Why it's okay to be optimistic because of the 2007 pre-season despite last year's
Posted 09-01-2007 at 01:17 AM by Nik Jam
After watching all four Raider pre-season games, I have to say I'm very optimistic about the regular season.
Some would say I'm crazy to believe that, because the pre-season doesn't matter. But why is that exactly?
The first thing people will point out is, obviously, our 4-1 pre-season record in 2006, followed by our 2-14 regular season record.
I agree that wins and losses in the pre-season don't matter at all. That's why it was without a doubt that 2007's pre-season was better than the 2006's pre-season. 2-2 > 4-1? I must be crazy...
"But we played well in last year's pre-season!"... No we didn't. I'm certain they're still just looking at the 4-1 column and assuming we did well. After all, who really remembers the 2006 pre-season and why should they? Well, let me refresh some heads...
THE 2006 PRE-SEASON
Philadelphia Eagles - This game started out with Philadelphia mauling the run defense of the Raiders. I had friends going "Here we go again!" and I was starting to worry about the regular season. The Raiders offense ran the ball with Jordan, usually for a gain of 0, 1 or 2. Brooks near the beginning of the game threw a long pass which resulted in an INT. The only reason the Raiders scored was because of a Fabian Washington INT which also foresaw his improvement in the regular season. The only reason we won that game was because of third stringer’s ability to beat Philadelphia’s third string. I wasn’t happy after that game, despite the 16-10 win.
Minnesota Vikings – I think the only good play of that game was Andrew Walter’s long pass to Johnnie Morant. Other than that, it was the same as the last game. Third stringer’s won, and there were a lot of negatives to be found; INTs, sacks (4), and the lack of a connection with Moss and Brooks.
San Francisco 49ers – This was really the first game where the first team played strong. However, it was against a team who had a struggling defense. Even there, Brooks threw an end-zone interception. Sound familiar? He did it twice in the regular season. I’ll concede this was probably the game where “we played well� and could disprove that pre-season really matters. Eh…
Detroit Lions – We won this game 21-3 all with the first string, against a team that would go 3-13 in the regular season, and also flew in to Oakland the day of the game!
Seattle Seahawks – This is the game that defined the 2006 regular season. A 30-7 loss and the Raiders hardly pulling double digits in Passing and Rushing. This was the one game where people just said “Don’t worry, it’s the pre-season!� and then we played exactly the same way against San Diego in the regular season opener.
Now, was that “a good pre-season�? There were a total of 6 INTs in 4 games, and around 14-16 sacks. Multiply that by 4 and you almost have our regular season total! I think this was a good pre-season.
2007 PRE-SEASON
Arizona Cardinals – The Raiders still had some worrying kinks when they suffered a few three and outs. However I was impressed with the Raiders finding a running game. Rhodes, Fargas and Echemandu all ran the ball well. I wish there could have been more passes caught, though. Even if the Raiders lost this game I would have came out happy knowing that Josh McCown and Andrew Walter played well. I could forgive Daunte’s shortcomings but I hated to see the fumble. No picks and barely any sacks made me a happy boy coming out of the stadium.
San Francisco 49ers – A good effort had by the Raiders. LaMont Jordan had a better day than any of the games in the regular season or pre-season last year! I was really surprised by his play. I also thought Culpepper was getting better with the team, despite his fumbles, and although at first I wasn’t happy with his signing, became a huge supporter of his. I was also happy to see John Madsen still has the skills that made him a surprise addition to the Raiders squad in 2006.
St. Louis Rams – A respectable effort against the team that went to our house and defeated us 20-0. Although we had help, like in the Arizona game, with several penalties. We moved the ball down very well, and I enjoyed the third down conversions. The Raiders had a nice bend and don’t break policy, but I didn’t like the lack of interceptions.
Seattle Seahawks – This was the true test of the year and why I’m certain the pre-season fortunes aren’t a fluke. This team clobbered us in the 2006 pre-season AND the 2006 regular season. There were a few sacks, and an interception, but overall the team moved the ball well and was able to get a few scores. Higgins shone that day and made me feel we could have a real threat much like Chicago’s Devon Hester. I’m serious.
Overall, we had only 2 interceptions, and our defense had 3, with 7 sacks on both sides. The Raiders had 5 fumbles and forced 6. That’s right; we had fewer turnovers than our opponent’s!
I can sense that the rushing attack will be better than in 2006 and that we can have less interceptions and sacks. That’s not necessarily saying we will win a lot of games. Plenty of teams had as bad of a record as us without all the turnovers and sacks. We still need to get more talent in the receiving corps and have more threats in the defensive field. However I’m feeling good facing Detroit. I don’t think it’s a lock, but I’m hoping to see some of the Raiders improvement’s I saw in the pre-season come to life in the regular season, and you’re not going to tell me otherwise!
Some would say I'm crazy to believe that, because the pre-season doesn't matter. But why is that exactly?
The first thing people will point out is, obviously, our 4-1 pre-season record in 2006, followed by our 2-14 regular season record.
