Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

The bad, The Ugly, and the Uglier...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RaiderX


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 21506
Location: Crown Town, CA
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
Mike Mitchell is a weak safety. Why are people even suggesting he play FS?


FIFY

I think people say that because of his speed and the very few times he played TE solidly.

I personally don't think he should even be on the team. Every time I see him on Special Teams I wanna bang my head on a wall.
_________________

SaveourSonics wrote:
Yea, RaiderX wins. We can all just top acting like this is a matter of opinion. MY GOD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 12662
Location: CA
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCOUGHMAN wrote:
CaribouLou wrote:
lilcrazycat1 wrote:
am i the only one with a huge hatred for matt giordano??


No.

http://www3.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=463480&view=next

I posted that here last year, and my opinion hasn't changed. He just constantly let's up big plays.


the ints the last few year saved him from having his name ran through the dirt. without the ints he is just horrible. i remember in the tampa game when the rb juked him at the 1 yard line and gio got injured and none of his teammates even offered to help him up. everyone just headed to the sideline iirc.

is mike mitch really that bad?


haha really? Laughing
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JTagg7754


Joined: 09 Nov 2010
Posts: 13270
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmac505 wrote:
JTagg7754 wrote:

Feel free to pick any position you wish instead of a group. S included. All are more involved in the game than the CB is. Also, if the RB even gets outside, that means the ends and OLB didn't do their job most of the time...


to your last point, I agree, the OLB and the DE do deserve blame. But the difference between good run and bad run Ds is that good run Ds dont give up the big runs. When the RB bounces outside the CBs need to be able to make the play. Ours don't, and those 5 - 7 yard runs turn into 60 yarders.

The CBs job on run plays, is to contain him inside. push him back to the inside where the DE or OLB can get him. Watch a real good tackling CB and you can see how valuable they are.

To the other point, I truly believe that as long as you have a couple elite players at any positions and respectable starters at the others you have the talent to be elite, you just need coaching or time.

I have a hard time saying CBs are less important than DEs, but i also have a hard time saying DEs are less important than CBs.

To say CBs arent involved in the run means, youve seen to many Raider games, or you follow the media hype that the best CBs are the ones with lots of INTs or low complete % (while i agree some of them are) But teams with good tackling Corners are less likely to give up the home run runs. (worded poorly)


When the RB has the chance to get outside, that generally means the ends and OLBs lost containment. They are the one's supposed to make those plays and not allow that to happen. After that, yes, the CB is needed but who knows what he's doing. Is he locked up w/ a WR or is he 15 yards down the LoS due to covering a WR he thought was a pass play? Obviously in zone you will not see that as often, but it does happen. Ends and OLBs don't have that to distract them.

I do believe you need elite players but to my example prior, the Steelers have been winning w/ pretty mediocre CBs and yielded top defenses for pretty much this entire decade. CBs are certainly less important than DEs. A pass rush can mask a weak secondary and although it happens vice-versa, it's not as frequent. If your ends can routinely get to the QB in a decent time, then it will make the secondaries job much easier. A CB can only cover a WR for like 5 seconds give or take but after that, it's extremely difficult. Look at the Giants for example. That line is great. They can rush four and sit back and still routinely get pressure.

I know CBs are involved in the run game but it's not nearly as frequent as every other position on the field. I want the most out of my investments and a guy that isn't even a factor on every pass play, their primary job, and even less on running plays is getting a lot of return on your investment.

Good tackling CBs isn't exactly an easy thing to find either.
_________________


PM sig requests.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmac505


Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Posts: 947
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JTagg7754 wrote:
dmac505 wrote:
JTagg7754 wrote:

Feel free to pick any position you wish instead of a group. S included. All are more involved in the game than the CB is. Also, if the RB even gets outside, that means the ends and OLB didn't do their job most of the time...


to your last point, I agree, the OLB and the DE do deserve blame. But the difference between good run and bad run Ds is that good run Ds dont give up the big runs. When the RB bounces outside the CBs need to be able to make the play. Ours don't, and those 5 - 7 yard runs turn into 60 yarders.

The CBs job on run plays, is to contain him inside. push him back to the inside where the DE or OLB can get him. Watch a real good tackling CB and you can see how valuable they are.

To the other point, I truly believe that as long as you have a couple elite players at any positions and respectable starters at the others you have the talent to be elite, you just need coaching or time.

