This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
This tells me we don't really know if they are good or not. I think inconclusive is the proper term to describe them.
Exactly - so you gotta look at other stats, which show that on a per-play basis (DVOA), Oakland had the fifth best pass defense in the league.
QBs had the 7th worst QB rating in the league against Oakland (around a 74). That has nothing whatsoever to do with their bad offense, or lack of passes against, and imo is the best gauge for a FFB GM to use in determining if they want to start their QB against them.I dont think anyone should sell that pass D short. It is solid. Lots of high draft picks in that secondary that have played up to expectations.
Yeah, seriously. If someone's going to rip people that look at total yards as an indicator of a team's defense, then you'd think they'd look at other, more descriptive stats as well... Bizarre.Oh, and for those that hate quant stats, here's some qual data for you: The Raiders have the only two cornerbacks in the NFL that Chad Johnson openly respects FWIW.
He respects the hell out of Champ.
Do you watch football?They were good last year--not great. They're serviceable this year. No more than that. That they had the lowest yards allowed in '06 tells only part of the story. Think through some alternative hypotheses about why this was the case. They'll be a middling pass defense, at best, in 2007.
kitna here too.i want to see what happens in martz year II with calvin in the fold. if nothing else, it should be a high scoring affair, who cares if kitna throws a pick or two, i can still see...275 3/2 kinda day. i hope...and pray.-biz-
The Raiders allowed under 215 passing yards in fourteen games last year. The Raiders allowed multiple passing TDs in just four games. GL.
Kitna 234 1/3 good luck ..
Interesting stance.How do you justify saying that a unit, which by your own account was good last year, will be no more than servicable this year?
This was brought up in the rushing matchups this week and I have to disagree about the run defense.Oakland's defense was 12th in the league in Yards per carry(3.96) The reason that opponents' rushing numbers were so strong had nothing to do with Oakland's defense. It was the fact that their offense was so bad. When you only score TEN points a game (168 points for the year) and throw 24 picks (31st in the league), nobody needs to throw. The Raiders offense would turn the ball over and teams would get out to a lead, then try to milk the clock. I agree that the Raiders pass defense rank is misleading, but I also think that the run defense is getting a bad rap. If the offense can at least keep the defense off the field and in games, the Raiders should have a pretty good defense.
FWIW, Indy's defense gave up 5.33 YPC (last in the league) almost a yard and a half more per attempt than Oakland's.
phew, didn't believe you until i checked your sigbut anyways, i think detroit's passing offense will be fine because of the mess which is their run game
Chase, nobody threw against them. And, I don't think this is because they were deathly afraid of what might happen if they did.I'm not impressed. Not yet, I'm not.
Except that one team was always trailing, while the other was always leading. You get three guesses and the 1st two don't count.
As stated earlier in the thread, on a per play basis, Oakland's pass D was very good last year. What more do you want?
Based on the QBs they faced--who combined for a passer rating of 81.5 (by way of comparison, David Carr had a 2006 PR of 82.1)--not to mention the complete ineptitude of the OAK offense that didn't compel teams to press the issue on their own offensive side of the ball, I'm simply unimpressed by their per play numbers. This was clearly the only bright spot on their season. But, it's not like they were a supernova bright.
Those per play numbers are adjusted based on strength of schedule. They are also adjusted based on situation. They came out as a top 5 pass D last year.
What was the NFL average QB Rating last year?I'll hang up and listen before you make any SOS arguments against the Raiders.
78.5?So, your argument is that they played a difficult QB schedule?In watching the OAK games (or given what you know about those games), do you think they presented teams with any compelling reason to be aggressive on offense?It strikes me that they played an avg passer schedule against teams that didn't have any need to press the issue.Again, there's nothing about last year that strikes me in a way to call them an "elite" (or stout) group. They were serviceable, and that's all I'm convinced of. And, I think Detroit is going to light them up this week.
I'm not sure how in the face of the evidence that on a per play basis Oakland's pass D was top 5 (after adjusting for situation and strength of opponent) last year, you can say that they were serviceable. If a teams don't "press the issue" that doesn't mean that over the course of the year Oakland will end up with a top 5 D. Teams weren't avoiding getting first downs through the air when they passed.
Yeah, but how often did OAK's opponents have to throw on them? The defense perpetually played with a short field.
No team since the 1994 Houston Oilers have had to defend less pass attempts than Oakland had to face last year. I think it's safe to say teams weren't pressing the issue against them much through the air.
Ugh, we aren't talking about number of passes or number of yards. It's already measured on a per play basis. PER PLAY they were top 5. Every time someone passed on them, the odds are that they didn't have much success.
They faced some stellar QBs last year too.6 games against first year starters plus Plummer and Green 2x each and David Carr.
Well, their stat line is not in dispute. I still maintain that there are reasons beyond their supposed talent/scheme that contribute significantly to this. The low number of pass attempts tells a story in and of itself, and I think ignoring the reasons why this might be misses out on an opportunity to explain the full picture.
Do we have a by-week breakdown? I'd just like to see what QBs passed more against Oakland than others.If bad QBs like Warner, Carr, or Frye had to pass a lot, while Bulger, Palmer and Hass did not, that would indicate the stat is meaningless. But if the quality QBs passed more and Oakland still was a top 5 per play pass D, that would show they're better.
Don't forget Seneca Wallace!
Yeah but with such a small sample size is it really safe to make a judgement one way or the other?
This is what I would like to see some kind of breakdown this is interesting for me this week as I have to choose between starting Roy Williams vs Oak or Andre Johnson vs KC. Where can we get a breakdown like this?
Personally, I don't think sample size, per se, is the issue. Plenty of data points. I just think the game conditions under which those data points were accumulated matter. The low pass attempts against perhaps suggest something about those game conditions that I think is important.
I think 410 attempts is a good enough sample size.
It is adjusted based on strength of opponent. For example, Marc Bulger's below average performance may look a lot better compared to Charlie Frye's average performance. However, if the Raiders forced Bulger into a below average performance, it is better than letting Frye do whatever he usually does. And if they competely shut down Frye and he looks even worse than his normal bad self, that's good too. (no i haven't looked at their specific numbers vs these two QBs over the season)
My breakdown factored all that in. If Bulger passed 10 times and Frye passed 20 times against them, they'd have a below average schedule. The Raiders had an above average schedule.I don't why it's difficult to see that the Raiders pass defense was one of the very best in the league last year. There are literally no data going the other way. Cobalt brought up the '94 Oilers -- well guess what, that team saw very few pass attempts and still stunk against the pass. The Raiders saw very few and were excellent against the pass. They were also one of eight teams with fewer passing TDs allowed than INTs, an incredible achievement considering the mostly conservative pass attempts they saw, and the number of short fields they defended.
Wasn't Green out both games? And I'm not sure, but w/o looking it up, I believe Cutler played the 2nd game. Not that it changes your point any (maybe reiterates it).