I agree that wins and losses in the pre-season don't matter at all. That's why it was without a doubt that 2007's pre-season was better than the 2006's pre-season. 2-2 > 4-1? I must be crazy...
"But we played well in last year's pre-season!"... No we didn't. I'm certain they're still just looking at the 4-1 column and assuming we did well. After all, who really remembers the 2006 pre-season and why should they? Well, let me refresh some heads...
THE 2006 PRE-SEASON
Philadelphia Eagles - This game started out with Philadelphia mauling the run defense of the Raiders. I had friends going "Here we go again!" and I was starting to worry about the regular season. The Raiders offense ran the ball with Jordan, usually for a gain of 0, 1 or 2. Brooks near the beginning of the game threw a long pass which resulted in an INT. The only reason the Raiders scored was because of a Fabian Washington INT which also foresaw his improvement in the regular season. The only reason we won that game was because of third stringer’s ability to beat Philadelphia’s third string. I wasn’t happy after that game, despite the 16-10 win.
Minnesota Vikings – I think the only good play of that game was Andrew Walter’s long pass to Johnnie Morant. Other than that, it was the same as the last game. Third stringer’s won, and there were a lot of negatives to be found; INTs, sacks (4), and the lack of a connection with Moss and Brooks.
San Francisco 49ers – This was really the first game where the first team played strong. However, it was against a team who had a struggling defense. Even there, Brooks threw an end-zone interception. Sound familiar? He did it twice in the regular season. I’ll concede this was probably the game where “we played well� and could disprove that pre-season really matters. Eh…
Detroit Lions – We won this game 21-3 all with the first string, against a team that would go 3-13 in the regular season, and also flew in to Oakland the day of the game!
Seattle Seahawks – This is the game that defined the 2006 regular season. A 30-7 loss and the Raiders hardly pulling double digits in Passing and Rushing. This was the one game where people just said “Don’t worry, it’s the pre-season!� and then we played exactly the same way against San Diego in the regular season opener.
Now, was that “a good pre-season�? There were a total of 6 INTs in 4 games, and around 14-16 sacks. Multiply that by 4 and you almost have our regular season total! I think this was a good pre-season.
2007 PRE-SEASON
Arizona Cardinals – The Raiders still had some worrying kinks when they suffered a few three and outs. However I was impressed with the Raiders finding a running game. Rhodes, Fargas and Echemandu all ran the ball well. I wish there could have been more passes caught, though. Even if the Raiders lost this game I would have came out happy knowing that Josh McCown and Andrew Walter played well. I could forgive Daunte’s shortcomings but I hated to see the fumble. No picks and barely any sacks made me a happy boy coming out of the stadium.
San Francisco 49ers – A good effort had by the Raiders. LaMont Jordan had a better day than any of the games in the regular season or pre-season last year! I was really surprised by his play. I also thought Culpepper was getting better with the team, despite his fumbles, and although at first I wasn’t happy with his signing, became a huge supporter of his. I was also happy to see John Madsen still has the skills that made him a surprise addition to the Raiders squad in 2006.
St. Louis Rams – A respectable effort against the team that went to our house and defeated us 20-0. Although we had help, like in the Arizona game, with several penalties. We moved the ball down very well, and I enjoyed the third down conversions. The Raiders had a nice bend and don’t break policy, but I didn’t like the lack of interceptions.
Seattle Seahawks – This was the true test of the year and why I’m certain the pre-season fortunes aren’t a fluke. This team clobbered us in the 2006 pre-season AND the 2006 regular season. There were a few sacks, and an interception, but overall the team moved the ball well and was able to get a few scores. Higgins shone that day and made me feel we could have a real threat much like Chicago’s Devon Hester. I’m serious.
Overall, we had only 2 interceptions, and our defense had 3, with 7 sacks on both sides. The Raiders had 5 fumbles and forced 6. That’s right; we had fewer turnovers than our opponent’s!
I can sense that the rushing attack will be better than in 2006 and that we can have less interceptions and sacks. That’s not necessarily saying we will win a lot of games. Plenty of teams had as bad of a record as us without all the turnovers and sacks. We still need to get more talent in the receiving corps and have more threats in the defensive field. However I’m feeling good facing Detroit. I don’t think it’s a lock, but I’m hoping to see some of the Raiders improvement’s I saw in the pre-season come to life in the regular season, and you’re not going to tell me otherwise!
Total Comments 2
Comments
|
Hopefully this will carry over to the regular season, but I think the Raiders are already ahead of last year, just in coaching alone! Here's to a successful 2007 campaign!
|
 
|
|
|
I totaly agree - and it was very helpfull that we lost the last two games. If we had won all four games, I think there were to much hype, so we a back to be more realistic - There is a chance to get a season which surprises everyone in a positive way, but it was also obviously that this is only possible with a lot of hard work
|
|
|
Total Trackbacks 0
Trackbacks
Recent Blog Entries by Nik Jam
