Week 13 GDT: Chargers at Raiders - Playoff Run Starts Now!

[NYRaider]

3 hours ago, dante9876 said:

Those losses to jags and colts hurt so much now. 

So do the losses to the Chargers, Cardinals, Titans, and Chiefs. We've had so many winnable games all season. 

[big_palooka]

3 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

No , Carr had no control over any play until a few games ago.

 

Stop trying to create a narrative.

[bucksavage1]

21 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

So do the losses to the Chargers, Cardinals, Titans, and Chiefs. We've had so many winnable games all season. 

Definitely. We are gonna need a lot of help to catch the last wild card team. Still 2 behind of Jets for last wild card.  Patriots, Chargers and Browns still with us at 6-6 and 5-7. It might of been one loss too many. All we can do is try to continue to win

 

[bucksavage1]

We been riding Adams and Jacobs on offense to a Raiders record

[MrOaktown_56]

1 hour ago, big_palooka said:

Always an excuse. Can't accept maybe they are progressing and the added talent of Tillery has helped. Nobody is saying Graham is great, just that your black and white criticism is off base. 

 

 

Yeah he did some good things yesterday. Not having Abram out there or Deablo in coverage has really helped the defense. 

[MrOaktown_56]

Moehrig is also looking pretty good now that he’s settled in. 

[BackinBlack]

11 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Moehrig is also looking pretty good now that he’s settled in. 

Moehrig, was in an impossible spot playing safety with Abrams. 
You either hold your spot, and leave an absolute wide open hole wherever Abrams was supposed to be, or you try to play last resort and end up covering both poorly.
1 bad safety can make your other safety look foolish. 

[BackinBlack]

Adams is doing what Refnrow did last year, injuries happen and players need to step up. 
Renfrow stepped up last season no doubt, but his ceiling nowhere near as high as Adams. 

Waller / Renfrow now out, so we NEED to feed balls to Adams. And he is showing why you should feed him regardless. 
Straight up beast. 

[ronjon1990]

2 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Always an excuse. Can't accept maybe they are progressing and the added talent of Tillery has helped. Nobody is saying Graham is great, just that your black and white criticism is off base. 

 

 

The fact they were playing against a bunch of backup OL guys isn't an excuse, it's fact. 

Yes, Tillery has been a good addition. 

Having Hobbs back out there instead of Averette helped. 

 

It's still not a particularly good defense and I remain highly skeptical of Graham's scheme against not-backup competition and competent coaching, neither of which the Chargers offer. 

But his "respect" rating is more important to you than actual results, something you've well-established. I wouldn't expect you to see the irony in fanboying a game like yesterday's. 

We showed up against a team of backups that have virtually no run game. Congratulations. For one whole game the defense wasn't a complete and total liability. We should extend Graham immediately and make him co-GM I guess.

Edited December 5, 2022 by ronjon1990

[BackinBlack]

If Chargers miss the playoffs I hope their fans give him the Carr treatment.

- Blame not making the playoffs on him 100%
- say they cant give him everything, He has probowl RB, two probowl caliber WR, game changers on D in bosa mack and James. . . I mean what more could a QB want! (am i right?)
- start calling him soft when he gets rocked mult times a game from a bad oline lol
- label any reasonable logic reason for struggles an excuse and dismiss it

Would love to see it, although, I am sure Sean Payton is licking his chops to coach a QB who has never made the playoffs (if they miss), because, football is a team game, and not just on the QB. 
 

Edited December 5, 2022 by BackinBlack

[jpaulthe1st]

5 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

The fact they were playing against a bunch of backup OL guys isn't an excuse, it's fact. 

Yes, Tillery has been a good addition. 

Having Hobbs back out there instead of Averette helped. 

 

It's still not a particularly good defense and I remain highly skeptical of Graham's scheme against not-backup competition and competent coaching, neither of which the Chargers offer. 

But his "respect" rating is more important to you than actual results, something you've well-established. I wouldn't expect you to see the irony in fanboying a game like yesterday's. 

We showed up against a team of backups that have virtually no run game. Congratulations. For one whole game the defense wasn't a complete and total liability. We should extend Graham immediately and make him co-GM I guess.

On a forum full of argumentative people you are by far the most abrasive and least willing to ever concede an inch. I can only imagine how disagreeable you are in person. It’s a shame because you do offer value to the forum and have good knowledge but the 8 paragraph rants and jokes that never quite land are a bit much at times. 

[ronjon1990]

1 minute ago, jpaulthe1st said:

On a forum full of argumentative people you are by far the most abrasive and least willing to ever concede an inch. I can only imagine how disagreeable you are in person. It’s a shame because you do offer value to the forum and have good knowledge but the 8 paragraph rants and jokes that never quite land are a bit much at times. 

Cool story. 

You should review the forum rules on personal digs. Regardless...

Please elaborate as to how I've not conceded. What would be conceding, in your humble opinion? Saying Graham is great? That he's a good coordinator? I said the defense played better with Hobbs and Tillery and that they weren't, for once, a massive liability. It would be foolish to not also point out that the Chargers weren't playing with a full deck on offense and Brandon Staley is a notoriously mediocre coach at best. I've said numerous times that while it's nice, I want to see us play well against an objectively good offense more than once or twice before I change my mind on Patrick Graham, given his history of bad defenses. 

