team play like this.  Hopefully they turn it around and I end up looking like chicken little.

[drfrey13]

1 hour ago, BobbyPhil1781 said:

BeNcHEd

 

This very easily could be true and it does make sense.  The idea should still pop into your after the game he played.  I think this could be the first crack in the foundation of their relationship.  If we have a repeat next week do not be surprised if Carr gets thrown under the bus and McDaniels is driving the bus.  This could spiral really fast.  Not saying I think Stidham can do better but if he comes in and the offense looks better there might be some fireworks.

[ragingraider]

Carr apologists are so pathetic. If you can't recognize after this many years that he is a losing QB in this league without any special attributes, you are blind. Coaches have come and gone, so have WR, oline, RBs, TE, and we continue to lose. The common denominator is Carr.

 

I so tired of hearing the coaches blamed, the oline blamed, his weapons blamed, etc. It is the NFL. You aren't going to be stacked at every position. You need a QB who elevates others, not a QB who needs to be elevated by the rest of the team. 

 

If you still think Carr is bringing the Raiders a championship, you are delusional.

[big_palooka]

11 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

1. that was four years ago so that argument doesn't work. Can't blame what someone does in 2018 for what someone is doing in 2023

Yes you can. The previous FO traded the teams 2 best players at the time to rebuild. They had 13 draft picks in the top 100 picks including 5 first round picks and only player they hit on was Josh Jacobs.

They are responsible for the lackluster roster the new FO inherited. And we won't even get into the terrible FA signings that resulted in 43 million in dead cap.

11 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

2. If the whole thing about car is true then it was a bad move to pay him rather than letting him play out his last contract year(what she would've done). That's poor because if you didn't think he was that good now you're stuck with him regardless and he ties up money so you can't get other players

The have an out in the contract after thus season. They didn't commit to him long term.

11 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

3. If this team is built around carr then that would mean it's poor roster evaluation because then the office of line would've been much better on account of the premise being that he can't move in the pocket so he would need better protection.

Goes back to point number 1. The previous FO spent the 17 overall pick on a OT they were stuck with to start. They drafted 2 rookies on the Oline, so they invested in the future there. Good was a surprise retirement. They could have added better veteran players I would agree. 

11 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

So if this was supposed to be a rebuild then we would've made moves as if we were going to rebuild but that's not what we did. Instead we paid Carr Waller and Renfrow with one year left on each of their deals. Instead we tied up the money into the roster we currently have and added an older edge rusher 17 mil to the mix for more than we were paying the other rusher that we then traded directly for a corner and the complaint is that our defensive backfield still isn't that good and our pass rush has gotten worse. 

So again it all goes back to either the GM screwed up or the coaches are screwing up. It appears to be the latter.

It was not a rebuild. Again, that happened with the last FO. The rebuild will start with this group when they start over at QB. 

They extended their core group of players and nobody would argue they were deserving based on performance. 

43 million of the cap is tied up in dead money contract from the previous FO's terrible spending. 

Ya sin is the best corner on the roster, I see no fault in that trade, because Yannik didn't fit the scheme and is underwhelming as a player anyway. Jones has hit the wall at his age. It sucks, but part of FA. 50% of FA signing miss. 

I would agree, right now it appears coaches need to do more because the players are no executing properly.  

[roi34]

pathetic game, playcalling, prep, qb play, oline play.. all awful. defense business as usual

[Jeremy408]

2 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Yes you can. The previous FO traded the teams 2 best players at the time to rebuild. They had 13 draft picks in the top 100 picks including 5 first round picks and only player they hit on was Josh Jacobs.

They are responsible for the lackluster roster the new FO inherited. And we won't even get into the terrible FA signings that resulted in 43 million in dead cap.

The have an out in the contract after thus season. They didn't commit to him long term.

