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

Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs Oakland Raiders
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
NickButera


Moderator
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 6541
Location: Nevada
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its not so cut and dry as to say "All he had to do was score and the first thing he did was throw a pick". When actually it was, all he had to do was come back from 17 points with half a quarter remaining. He led a clutch drive not once, but twice, setting himself up for a third. So yes, he failed to be clutch after being pretty dang definition of clutch twice before he let us down. The only way we were able to get in that position was from "clutch" qb play.

One raider blogger said it best, we'll find out what kind of coach Allen is by the second half of this season. Should b interesting to see how we play. If you look at the first 4 games and these last 4 games, theres a stark difference. I have a feeling we're going to see some improvement all over the field and we'll be competetove in a majority of games here on out. Just my hope though.
_________________
Bah-Weep-Granah-Weep-Nini-Bong

My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Also, my short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 14497
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
macklemore wrote:
blancanieve wrote:
BlackPrestige92 wrote:
What a disappointing game to watch. I liked CP3 putting us on his back, but there was only so much he could do. DMC is finally hurt, but who cares? Not like he's useful for us the way he's being used. Defense is atrocious...
I was entertained though, and that's all I ask for. For my teams to fight until the bitter end.


I'm still upset over the Defensive performance yesterday wow that was tough to watch what i don't understand is how Seymour and Kelly are still starting these two guys are not productive anymore maybe as guys off the bench but as starters no way they look out of shape.


our safeties are the real problem.


O the Raiders safeties are horrible
. However, only in Raider Nation does the term safety suggest safety value on long runs. Free Safeties are supposed to be a CBs safety net not taking on RBs going full bore as their MAIN function. When free safeties have to change angles and catch guys from behind it usually suggests that the RB came through the 1st level of defense untouched, which should NEVER happen. We'd like Branch to play man coverage with his back to the QB, read and recognize the run, turn and click his hips and make the tackle at the LoS when the RB is going full bore. LOL. That's a lot of lawn to make up. Most SS in run support are in the box, then there are fewer excuses.

I have to admit even I've chuckled a few times when someone in the secondary breaks coverage only to realize the RB already has the angle on them.


We'd just like the safeties to make the tackle at some point before the ball carrier reaches the end zone. That'd be a start.

Dennis Allen wrote:
The thing that we have got to do a better job of is eliminating those things where they don’t become, they may be 10 or 15 yard gains, but we have got to be able to get them down to 10 or 15 yards and not 70.”

_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dante9876


Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 22332
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
DOCLEW 28 wrote:
Chali21 wrote:
Honestly Carson isn't clutch and we all know that. He's a QB that can put up big numbers but like I've heard Carson givith and Carson takith away.


Carson Palmer and the offense put up 32 points and lost by 10. I can't seem to blame him for this one. Our young WR's have too many lapses like Denarius did on that 2nd to last INT. And Streeter didn't fight for the ball enough for me on that last one.


I'm just saying he's not clutch. Dude put in work on Sunday but when you're down by 3 points and all you have to do is score and the first thing you throw is a pick..man that's tough to see. Although here's the thing, the guy threw 50+ times. He was doing it all himself and I totally respect him for that. That's why he isn't an elite QB, he's not an average or bad one, he just isn't elite. Personally if we put better pieces around him (running game, consistent defense, ect.) we'd see a better team.


He's a notch below elite in that he can do what elites do, but elites do it over and over.

.


No he is not. He is above average QB. Not elite and not very good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darbsk


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 1142
Location: Wales, UK
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NickButera wrote:
Its not so cut and dry as to say "All he had to do was score and the first thing he did was throw a pick". When actually it was, all he had to do was come back from 17 points with half a quarter remaining. He led a clutch drive not once, but twice, setting himself up for a third. So yes, he failed to be clutch after being pretty dang definition of clutch twice before he let us down. The only way we were able to get in that position was from "clutch" qb play.

One raider blogger said it best, we'll find out what kind of coach Allen is by the second half of this season. Should b interesting to see how we play. If you look at the first 4 games and these last 4 games, theres a stark difference. I have a feeling we're going to see some improvement all over the field and we'll be competetove in a majority of games here on out. Just my hope though.


Good post Nick, with regards to Dennis Allen I'm cautiously optimistic, I really like hearing him talk, seems to be straight to the point with less of the usual platitudes and triteness.

If only we could now get the running game going I think we'd see a huge difference on all phases of the team.
_________________
“It may take us a short while, but we'll get that nastiness of the Raiders back.”
Mr. Al Davis RIP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 6500
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:
macklemore wrote:
blancanieve wrote:
BlackPrestige92 wrote:
What a disappointing game to watch. I liked CP3 putting us on his back, but there was only so much he could do. DMC is finally hurt, but who cares? Not like he's useful for us the way he's being used. Defense is atrocious...
I was entertained though, and that's all I ask for. For my teams to fight until the bitter end.


