Who's More Pathetic? Lions or Raiders

[BaseballMan]

So was tonight a fluke or are the raiders improving?
I know JRuss was wild and the late td doesnt really make up because if he was more accurate the raiders might not have been in that situation at the end. The reivers need to pick it up but i do like Louis Murphy progressing during the game. They were without their best wr in Chaz Schillens. They need to stay with the running game. Seemed like they got away from it when at the time they really didnt need too.
Defense played a lot better than last year except the prevent crap again. But gotta give SD credit for hanging in there and pulling out a win. Good teams win games they probably shouldnt have. The raiders outplayed them for most of the game except when it mattered most. Too much celebrating a nice play and then giving up a big gain.

[Goody]

I don't think that QB is their future. The rest of the team looked decent though.

Russel should have broken some of the bad habits I saw him doing by now. He must not have the instincts or the concentration. Maybe it could be the coaching. He telegraphs everything. Not just deep passes but also hand offs and entire plays before the snap.

[GCCWolverine]

Clearly, the answer is the Bills. </disgruntled Buffalo native>

[The Professor]

It is only one game in, so take a heaping helping of salt, but:

JaMarcus Russell is a freakish physical specimen, and the Raiders (Al Davis) were dazzled by the big arm, by what it might do. The clarion call of the vertical game still echoes around Davis, "If we throw it deep, we win." But I agree with the most recent criticism to a large degree. Russell, two years in, still has a sandlot habit of locking on to his target and making ill-advised throws. His receivers do sometimes run bad routes, sure, but Russell has never been, and doesn't look to be from the gate, an accurate passer. He'll hover around 48-50%, get hot, and finish around 53%. In this day and age, unless he is directing a truly effective vertical offense (or is a Vick-like running threat himself), that is lousy.

He is, in fact, kind of like the love-child of Michael Vick and Daunte Culpepper, but really with only the worst football traits of both. He doesn't have Vick's running skills. And he certainly is not near the passer that Culpepper was at his peak (OK. Culpepper had Carter and Moss, true. But this is a guy who was completing at 62% from the moment he took the field. I don't think Russell could come close to matching that with the same corp of receivers.)

The Raiders have a potentially dynamic running game to build around, but Russell is a lazy play-action artist at best. The fake is a lost art in the NFL for the most part, there is no Boomer Esiason type left, but it didn't seem to me that Russell ever tried to really sell play action. It was all perfunctory. Nod to the back, lock on, roll out, and misfire. If I have the kind of ground game the Raiders appear to have, I want to develop a world-class fake artist behind center.

And, ideally, I want someone who can move the chains with accurate passes.

All that said, I don't think Russell is a lost cause. Great accuracy may or may not come. But if they can get Russell to play of his running game a bit more effectively, that should open up a few huge vertical shots in the game. As long as Russell hits enough of those to sting his opponents, that will be enough to keep teams from committing totally to the run. And I think the Raiders will end up being a pretty surprising team.

In other words: Russell is a predictable sandlot gun and not much else. If he gets some wiles, some real game intelligence, or becomes accurate, he might just turn out. The same could just about be said for any QB project ever.

[Slackker]

[QUOTE=BaseballMan;2819863]

Originally Posted by Slackker

If Delhomme is responsible for Steve smith's lack of success against Aso then shouldnt every cb have had the same success?

No, I said that Delhomme's decision-making (where to throw the ball) is extremely questionable.

Webster was good today but Aso is the best cb in the game today.

Webster had an amazing year last year. He physically broke up 32% of the passes thrown in his direction. That doesn't mean 68% were complete, to be clear. It's 'thrown at' minus 'passes defensed'. I'm not asking you to say he's better than Aso, but.. there's no way he isn't top 5 in the NFL. And I hate the Giants.

Barring injury Aso will be all-pro this year. You can bank it. But since he is a raider that would probably just mean hes overrated.

As he should be.

[boblight24]

Originally Posted by GCCWolverine

Clearly, the answer is the Bills. </disgruntled Buffalo native>

Bills have nothing to hang their heads about, that was a great performance on a big stage and a double-digit lead late in the game, then Tom Brady made his return, but still, great defense and great no-huddle offense to boot, very impressive. No just get rid of T.O. and all will be well

[Bryan Swartz]

Dang ... Just out of curiosity, would the Lions win those of you who voted L.A. over if they have another winless season? Or if not, what would it take? .