Goes back to point number 1. The previous FO spent the 17 overall pick on a OT they were stuck with to start. They drafted 2 rookies on the Oline, so they invested in the future there. Good was a surprise retirement. They could have added better veteran players I would agree. 

It was not a rebuild. Again, that happened with the last FO. The rebuild will start with this group when they start over at QB. 

They extended their core group of players and nobody would argue they were deserving based on performance. 

43 million of the cap is tied up in dead money contract from the previous FO's terrible spending. 

Ya sin is the best corner on the roster, I see no fault in that trade, because Yannik didn't fit the scheme and is underwhelming as a player anyway. Jones has hit the wall at his age. It sucks, but part of FA. 50% of FA signing miss. 

I would agree, right now it appears coaches need to do more because the players are no executing properly.  

No matter which way it's sliced. We paid everyone that was already here and sacrificed high draft picks and younger players at the same position to get more people who are producing less. While blatantly ignoring the actual problems like oline despite actual problems. 

Devante Adams is not part of the core. We spent nearly $30 million on him.

Chandler Jones was not part of core we spent $17 million on him. You can say Yannick wasn't a good fit but he's not a good fit either(he has .5 sacks right now)

Rock ya sin was not part of the core. We went and got him who is essentially on a one year deal and can go anywhere he wants after this year. We also don't have the money to pay him because we paid everyone else.

Speaking of paid everyone else. No matter which way anyone tries to slice it we didn't have to pay Carr Waller or Renfrow in the same way we didn't have to pay Josh Jacobs this year. We could've let their contracts play out. Now we're in a scenario where.

waller who is 30 years old is being paid $17 million per year and is often injured(we can't just move on from this one)

Renfrow doesn't seem to be a fit for what Josh McDaniels does so we're stuck with that with the only hope being that Josh McDaniels figures it out with him(because again he was good before this)

And Carr where while we're not stuck with him like some of the other people I mentioned he also has a non-trade clause so we can trade him. We will lose 5 million as a slap on the wrist and it means we have to draft a quarterback next year which will not have a veteran that's good enough to play over him his first year. We will probably get stuck with some quarterback that sucks so bad that the fan base is going to be cheering to put the other guy in prematurely which is never how you want ever want it to happen(see Zach wilson and the Jets). And before Mac Jones is mentioned keep in mind that the patriots had the offensive line and the defense to support Mac Jones we have neither of those.
 

Remember this is the office of line that they could've used a first and or second round to fix to go along with Dylan Parham. I don't think anybody here would've been mad at that. The reason why everybody here appears to be upset it's because they traded both of those top picks for receiver who is middle-aged and only makes sense if the roster was evaluated to be a winner now(which it was last year). No matter what the previous FO did, the new FO's Job is to evaluate what they inherited and deal with the roster accordingly. It appears that they miss evaluated the roster. It's why we all know that the offensive line was is the problem last year and they do get paid millions of dollars weren't able to come to that conclusion. 

The previous regime premise also continues not to work when you mentioned that we went from an 10-7 to potentially a 7-10(and that's being generous with the way things are looking) with the defense actually getting worse. With a lot of changes by this front office in that area.

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by Jeremy408

[big_palooka]

38 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

The previous regime premise also continues not to work when you mentioned that we went from an 10-7 to potentially a 7-10(and that's being generous with the way things are looking) with the defense actually getting worse. With a lot of changes by this front office in that area.

Comparing one season to the next is misguided. A lot changes around the league. 

The Raiders won 6 games last season in walk off fashion. They had a -65 point deferential which was the 4th worst in history to make a playoff appearance. 

Through 7 games, they are averaging 2.4 points less this season on offense (after a 0 yesterday). And giving up 1.2 point more on defense. 

Statistically, the output is the same. The difference is they are losing the close games they won the year before. Which was never going to be sustainable. 

The team was not that good a year ago. They were blown out by 3 times last season, things broke for them late in they snuck into the playoffs. 

They were destined to return to their mean in some capacity. 

