What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

Guys who think OAK pass D is stout (1 Viewer)

Last edited by a moderator:
They faced some stellar QBs last year too.

6 games against first year starters plus Plummer and Green 2x each and David Carr.
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).
I thought Green and Plummer played both games.
Green didn't play last year?
He played both games vs. OAK.
 
They faced some stellar QBs last year too.

6 games against first year starters plus Plummer and Green 2x each and David Carr.
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).
I thought Green and Plummer played both games.
Green didn't play last year?
He played both games vs. OAK.
You're correct. A post concussion Green isn't a good barometer to judge with.
 
Well that explains why Green's numbers were so poor last season. 1/4 of the games he played in were against the spectacular pass defense of the Oakland Raiders!

Bump Trent Green up a few spots!

 
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.
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.
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?
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.
I hadn't read that article before, and it's great, but I'd like to see the raw data.
 
They were good last year--not great. They're serviceable this year. No more than that.
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?

The DB unit suffered no player turnover & will be running the same defensive plan. The DB rookies from last year will now have had a year under their belt playing together in the same scheme & you expect them to regress to being only servicable this year?

Not saying you're wrong cobalt (because I might be missing something here), but I would be interested in hearing you explain in greater detail what has lead you to this conclusion.

TIA
I agree, Kitna 150yds Passing, 0 TD's and 4 Int's against the Raiders. Will be a great buy real low candidate come tuesday morning.
 
I've posted this before, but basically, I believe the Raiders D will actually be better then last year, football wise. As for FF, with the offense showing more promise, that means that oppossing teams will be attacking more on offense, thus the Raiders will probably end up with worse stats then last years team. The D will be very good though, so don't discount them as a poor D, that would be a mistake on your part.

 
I wouldn't sell the Oakland pass defense short, but let's consider this.Martz didn't like to run the ball all that much when he had Marshall Faulk. I don't think he's looking to uncover the combined talents of Tatum Bell and T.J. Duckett. I expect Detroit to hoist the ball 45+ times. Should result in some numbers at least if not a win.
<----kitna owner who agrees.-biz-
 
I'm a Raiders fan and it has to be said that last year was the best defense we've had in years, now the one thing that's concerning outside of the rush D, was that when the defense absolutely had to stop the opponent, on either a rushing or passing play, they couldn't stop them.

We'll see how they'll do this year, I'm excited about it that's for sure, but it's too early to call them a top defense, IMO. Let's see how much better the offense will be this year, hopefully they can actually score, which should take some pressure off the defense and give them more time off the field. Hopefully the Raiders D can step up and stop offenses when they have to and secure the W.

 
I've posted this before, but basically, I believe the Raiders D will actually be better then last year, football wise. As for FF, with the offense showing more promise, that means that oppossing teams will be attacking more on offense, thus the Raiders will probably end up with worse stats then last years team. The D will be very good though, so don't discount them as a poor D, that would be a mistake on your part.
I don't know anyone who would argue that they were poor. That would be silly. They're a good defense.I just hear everyone freaking out about playing Lions players this week because of the Raiders defense. They should be worried about playing Lions players because they're Lions--not because OAK is a shutdown defense.
 
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. :hophead:
Do you watch football?
He may be right or he may be wrong....but what kind of reply is this? If you disagree with it, figure out a way to describe why you do rather than some quickie response that's basically a put down because you think he's wrong.I understand where he's coming from. There have been defenses in the past who have had decent rankings but those rankings were skewed because they were so weak in one area, that teams just did that and didn't have to pass, making that area then look strong.I'm not sure. I can honostly say I didn't see enough Raider games last year. I tend to watch a lot of the games I have my fantasy players on and over the past couple of years, I haven't had many Raiders if any.They are playing Detroit today 4 Eastern time and I will be watching them today since I'm from Detroit. Detroit is an above average passing team so it'll be a good test for Oakland's D and we can see just how good Oakland is against it.
 
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. :moneybag:
Do you watch football?
Yes. I watch football? Are you always this big of a tool?I'll hang up and listen.
 
I understand where he's coming from. There have been defenses in the past who have had decent rankings but those rankings were skewed because they were so weak in one area, that teams just did that and didn't have to pass, making that area then look strong.
I'm not aware of any team that fits the '06 Raiders profile. More INTs than TDs. Top five in yards per attempt allowed. Fourth in adjusted yards per attempt allowed. Third in adjusted yards per attempt allowed, adjusted for SOS. I'd be curious what defenses you're talking about that "looked good" but were actually bad, as you propose the '06 Raiders were.
 