I have a hard time saying CBs are less important than DEs, but i also have a hard time saying DEs are less important than CBs.

To say CBs arent involved in the run means, youve seen to many Raider games, or you follow the media hype that the best CBs are the ones with lots of INTs or low complete % (while i agree some of them are) But teams with good tackling Corners are less likely to give up the home run runs. (worded poorly)


When the RB has the chance to get outside, that generally means the ends and OLBs lost containment. They are the one's supposed to make those plays and not allow that to happen. After that, yes, the CB is needed but who knows what he's doing. Is he locked up w/ a WR or is he 15 yards down the LoS due to covering a WR he thought was a pass play? Obviously in zone you will not see that as often, but it does happen. Ends and OLBs don't have that to distract them.

I do believe you need elite players but to my example prior, the Steelers have been winning w/ pretty mediocre CBs and yielded top defenses for pretty much this entire decade. CBs are certainly less important than DEs. A pass rush can mask a weak secondary and although it happens vice-versa, it's not as frequent. If your ends can routinely get to the QB in a decent time, then it will make the secondaries job much easier. A CB can only cover a WR for like 5 seconds give or take but after that, it's extremely difficult. Look at the Giants for example. That line is great. They can rush four and sit back and still routinely get pressure.

I know CBs are involved in the run game but it's not nearly as frequent as every other position on the field. I want the most out of my investments and a guy that isn't even a factor on every pass play, their primary job, and even less on running plays is getting a lot of return on your investment.

Good tackling CBs isn't exactly an easy thing to find either.


I think the problem with the CB position compared to all the others is that you need 2 players around the same level. When one cb is way better than the other, the other gets abused.

at the DE position, if 1 guy is elite, he makes the other DEs job a lot easier.

So I agree that drafting a DE is a quicker impact for a D, as literally 1 player is going to make a difference.

But to build a good D takes time, and IMO you will never have a good D without 2 good CBs.

Teams that rush the QB very well, do very well until they get to the teams with QBs that know how to get the ball out quick. In the playoffs your bound to get at least one matchup with a QB who will just run quick routes all day, and if your CBs cant cover, your in for a long day.

To the points on the bold, that is why I do see CBs as first rd talents. They are tough to find, most drafts may only have 1 CB that I deem first round worthy but that is not because the position in unimportant, but because It is possibly the toughest position to play
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JTagg7754


Joined: 09 Nov 2010
Posts: 13270
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmac505 wrote:
I think the problem with the CB position compared to all the others is that you need 2 players around the same level. When one cb is way better than the other, the other gets abused.

at the DE position, if 1 guy is elite, he makes the other DEs job a lot easier.

So I agree that drafting a DE is a quicker impact for a D, as literally 1 player is going to make a difference.

But to build a good D takes time, and IMO you will never have a good D without 2 good CBs.

Teams that rush the QB very well, do very well until they get to the teams with QBs that know how to get the ball out quick. In the playoffs your bound to get at least one matchup with a QB who will just run quick routes all day, and if your CBs cant cover, your in for a long day.

To the points on the bold, that is why I do see CBs as first rd talents. They are tough to find, most drafts may only have 1 CB that I deem first round worthy but that is not because the position in unimportant, but because It is possibly the toughest position to play


I agree w/ the concept but why not just have two above average CBs and not worry about one being great? Every CB is going to get beat but if you focus more on the line and getting pressure, their job will be much, much easier. As you noted in your second point, I think one elite DE can make an entire line better, not just the opposing DE. Not only that, he makes the secondary's job easier also but means of getting to the QB but also, if you feel the need to double team him but still keep your linemen available, that will require a TE or RB which means one less person running a route which mean one less person for the rest of the guys to cover and he'll STILL get pressure at times.

It absolutely takes time to build a defense. Completely agree but you must start w/in the trenches. Conventional thinking would also lead you believe that quick throws could neutralize a good line but then the Giants wouldn't have beaten the Pats last Super Bowl. That's more on coaching and scheme rather than the CBs being able to cover. If you're expecting 3 step drops w/ immediate throws, it makes the CBs job a million times easier especially knowing the line will get pressure regardless. Average CBs can handle that. They've been playing football long enough.