[Jeremy408]

1 hour ago, big_palooka said:

Comparing one season to the next is misguided. A lot changes around the league. 

The Raiders won 6 games last season in walk off fashion. They had a -65 point deferential which was the 4th worst in history to make a playoff appearance. 

Through 7 games, they are averaging 2.4 points less this season on offense (after a 0 yesterday). And giving up 1.2 point more on defense. 

Statistically, the output is the same. The difference is they are losing the close games they won the year before. Which was never going to be sustainable. 

The team was not that good a year ago. They were blown out by 3 times last season, things broke for them late in they snuck into the playoffs. 

They were destined to return to their mean in some capacity. 

Again there are a couple of things wrong with this:

if you say that every year is different then you can't bring up FO decisions from three years ago because the same principles apply.

It's problematic to use the "we won close games argument" because we similarly lost a handful of close games last as well. we don't talk about those when trying to make a point because it doesn't play to the idea that we have regressed in almost every area on defense.

And there was never a time in the previous FO era that we didn't score any points the entire game let alone not cross the 50 until the end of the game. 

There are teams with new head coaches(see the Giants) who are doing more with less no quarterback and no receivers and are finding way to score points against better team than we have played. Our back up from last year is leading a team that's tied with the division and scored 26 points against the team that we put up the goose egg against. 
 

The problem with a lot of these arguments is that they're the type of arguments you can only make in March when the team hasn't played so it's all based on theoretical evidence. But it's different when we see with a Josh McDaniels coaching team actually looks like. That's when you can see Devante Adams reverse on 3&1 and go "wait that's not how you're supposed to use him"

That's when you start realizing the same stuff was happening in Denver this isn't the first time we've seen this in NFL history. We just forgot because it was 10 years ago and he went back to Brady 

Edited October 31, 2022 by Jeremy408

[bucksavage1]

8 hours ago, ragingraider said:

Carr apologists are so pathetic. If you can't recognize after this many years that he is a losing QB in this league without any special attributes, you are blind. Coaches have come and gone, so have WR, oline, RBs, TE, and we continue to lose. The common denominator is Carr.

 

I so tired of hearing the coaches blamed, the oline blamed, his weapons blamed, etc. It is the NFL. You aren't going to be stacked at every position. You need a QB who elevates others, not a QB who needs to be elevated by the rest of the team. 

 

If you still think Carr is bringing the Raiders a championship, you are delusional.

I’d be embarrassed defending such a limited loser QB. To the point they believe he’s some super bowl winning QB in waiting. Even though has the worst starting QB record in nfl history. They’ll deflect blame to everyone including yesterday’s performance 

 I’ve been attacked by 3-4 posters constantly around my comments about Carr. 
 

It’s beyond obvious that Carr is the #1 player holding the team back for several seasons. 

[big_palooka]

38 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

if you say that every year is different then you can't bring up FO decisions from three years ago because the same principles apply.

No they don't. The roster was built by the previous FO. The guys that should be coming into their own in years 3 and 4 are either continuing to underperform or off the roster entirely. A new FO can't overturn a bad roster in 1 offseason. 

38 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

It's problematic to use the "we won close games argument" because we similarly lost a handful of close games last as well. we don't talk about those when trying to make a point because it doesn't play to the idea that we have regressed in almost every area on defense.

It's not problematic, because winning 6 games in WALK OFF wins is not sustainable. I'm not talking winning, losing close games. > 60% of their wins came on a walk off score. Unheard of. 

40 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

And there was never a time in the previous FO era that we didn't score any points the entire game let alone not cross the 50 until the end of the game. 

This is on coaching. I don't disagree. The Raiders were blown out 3 times last season. Scoring in garbage time to put points up doesn't absolve them of that. In fact, Carr's team has been blown out at least once or twice every year he's been the QB.