[GCCWolverine]

Originally Posted by boblight24

Bills have nothing to hang their heads about, that was a great performance on a big stage and a double-digit lead late in the game, then Tom Brady made his return, but still, great defense and great no-huddle offense to boot, very impressive. No just get rid of T.O. and all will be well

You see, I agree with you - but this is what we have come to expect the past 8+ seasons. We never are the dregs of the league - but we are consistently mediocre and blow 3-4 games that are eminently winnable. For instance, last season, we were one field goal (Cleveland), one terrible fumble (Jets), a chip shot field goal and a fourth down conversion (49ers), and an interception return (Jets again), from an 11-5 season. The year before, two last second field goals and a pair of dropped touchdowns took us from 11-5 to 7-9, and the year before that, the same thing, plus a defensive meltdown kept us from 11 wins.

And I know, every team has that. However, it seems like in every one of these games, we tend to blow the leads and the breaks go against us far far more often than we get them for us. If we went 3-13 and lost every game by double digits, I'd be more okay than going 7-9 and blowing 4 winnable games a year.

[dsvitak]

The correct answer for this poll is, of course, the RAMS.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

So was tonight a fluke or are the raiders improving?
I know JRuss was wild and the late td doesnt really make up because if he was more accurate the raiders might not have been in that situation at the end. The reivers need to pick it up but i do like Louis Murphy progressing during the game. They were without their best wr in Chaz Schillens. They need to stay with the running game. Seemed like they got away from it when at the time they really didnt need too.
Defense played a lot better than last year except the prevent crap again. But gotta give SD credit for hanging in there and pulling out a win. Good teams win games they probably shouldnt have. The raiders outplayed them for most of the game except when it mattered most. Too much celebrating a nice play and then giving up a big gain.

They looked much improved. They should have stuck with the running game however as they had the Chargers on the ropes in the first quarter and then they got away from the run game when the Chargers started blitzing. Big plays were just waiting to happen in the 2nd half had they stuck to their gameplan. Their defense has the potential to be very good if they can keep it up and not get down on the offense.

[snnort]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

The correct answer for this poll is, of course, the RAMS.

ditto. How often does an NFL team get shut out. Seahawks defense is average, no reason that Rams could not have put something on the board.

[Slackker]

Originally Posted by Bryan Swartz

Dang ... Just out of curiosity, would the Lions win those of you who voted L.A. over if they have another winless season? Or if not, what would it take? .

Well, I think this goes beyond wins and losses really. So, I won't mention anything that deals directly with winning or losing in the following (short) list of things which would make me reconsider:

• If Al Davis wasn't the owner of the Raiders.
• A solid defense over the course of a few seasons.
• A proven QB.
• A head coach who kept his job more than one or two seasons.

The last one is key. Head coaches provide a sense of stability on a team. The Raiders have had ONE coach last more than two years (Gruden) since Art Shell left after the '94 season. Without that.. players spend too much time learning new systems, or GMs go through too many players to fit each system, for a team to really put something together for an extended period.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by snnort

ditto. How often does an NFL team get shut out. Seahawks defense is average, no reason that Rams could not have put something on the board.

Friggin' BRUTAL.

Add in that they have 25 MILLION dollars in dead money...8 for Torry Holt, another 9 for Orlando Pace, 3 million for Trent Green, and five million more for a variety of players no longer there.

Now, I don't know what the current cap is...but 25 million can buy you some pretty damn good depth.

[BaseballMan]

[QUOTE=Slackker;2820699]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

No, I said that Delhomme's decision-making (where to throw the ball) is extremely questionable.



Webster had an amazing year last year. He physically broke up 32% of the passes thrown in his direction. That doesn't mean 68% were complete, to be clear. It's 'thrown at' minus 'passes defensed'. I'm not asking you to say he's better than Aso, but.. there's no way he isn't top 5 in the NFL. And I hate the Giants.



As he should be.

You were misunderstanding me if you think that i dont agree that webster deserves his praise. I just beleive Aso is the best at this time. Did you hear the commentaters talk about him? For Greenberg to say anyting good about the raiders is rare.

[Bryan Swartz]

• If Al Davis wasn't the owner of the Raiders.
• A solid defense over the course of a few seasons.
• A proven QB.
• A head coach who kept his job more than one or two seasons.

The last one is key. Head coaches provide a sense of stability on a team. The Raiders have had ONE coach last more than two years (Gruden) since Art Shell left after the '94 season. Without that.. players spend too much time learning new systems, or GMs go through too many players to fit each system, for a team to really put something together for an extended period.

You really think Al Davis is that much worse than Bill Ford? When was the last time the Lions had a decent defense for a few seasons? And when it comes to QBs, we have ruined so many. Harrington, Long, Ware, Peete, Mitchell, etc. Stafford is just the latest. The last one is the only one, IMO, that there is even a decent argument that the Raiders are worse on. And it's worth noting that the age of Gruden is far better than anything the Lions have seen in that timeframe.

[Slackker]

Originally Posted by Bryan Swartz

You really think Al Davis is that much worse than Bill Ford?

