Run defense...a problem or not?

[or24]

Originally Posted by d-mac37

The run D has been awful - not much of an argument there.....but when the offense struggles to score points and sustain drives, we see the result in a tired D not being able to keep the opponents from scoring late in games.

For example:

The combined record of the 9 other teams that scored less points than OAK in 2007 is 44-104. Do I even need to mention 2006?

Unless you have the Ravens D of 2001 - you won't win many games if you can't score points.

IMO, this team has made improvements on both sides of the ball. Whether or not these moves will return the Raiders to contenders remains to be seen, but I expect to see a much more exciting product on the field compared to the last few years....and for that, I am more optimistic this offseason.

Just outscore em baby

We were top 5 in time of possession last year. The defense had plenty of rest. Teams come out the gate running all over us. Our defense was ranked 22nd I believe. But take a look at yards allowed per play. 31st in the league. Our defense woud be worse if our run game didn't control the clock and keep our defense off the field for some time.

[gdamac]

Maybe instead of trading for Hall, we should have traded that 2nd to GB for Corey Williams, probably could have gotten a 5th back as well since our 2nd would have been about 15 slots higher than Cleveland's. Kelly and Williams with Sands and Warren as backups would have been a pretty good rotation. But now we have to put our faith in Sands, unless we go get Grady.

[RaiderVince]

i agree with RNY we have to prove it first. till then..wait wait wait

[Southern Raider]

I'm no longer willing to make assuptions based on off season personell moves. We've sucked against the run for 4-5 years now. In my my book, we still do until I SEE otherwise.

[POKE]

Originally Posted by Southern Raider

I'm no longer willing to make assuptions based on off season personell moves. We've sucked against the run for 4-5 years now. In my my book, we still do until I SEE otherwise.

Exactly. People on paper don't mean poop. Go out and produce on the field.

If you meet a woman in the singles ads that says she has the body of Janet Jackson in her prime and the face of Halle Berry you get excited. But what happens if she has the body of now Aretha Franklin and the face of Adonal Foyle. Thats why you have to wait and see.

[Live.B.A.Raida]

Originally Posted by gdamac

Maybe instead of trading for Hall, we should have traded that 2nd to GB for Corey Williams, probably could have gotten a 5th back as well since our 2nd would have been about 15 slots higher than Cleveland's. Kelly and Williams with Sands and Warren as backups would have been a pretty good rotation. But now we have to put our faith in Sands, unless we go get Grady.

I have to disagree with that. Kelly is everybit as good as Williams imo.... he's not the dt we need. We should have gone harder after Shaun Rodgers, or Kris Jenkins. Hopefully we sign Gravy Jackson and Terd Sands doesnt play like one..... I really think Grady can teach Sands a few things about clogging up the middle.

[Raider Ran]

Originally Posted by pokeinrichmond

Exactly. People on paper don't mean poop. Go out and produce on the field.

If you meet a woman in the singles ads that says she has the body of Janet Jackson in her prime and the face of Halle Berry you get excited. But what happens if she has the body of now Aretha Franklin and the face of Adonal Foyle. Thats why you have to wait and see.

Adonal Foyle

[Live.B.A.Raida]

Originally Posted by pokeinrichmond

Exactly. People on paper don't mean poop. Go out and produce on the field.

If you meet a woman in the singles ads that says she has the body of Janet Jackson in her prime and the face of Halle Berry you get excited. But what happens if she has the body of now Aretha Franklin and the face of Adonal Foyle. Thats why you have to wait and see.

Poke always with the lady references.... but the face of Adonal and body of Aretha?

[HITMAN]

Originally Posted by Southern Raider

I'm no longer willing to make assuptions based on off season personell moves. We've sucked against the run for 4-5 years now. In my my book, we still do until I SEE otherwise.

Spot on, the proof is in the pudding, unless these acquisitions produce results it's a moot point.

[d-mac37]

Originally Posted by or24

We were top 5 in time of possession last year. The defense had plenty of rest. Teams come out the gate running all over us. Our defense was ranked 22nd I believe. But take a look at yards allowed per play. 31st in the league. Our defense woud be worse if our run game didn't control the clock and keep our defense off the field for some time.

How about the games that the D gave up the lead in the 4th qtr?

The offense was unable to put time consuming drives together or put points on the board WHEN IT WAS NEEDED THE MOST.

3 and out over & over & over will NOT win games down the stretch.

See how the Raiders did in TOP in the 4 qtr...

[d-mac37]

Originally Posted by HITMAN

Spot on, the proof is in the pudding, unless these acquisitions produce results it's a moot point.

True, but pudding is a speculation first driven product

[HITMAN]

Originally Posted by d-mac37

True, but pudding is a speculation first driven product

lol, apparently...