42 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

That's when you can see Devante Adams reverse on 3&1 and go "wait that's not how you're supposed to use him"

I don't disagree. No reason to have him running the ball. That said, he picks up 10-15 yards if Kolton Miller doesn't whiff his block. Sometimes, it's about execution and that comes down to both coaching and talent. 

Hard to run and offense when your Oline is getting blown up every snap. 

[big_palooka]

26 minutes ago, bucksavage1 said:

I’d be embarrassed defending such a limited loser QB. To the point they believe he’s some super bowl winning QB in waiting. Even though has the worst starting QB record in nfl history. They’ll deflect blame to everyone including yesterday’s performance 

 I’ve been attacked by 3-4 posters constantly around my comments about Carr. 
 

It’s beyond obvious that Carr is the #1 player holding the team back for several seasons. 

Carr is not even close to the #1 player holding this team back. In fact, without him the Raiders probably would have been on the bottom of the league for a years now. 

He's also not elevating them. He is what he is. An inconsistent QB who will flash one week and is capable of laying down 4-5 ugly performances a season. He will keep you in the middle, which is not where you want to be. 

It's time to rip off the bandaid with him. Take the struggles without him and hope you can find a franchise signal caller. That is not an easy task mind you.

[Jeremy408]

6 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

No they don't. The roster was built by the previous FO. The guys that should be coming into their own in years 3 and 4 are either continuing to underperform or off the roster entirely. A new FO can't overturn a bad roster in 1 offseason. 

It's not problematic, because winning 6 games in WALK OFF wins is not sustainable. I'm not talking winning, losing close games. > 60% of their wins came on a walk off score. Unheard of. 

This is on coaching. I don't disagree. The Raiders were blown out 3 times last season. Scoring in garbage time to put points up doesn't absolve them of that. In fact, Carr's team has been blown out at least once or twice every year he's been the QB.

I don't disagree. No reason to have him running the ball. That said, he picks up 10-15 yards if Kolton Miller doesn't whiff his block. Sometimes, it's about execution and that comes down to both coaching and talent. 

Hard to run and offense when your Oline is getting blown up every snap. 

Cool so we've got some of it out of the way at least.

But even then that last part where he disagreed with me I think we have to look at that and acknowledge that this isn't the only time he's called plays like that this season. Say whatever you want about an offensive line Davante Adams should never get it a reverse especially on short yardage situation. Offensive guru's should know these things. 

I'm sure we can do the whole walk often but we're not beating teams that are like really good. We're losing to teams that suck otherwise. The only teams we've beat this year are the Broncos who are essentially the same thing as us and the Texans that are in a battle for the number one overall pick. So it's one thing to say a lot of the games they lost last year were really close so that wasn't repeatable but it's another thing entirely to say that a team that went 10-7 last year with an obviously worse roster than last year could potentially be picking in the top 10 in next year's draft(with no season ending injuries to any of all of the paid players on the team). 

Later on in the day I'm going to do a roster breakdown from last year's roster to this year's roster to show how bad we've played with better players(I just can't right now because I'm a teacher and I actually should be prepping for my next period). 

 

[Bitty 2.0]

10 hours ago, drfrey13 said:

This very easily could be true and it does make sense.  The idea should still pop into your after the game he played.  I think this could be the first crack in the foundation of their relationship.  If we have a repeat next week do not be surprised if Carr gets thrown under the bus and McDaniels is driving the bus.  This could spiral really fast.  Not saying I think Stidham can do better but if he comes in and the offense looks better there might be some fireworks.

No way Mark takes Josh's side over Carr.

Josh has proven he sucks as HC.

[Jeremy408]

2 minutes ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

No way Mark takes Josh's side over Carr.

Josh has proven he sucks as HC.

Also Carr has proven that he can take the team to the playoffs twice(no he only played in one playoff game). I'm not saying this as a Carr supporter either. I'm just saying it from a factual perspective that would take into account how Mark Davis may look at the situation based on how the season has gone thus far.