These days? Slightly, yes.

When was the last time the Lions had a decent defense for a few seasons?

When did Chris Spielman retire?

The last one is the only one, IMO, that there is even a decent argument that the Raiders are worse on. And it's worth noting that the age of Gruden is far better than anything the Lions have seen in that timeframe.

Agreed, but that judgement (like football) has a lot to do with face value only. Keep a coach.. things look stable. The game is all about having things look one way, but another being true. That's the premise of play action, fake punts and kicks, blitzes, or even passing routes.

The only other thing I thought of, that is more of a subconscious reaction, is the Lions have had a household name dominant player in the lifetime of most people on this board. Barry Sanders. The Raiders? Old Warren Sapp doesn't really count. Rich Gannon only enjoyed a few years at the top. Tim Brown was great, but underrated - and the average person on the street won't know who he is. Howie Long may be the closest thing, and even that's only because Chevy happens to be an American Revolution - and FireStorm was so spectacular.

That's a silly way to judge which franchise is more pathetic, but with a question that asks for an opinion.. who knows what effects the button people click. Heck, if you said "Cowboys running back" the first name that comes to mind will always be Emmitt Smith, even though MB3 is pretty damn good.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Slackker

These days? Slightly, yes.



When did Chris Spielman retire?



Agreed, but that judgement (like football) has a lot to do with face value only. Keep a coach.. things look stable. The game is all about having things look one way, but another being true. That's the premise of play action, fake punts and kicks, blitzes, or even passing routes.

The only other thing I thought of, that is more of a subconscious reaction, is the Lions have had a household name dominant player in the lifetime of most people on this board. Barry Sanders. The Raiders? Old Warren Sapp doesn't really count. Rich Gannon only enjoyed a few years at the top. Tim Brown was great, but underrated - and the average person on the street won't know who he is. Howie Long may be the closest thing, and even that's only because Chevy happens to be an American Revolution - and FireStorm was so spectacular.

That's a silly way to judge which franchise is more pathetic, but with a question that asks for an opinion.. who knows what effects the button people click. Heck, if you said "Cowboys running back" the first name that comes to mind will always be Emmitt Smith, even though MB3 is pretty damn good.

But you are starting to draw from the past in order to make this judgment, and in terms of history, even history within the lifetime of most board members, the Raiders are the clearly superior franchise. If you choose to make this about history in general, then it is absolutely no contest at all.

The Art Shell era of the early 1990s was really the last gasp of "Just Win Baby" era greatness. When Bo Jackson got hurt in the playoff against the Bengals and then the Bills massacred them in the AFC Championship, it was over. Marinovich and the desert lay ahead. But they came out of it.

The Gruden Era was a small Golden Age for Oakland, and included a Super Bowl bid. And they had their share of minor marquee stars. If you are going to judge against the notoriety of Barry Sanders, well, most NFL teams will fall well short of having anyone that renowned.

The Lions, on the other hand, had one player of note, a few minor stars, and only sporadic success in the last two decades. They haven't sniffed a Super Bowl since 1994. That the only recent peak in a franchise history that is still brightest in the dark age NFL of the 1950s when Bobby Layne was slinging passes and boozing it up for the silver and blue.

So, I think history, if borrowed from in any way to answer this question, is the Raiders' best friend. On the merits of history - even recent history - they, on whole, belong with the great franchises of the NFL. The Lions are not close.

Looking forward, I think the ownership debate is a wash. Davis has become a nightmare, but he was mostly that when Gruden pulled out a winner. Ford has never been anything but awful.

Coaching? I think, with little to go on, that the Lions may win this.

But the Raiders are, as of today, a more talented team. If Cable turns out to be competent, if Davis doesn't wreck the thing, and if Russell emerges (or some other good QB option does) then the Raiders will be better sooner than the Lions, a team on the bottom rung of rebuilding. A lot of "ifs" there, though, and Davis is a huge variable.

But I think both current odds and most certainly history are on his side in this one.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by The Professor

The fake is a lost art in the NFL for the most part

See: Matt Hasselbeck

Not very effective anymore with Seahawks not having a dominating running game. But when they had Hutchenson and Alexander, it was pretty good.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

The correct answer for this poll is, of course, the RAMS.

1 or 2 more years of this. Yeah.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by snnort

ditto. How often does an NFL team get shut out. Seahawks defense is average, no reason that Rams could not have put something on the board.

Patrick Kerney, Lofa Tatupu, Will Herring, D.D. Lewis, Leroy Hill, Aaron Curry, Cory Redding, Brandon Mebane, Lawernce Jackson...always fresh because they can sub out for each other.

You call that "average"? Against a team who's strength is supposed to be the run.