To your last point, you use that as a reason to go after them first but what about using it as a reason to not? Let me explain. If they're so few and far between, why take the risk?? That's basically like saying you'll take a 10% chance on getting that when you can have a 50% chance on getting this and this is actually used more often than that (in terms of what we touched on earlier and in this post w/ run support, taking up blocks etc etc) . IMO, it's a no-brainer when looking at it the way I do although I understand thinking the way you do. I just don't agree w/ that method of thinking, that's all. Not saying it's wrong by any means b/c it seems like people still buy into it. Just not me and I know my ways of thinking may be unconventional w/ this topic but I still have yet to find too many examples that show me otherwise.
_________________


PM sig requests.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bo_Spice


Joined: 17 May 2009
Posts: 9687
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitty wrote:
You guys are funny talking about 17th pick in the first round like it would've made a difference. Hue still would've been fired.The coaching will still suck. The Raiders will be in a worse situation with out Palmer.


We'd still have Jason Campbell who would most likely have been coming off of the best year in his career and a playoff appearance. And we could have grabbed a pass rusher like Nick Perry with our first round pick.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OakRaiders3828


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 10163
Location: Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bo_Spice wrote:
bitty wrote:
You guys are funny talking about 17th pick in the first round like it would've made a difference. Hue still would've been fired.The coaching will still suck. The Raiders will be in a worse situation with out Palmer.


We'd still have Jason Campbell who would most likely have been coming off of the best year in his career and a playoff appearance. And we could have grabbed a pass rusher like Nick Perry with our first round pick.


And we'd still be a terible team, well, worse with Jason Campbell.
_________________
O A K L A N D R A I D E R S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3985
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bo_Spice wrote:
bitty wrote:
You guys are funny talking about 17th pick in the first round like it would've made a difference. Hue still would've been fired.The coaching will still suck. The Raiders will be in a worse situation with out Palmer.


We'd still have Jason Campbell who would most likely have been coming off of the best year in his career and a playoff appearance. And we could have grabbed a pass rusher like Nick Perry with our first round pick.


Did you see Campbell play? He sucks that all I have to say and the rest of the NFL agrees with me that's why he's not a starter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dante9876


Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 23895
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OakRaiders3828 wrote:
Bo_Spice wrote:
bitty wrote:
You guys are funny talking about 17th pick in the first round like it would've made a difference. Hue still would've been fired.The coaching will still suck. The Raiders will be in a worse situation with out Palmer.


We'd still have Jason Campbell who would most likely have been coming off of the best year in his career and a playoff appearance. And we could have grabbed a pass rusher like Nick Perry with our first round pick.


And we'd still be a terible team, well, worse with Jason Campbell.


Well I disagree here. People really need to understand how things work in life in general. We have no idea what Reggie does with the picks, or about Hue, or about our OC job if Campbell was here. One little thing can change a whole situation. Not saying the team would hadnt been bad, but if we make the playoffs last year, Hue doesnt go off, Hue may still be here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3985
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dante9876 wrote:
OakRaiders3828 wrote:
Bo_Spice wrote:
bitty wrote:
You guys are funny talking about 17th pick in the first round like it would've made a difference. Hue still would've been fired.The coaching will still suck. The Raiders will be in a worse situation with out Palmer.


We'd still have Jason Campbell who would most likely have been coming off of the best year in his career and a playoff appearance. And we could have grabbed a pass rusher like Nick Perry with our first round pick.


And we'd still be a terible team, well, worse with Jason Campbell.


Well I disagree here. People really need to understand how things work in life in general. We have no idea what Reggie does with the picks, or about Hue, or about our OC job if Campbell was here. One little thing can change a whole situation. Not saying the team would hadnt been bad, but if we make the playoffs last year, Hue doesnt go off, Hue may still be here.



You hit the nail on the head no one knows what would have happened in the draft.
But the history of the draft shows us that most players drafted in the first round are average to below average.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OakRaiders3828


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 10163
Location: Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dante9876 wrote:
OakRaiders3828 wrote:
Bo_Spice wrote:
bitty wrote:
You guys are funny talking about 17th pick in the first round like it would've made a difference. Hue still would've been fired.The coaching will still suck. The Raiders will be in a worse situation with out Palmer.


We'd still have Jason Campbell who would most likely have been coming off of the best year in his career and a playoff appearance. And we could have grabbed a pass rusher like Nick Perry with our first round pick.


And we'd still be a terible team, well, worse with Jason Campbell.