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.
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.
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?
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.
I hadn't read that article before, and it's great, but I'd like to see the raw data.
I'm glad you liked the post.I don't know what you mean about seeing the raw data. All that stuff is available at FBG or PFR.

Here's a neat page for susbcribers: http://subscribers.footballguys.com/teams/teampage-rai-5.php

 
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. :confused:
What did you think of Ben Roethlisberger in 2004 and 2005? Very few attempts but incredible ratios. Did you think he was a middling QB?
 
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. :moneybag:
What did you think of Ben Roethlisberger in 2004 and 2005? Very few attempts but incredible ratios. Did you think he was a middling QB?
Yes. Yes, I did.What's your point? :unsure:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. :wub:
What did you think of Ben Roethlisberger in 2004 and 2005? Very few attempts but incredible ratios. Did you think he was a middling QB?
Yes. Yes, I did.What's your point? :unsure:
I'm surprised to see you thought that. I thought he was very good those years. YMMV.
 
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.

:wub:
What did you think of Ben Roethlisberger in 2004 and 2005? Very few attempts but incredible ratios. Did you think he was a middling QB?
Yes. Yes, I did.What's your point? :unsure:
I'm surprised to see you thought that. I thought he was very good those years. YMMV.
Well, for a rookie, he was pretty good. But, he wasn't "elite." He still isn't.Sort of how I feel about Oakland's pass defense.

 
I'm with you, OP. I'm starting Kitna. No sweat here.
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.
bump
 
They were good last year--not great. They're serviceable this year. No more than that.
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?

The DB unit suffered no player turnover & will be running the same defensive plan. The DB rookies from last year will now have had a year under their belt playing together in the same scheme & you expect them to regress to being only servicable this year?

Not saying you're wrong cobalt (because I might be missing something here), but I would be interested in hearing you explain in greater detail what has lead you to this conclusion.

TIA
I agree, Kitna 150yds Passing, 0 TD's and 4 Int's against the Raiders. Will be a great buy real low candidate come tuesday morning.
:hophead:
 
I'm sure the Raiders adjusted rating per attempt to carries ratio will move this performance to a top 5 for the week. I'm buying low on Tuesday.

:lmao:

 
Lions smoked the Raiders D today, no denying that.

Of course, the Saints O didn't score against the Colts D, but that doesn't mean the Saints O wasn't very good last year.

 
I'm with you, OP. I'm starting Kitna. No sweat here.
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-
actual - 289 3/2 with 17 yards rushing (plus missed 2-point convo.)kitna saved me with these #'s. only with he could have gotten 11 more yards for my bonus.side note- too bad steven jackson sharted the bed, now i need a cjohn-palmer meltdown and a TO EXPLOSION.anyways, i like kitna all year, they winged that ball all over the place, gotta love an offense like that.-biz-
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart said:
Lions smoked the Raiders D today, no denying that. Of course, the Saints O didn't score against the Colts D, but that doesn't mean the Saints O wasn't very good last year.
And I'm wearing black socks.
 
I understand where he's coming from. There have been defenses in the past who have had decent rankings but those rankings were skewed because they were so weak in one area, that teams just did that and didn't have to pass, making that area then look strong.
I'm not aware of any team that fits the '06 Raiders profile. More INTs than TDs. Top five in yards per attempt allowed. Fourth in adjusted yards per attempt allowed. Third in adjusted yards per attempt allowed, adjusted for SOS. I'd be curious what defenses you're talking about that "looked good" but were actually bad, as you propose the '06 Raiders were.
I didn't say I think the Raiders were good or bad. I just said I see where he is coming from in terms of his line of thinking.There have been a few defenses in the past when watching games, you'd see that "X" team is ranked like 3rd or whatever vs. the pass and be horrific vs. the run. But reality is that they aren't really that good vs. the pass, it's just that teams choose to run the ball vs. them and didn't need to pass.I don't have the team like the 88 Lions or the 93 Jets on the tip of my tongue but I can assure you that I have read during some football games and heard the commentators talking about it more than once.Back on the topic of the Raiders D. I watched their pass defense today and I didn't think it was all that special. I'm not saying they're BAD but I woudln't bench my Studs because they're playing Oakland this week.I thought Detroit had a very good game plan today. I liked that early on they moved Kitna a little bit out of the pocket to buy some extra time for the receivers to get downfield. Then they mixed that up with some quick drops and throws that are virtually unstoppable if you aren't playing up tight on the receiver.Bottom line is Oakland got lit up for 30 something points and Detroit virtually did it without a running game. The game was over when Bell scored that TD. Oakland was winning 21-20 and they knew Detroit was going to throw and they couldn't stop them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

:lmao:
:goodposting: Well, so far, at least...

