Oakland's defense (1 Viewer)

[pats3in4]

The Oakland D overall isn't bad. The offense is so putrid that the D's respectable performance gets easily forgotten. I wouldn't bench any of the Cincy passing game, though. As well as Oakland's D has played, it's not dominant.

Disclaimer: I've got the Persian Pass-Catching Prince* going this week.

* TJ is half-persian, right?

 

[Judge Smails]

That's one of the best whistling in the dark/revisionist history posts I've ever seen.Have you actually WATCHED the Raiders defense play?In actually seeing them in action, they are a quality unit, I don't think there's much question about it at this point. Sure their offense puts them in bad positions, but you can't plan on that all the time.

You can't? I would submit that Oakland's offense putting their defense in bad positions is among the bigger certainties in football.

 

[BlackHole]

That's one of the best whistling in the dark/revisionist history posts I've ever seen.Have you actually WATCHED the Raiders defense play?In actually seeing them in action, they are a quality unit, I don't think there's much question about it at this point. Sure their offense puts them in bad positions, but you can't plan on that all the time.

You can't? I would submit that Oakland's offense putting their defense in bad positions is among the bigger certainties in football.

100% agree with this.The Raiders D is very good though and very young.

 

[Gr00vus]

That's one of the best whistling in the dark/revisionist history posts I've ever seen.Have you actually WATCHED the Raiders defense play?In actually seeing them in action, they are a quality unit, I don't think there's much question about it at this point. Sure their offense puts them in bad positions, but you can't plan on that all the time.

You can't? I would submit that Oakland's offense putting their defense in bad positions is among the bigger certainties in football.

100% agree with this.The Raiders D is very good though and very young.

Allright, I was trying to be nice to the Raiders as I've felt somewhat sorry for them the last couple of years. But yeah, their offense has been pretty sad. However, given a short field, that would tend to cut into yardage for the opposing offense right?I figure you've got to start the Bengal offensive stars if you've got them, I just wouldn't do it expecting a huge payday, is alls I'm sayin'.

 

[SickThing]

with the corners blanketting CJ and TJ, i wonder what that leaves for chris henry? he might be the sneaky play here....

That thought has tempted me also. (I may be without Colston?) While I think it's quite possible that Henry scores again, the Bengals are generally much better off mostly relying on the rush this game. Go Rudi! Bengals 24, Raiders 10. Rudi has 100+ and 2 TDs.

I was off by one FG.

 

[The Jacket]

They have a very young, solid defense. It's impressive.Howevahhh, the pass defense ranking is VERY misleading. You can run on them with relative ease (132 yards per game at 4.1 per clip), and when the offense is as bad as it is in Oakland, you don't need to pass an awful lot. They're lowest in the NFL in terms of passes against (305), and the only teams who come close are Indy (314) and St. Louis (328). Not even close to being a coincedence, these teams absolutely stink against the run. The next closest, Washington, has 361 passes against (and you can run on them, too; to the tune of 130 per game at 4.2 per clip).If it's what the Bengals need to do, they will carve Oakland's secondary into pieces. The chances are, they'll do what every other team has done: pass 24-26 times, take what's given to them, accumulate merely 130-150 yards and grind out the clock with Rudi Johnson, resulting in a comfortable win.

Since we're quoting...

 

[baronson]

clap. clap. you guys rule.