Well I disagree here. People really need to understand how things work in life in general. We have no idea what Reggie does with the picks, or about Hue, or about our OC job if Campbell was here. One little thing can change a whole situation. Not saying the team would hadnt been bad, but if we make the playoffs last year, Hue doesnt go off, Hue may still be here.


Why'd you say pickS? it's one pick we gave up last year for Palmer (since we're not talking about this upcoming off season). Hue being here wouldn't help our terrible defense, and who says we make the playoffs last year with Campbell+ no McFadden? Or are we hypothetically pretending that never happened as well?

And don't tell me I need to understand how life works Laughing thanks, especially when I'm not the one who can't get over the past.
_________________
O A K L A N D R A I D E R S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dante9876


Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 23895
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OakRaiders3828 wrote:
dante9876 wrote:
OakRaiders3828 wrote:
Bo_Spice wrote:
bitty wrote:
You guys are funny talking about 17th pick in the first round like it would've made a difference. Hue still would've been fired.The coaching will still suck. The Raiders will be in a worse situation with out Palmer.


We'd still have Jason Campbell who would most likely have been coming off of the best year in his career and a playoff appearance. And we could have grabbed a pass rusher like Nick Perry with our first round pick.


And we'd still be a terible team, well, worse with Jason Campbell.


Well I disagree here. People really need to understand how things work in life in general. We have no idea what Reggie does with the picks, or about Hue, or about our OC job if Campbell was here. One little thing can change a whole situation. Not saying the team would hadnt been bad, but if we make the playoffs last year, Hue doesnt go off, Hue may still be here.


Why'd you say pickS? it's one pick we gave up last year for Palmer (since we're not talking about this upcoming off season). Hue being here wouldn't help our terrible defense, and who says we make the playoffs last year with Campbell+ no McFadden? Or are we hypothetically pretending that never happened as well?

And don't tell me I need to understand how life works Laughing thanks, especially when I'm not the one who can't get over the past.


Well I didnt bring up the past. All im saying you cant say for certain that this team would be this bad. Just like you cant say McFadden gets hurt if Campbell is playing in that game. Or he doesnt take a 4-2 team to the playoffs. If Boller isnt playing, gameplan is different maybe we dont run that play where DMC got hurt. Like I said no one can sit here and say this team would be this bad, and that the changes that have happen would have happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OakRaiders3828


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 10163
Location: Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What ifs is a battle that Noone can win. At the end of the day, it happened. It's interesting to think about, but it is what it is I guess.
_________________
O A K L A N D R A I D E R S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darbsk


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 1409
Location: Wales, UK
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

JTagg7754 wrote:

I agree w/ the concept but why not just have two above average CBs and not worry about one being great? Every CB is going to get beat but if you focus more on the line and getting pressure, their job will be much, much easier. As you noted in your second point, I think one elite DE can make an entire line better, not just the opposing DE. Not only that, he makes the secondary's job easier also but means of getting to the QB but also, if you feel the need to double team him but still keep your linemen available, that will require a TE or RB which means one less person running a route which mean one less person for the rest of the guys to cover and he'll STILL get pressure at times.

It absolutely takes time to build a defense. Completely agree but you must start w/in the trenches. Conventional thinking would also lead you believe that quick throws could neutralize a good line but then the Giants wouldn't have beaten the Pats last Super Bowl. That's more on coaching and scheme rather than the CBs being able to cover. If you're expecting 3 step drops w/ immediate throws, it makes the CBs job a million times easier especially knowing the line will get pressure regardless. Average CBs can handle that. They've been playing football long enough.


Agree with the above sentiment, put another way i would rather have Elite DE play than an elite CB play or an Elite DL to an Elite secondry. Whilst nothing is black and white clear cut and some CBs definately are worth 1st round picks, IMO if you have a choice and you deem with due diligence that the DL and CB prospects are very similarly talented with similar ceilings then I go DL unless I'm absolutely stacked at that area.
_________________
"The fire that burns brightest in the Raiders organization is the will to win."
Mr. Al Davis RIP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 15408
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darbsk wrote:

Agree with the above sentiment, put another way i would rather have Elite DE play than an elite CB play or an Elite DL to an Elite secondry. Whilst nothing is black and white clear cut and some CBs definately are worth 1st round picks, IMO if you have a choice and you deem with due diligence that the DL and CB prospects are very similarly talented with similar ceilings then I go DL unless I'm absolutely stacked at that area.


I think that's what teams are doing. But there are only so many DL worthy of a 1st round pick in every draft.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group