Points Allowed: 29.5 (rank: 28)

Yards Allow/G: 417 (rank: 28)

Pass Yds Allow/G: 272 (rank: 29)

Pass Rating: 91.3 (rank: 25)

I think they'll improve from these rankings as the season moves along. But, can we please...please...just put to rest this notion that they are an elite defense (especially with regards to their pass defense skills)?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

:moneybag:
:ptts: Well, so far, at least...

Points Allowed: 29.5 (rank: 28)

Yards Allow/G: 417 (rank: 28)

Pass Yds Allow/G: 272 (rank: 29)

Pass Rating: 91.3 (rank: 25)

I think they'll improve from these rankings as the season moves along. But, can we please...please...just put to rest this notion that they are an elite defense (especially with regards to their pass defense skills)?
:(
 
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.

:wall:
;) Well, so far, at least...

Points Allowed: 29.5 (rank: 28)

Yards Allow/G: 417 (rank: 28)

Pass Yds Allow/G: 272 (rank: 29)

Pass Rating: 91.3 (rank: 25)

I think they'll improve from these rankings as the season moves along. But, can we please...please...just put to rest this notion that they are an elite defense (especially with regards to their pass defense skills)?
:wall:
No kidding. Oh well, I tried. :wall:

 
One more bump for the evening crowd.
:goodposting: What do you want, a round of applause?
:goodposting: Nah...just wondering if folks who were arguing for how great they are/were have any change of heart after watching this team get lit up pretty-much twice.
Well you were arguing that they weren't good last year, despite everything saying otherwise. I'm not sure what has been proven in week 2 of 2007.
 
So 20-for-29, 233 yards, 1 TD, and 2 INTs - including one returned for TD -- during regulation is "lit up"?
Umm...John Kitna: 27/36/289/3/2 (8.0ypa)Jay Cutler: 23/33/269/1/2 (7.9ypa)Maybe "lit up" exaggerates it a bit. But, it's certainly not a great stat line for the defense allowing over 70% completion rate and 8 yards per attempt.
 
One more bump for the evening crowd.
:confused: What do you want, a round of applause?
:popcorn: Nah...just wondering if folks who were arguing for how great they are/were have any change of heart after watching this team get lit up pretty-much twice.
Well you were arguing that they weren't good last year, despite everything saying otherwise. I'm not sure what has been proven in week 2 of 2007.
And nothing that happens in 2007 has any bearing on how good they were in 2006.
 
One more bump for the evening crowd.
:confused: What do you want, a round of applause?
:) Nah...just wondering if folks who were arguing for how great they are/were have any change of heart after watching this team get lit up pretty-much twice.
Well you were arguing that they weren't good last year, despite everything saying otherwise. I'm not sure what has been proven in week 2 of 2007.
And nothing that happens in 2007 has any bearing on how good they were in 2006.
Right. What's done is done, and the Raiders had a pretty good statistical year in '06. But, as we all try to do, we take historical data to inform our opinions/decisions about the current year. And, all I heard going into this season and Week 1 was how great this defense is. Folks were going so far as to suggest that we shouldn't start Kitna because of this great defense in Oakland. I'm just hypothesizing that their great statistical year in '06 was the product of several factors unrelated to the talent/scheme of that defense that, perhaps, won't apply so much this year.
 
So 20-for-29, 233 yards, 1 TD, and 2 INTs - including one returned for TD -- during regulation is "lit up"?
Maybe "lit up" exaggerates it a bit.
Jeez! Ya think? :lmao:
Lit up is a lot closer than top 5 though.
Exactly. I overstated the lit up part, but they certainly haven't shown anything that would describe "elite" or "stout", as some have labeled this unit.
I dunno guy. Allowing only 233 yards & one TD through the air in regulation, while picking off two passes & returning one of those to the house, against a Shanny offense with a stud WR in Walker, in the hostile enviroment of Mile High Stadium?....That seems pretty darn stout to me. :goodposting:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top