Not conceding is someone making the argument that a defense that ranks at or near the bottom in virtually every metric is "average" (which, by the very definition of the word is simply not true), spending 12 weeks pounding that drum (or, as some may recognize it, excuse) and refusing to back off of it, then trying to play a cute little "I told you so" the minute they don't look like a bottom of the barrel defense..... against, again, a team missing a ton of starters and perpetually underwhelming offense.

Even more, the same individual has routinely used "we lack talent" as an excuse for what has been miserable play calling and schematic design- until they do something right against marginal competition, at which point there is no peep about the talent level on the team being passable enough to not be bottom barrel- which would be conceding. 

I've never had an issue conceding on players or coaches when proven wrong. I was harsh on Ruggs until he stepped up. I've been harsh on Waller, Jacobs, etc. They proved me wrong, and I had no problem conceding that. I've also given McDaniels some praise when warranted (see: my stance on McDaniels being undeniably fantastic in run scheming). 

Your criticism of people being unwilling to concede would be better placed towards those who actually refuse to concede that there is little to no evidence supporting their asserted positions. IE:

Patrick Graham is a bad DC who implements a scheme that almost always puts the talent at a disadvantage. This is a proven statistical fact. Until he proves otherwise more than just a time or two, there is no reason to concede anything. 

Patrick Graham is a good DC and the defense is improved and we knew it would just take time. This isn't backed by anything. First, he's pretty much routinely failed as a DC. Second, the Raiders D is still near league bottom, far from "average", thus "improved" is relative. Lastly, "we knew it would take time" is a cop out as it allows the arguer to continually kick the can down the road until it's no longer the case. By the very definition, it is antithetical to conceding anything because of the "just wait til next week/month/year" excuse. 

Expecting someone to concede based on the former is sensible, as there are quantifiable facts. I'd your gripe is I won't concede based on arguments akin to the latter, well, I don't know what to tell you. People shouldn't be expected to concede based on arguments that have the structural integrity of house of toothpicks. 

[jpaulthe1st]

10 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Cool story. 

You should review the forum rules on personal digs. Regardless...

Please elaborate as to how I've not conceded. What would be conceding, in your humble opinion? Saying Graham is great? That he's a good coordinator? I said the defense played better with Hobbs and Tillery and that they weren't, for once, a massive liability. It would be foolish to not also point out that the Chargers weren't playing with a full deck on offense and Brandon Staley is a notoriously mediocre coach at best. I've said numerous times that while it's nice, I want to see us play well against an objectively good offense more than once or twice before I change my mind on Patrick Graham, given his history of bad defenses. 

Not conceding is someone making the argument that a defense that ranks at or near the bottom in virtually every metric is "average" (which, by the very definition of the word is simply not true), spending 12 weeks pounding that drum (or, as some may recognize it, excuse) and refusing to back off of it, then trying to play a cute little "I told you so" the minute they don't look like a bottom of the barrel defense..... against, again, a team missing a ton of starters and perpetually underwhelming offense.

Even more, the same individual has routinely used "we lack talent" as an excuse for what has been miserable play calling and schematic design- until they do something right against marginal competition, at which point there is no peep about the talent level on the team being passable enough to not be bottom barrel- which would be conceding. 

I've never had an issue conceding on players or coaches when proven wrong. I was harsh on Ruggs until he stepped up. I've been harsh on Waller, Jacobs, etc. They proved me wrong, and I had no problem conceding that. I've also given McDaniels some praise when warranted (see: my stance on McDaniels being undeniably fantastic in run scheming). 

Your criticism of people being unwilling to concede would be better placed towards those who actually refuse to concede that there is little to no evidence supporting their asserted positions. IE:

Patrick Graham is a bad DC who implements a scheme that almost always puts the talent at a disadvantage. This is a proven statistical fact. Until he proves otherwise more than just a time or two, there is no reason to concede anything. 

Patrick Graham is a good DC and the defense is improved and we knew it would just take time. This isn't backed by anything. First, he's pretty much routinely failed as a DC. Second, the Raiders D is still near league bottom, far from "average", thus "improved" is relative. Lastly, "we knew it would take time" is a cop out as it allows the arguer to continually kick the can down the road until it's no longer the case. By the very definition, it is antithetical to conceding anything because of the "just wait til next week/month/year" excuse. 

Expecting someone to concede based on the former is sensible, as there are quantifiable facts. I'd your gripe is I won't concede based on arguments akin to the latter, well, I don't know what to tell you. People shouldn't be expected to concede based on arguments that have the structural integrity of house of toothpicks. 

8 paragraphs - check 

Post ending with a joke that doesn’t land - check 

Brevity is certainly not a strength. 
 

[RaidersAreOne]

lmfao

 

[RaisinBran]

Funniest part of the game for me was when Mad Maxx slapped Herbert's *** after pressuring him into a bad throw. LOL