I'm still upset over the Defensive performance yesterday wow that was tough to watch what i don't understand is how Seymour and Kelly are still starting these two guys are not productive anymore maybe as guys off the bench but as starters no way they look out of shape.


our safeties are the real problem.


O the Raiders safeties are horrible
. However, only in Raider Nation does the term safety suggest safety value on long runs. Free Safeties are supposed to be a CBs safety net not taking on RBs going full bore as their MAIN function. When free safeties have to change angles and catch guys from behind it usually suggests that the RB came through the 1st level of defense untouched, which should NEVER happen. We'd like Branch to play man coverage with his back to the QB, read and recognize the run, turn and click his hips and make the tackle at the LoS when the RB is going full bore. LOL. That's a lot of lawn to make up. Most SS in run support are in the box, then there are fewer excuses.

I have to admit even I've chuckled a few times when someone in the secondary breaks coverage only to realize the RB already has the angle on them.


We'd just like the safeties to make the tackle at some point before the ball carrier reaches the end zone. That'd be a start.

Dennis Allen wrote:
The thing that we have got to do a better job of is eliminating those things where they don’t become, they may be 10 or 15 yard gains, but we have got to be able to get them down to 10 or 15 yards and not 70.”


Haha fair enough. I'd like that also. But you hafta to admit that these huge holes have been chronic weakness for years. Seems like no one can lose a game to a long run in a critical situation like the Raiders.
_________________
Nodisrespect wrote:
(on building inside out) teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 15297
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Some might see it as getting greedy.

Palmer went deep to rookie Rod Streater down the left sideline but the pass was incomplete. Then Palmer went at Streater again, the ball arriving between Streater and Denarius Moore -- Palmer said the play was actually a miscommunication between himself and Moore, though the ball was closer to Streater -- and being picked off by safety Ahmad Black and returned 34 yards. Three plays later, Doug Martin plunged in from a yard out and that was essentially the ballgame. Buccaneers 42, Raiders 32.

Regardless if the young receivers ran wrong option routes and the veteran quarterback threw the ball where they were supposed to go, why did the Raiders throw deep with seemingly all the time in the world to grind out a game-winning drive?

http://www.csnbayarea.com/football-oakland-raiders/raiders-talk/Did-the-Raiders-get-greedy-on-offense?blockID=797953&feedID=2801
_________________


green24 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN > all of you


Raider X wrote:
This is football, not pussology 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 34680
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCOUGHMAN wrote:
Quote:
Some might see it as getting greedy.

Palmer went deep to rookie Rod Streater down the left sideline but the pass was incomplete. Then Palmer went at Streater again, the ball arriving between Streater and Denarius Moore -- Palmer said the play was actually a miscommunication between himself and Moore, though the ball was closer to Streater -- and being picked off by safety Ahmad Black and returned 34 yards. Three plays later, Doug Martin plunged in from a yard out and that was essentially the ballgame. Buccaneers 42, Raiders 32.

Regardless if the young receivers ran wrong option routes and the veteran quarterback threw the ball where they were supposed to go, why did the Raiders throw deep with seemingly all the time in the world to grind out a game-winning drive?

http://www.csnbayarea.com/football-oakland-raiders/raiders-talk/Did-the-Raiders-get-greedy-on-offense?blockID=797953&feedID=2801


Fair question. I understand that we were beating them in one-on-ones but the fact remains that we had hella time to come back. No reason to go deep other than the matchups. And with the game on the line and a QB prone to the occasional bad decision, I wouldn't trust young WRs like we have to run option routes against a Cover 2 team. Can't remember if we were in no huddle or not but whoever called those plays should bear that in mind next time.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5418
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NickButera wrote:
Its not so cut and dry as to say "All he had to do was score and the first thing he did was throw a pick". When actually it was, all he had to do was come back from 17 points with half a quarter remaining. He led a clutch drive not once, but twice, setting himself up for a third. So yes, he failed to be clutch after being pretty dang definition of clutch twice before he let us down. The only way we were able to get in that position was from "clutch" qb play.


+1

Good post. When you give up 250 yards and 4 TDs to an opposing RB, you usually lose. That game should have been in the books by the end of the 3rd quarter but Palmer threw 3 4th quarter TDs and cut a 17 point deficit to just 3 points with 2 clutch drives with under 10 minutes left in the game. The interception sucks, but without him we wouldnt have even been in a position to make a comeback.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5418
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
Quote:
Some might see it as getting greedy.

Palmer went deep to rookie Rod Streater down the left sideline but the pass was incomplete. Then Palmer went at Streater again, the ball arriving between Streater and Denarius Moore -- Palmer said the play was actually a miscommunication between himself and Moore, though the ball was closer to Streater -- and being picked off by safety Ahmad Black and returned 34 yards. Three plays later, Doug Martin plunged in from a yard out and that was essentially the ballgame. Buccaneers 42, Raiders 32.

Regardless if the young receivers ran wrong option routes and the veteran quarterback threw the ball where they were supposed to go, why did the Raiders throw deep with seemingly all the time in the world to grind out a game-winning drive?

http://www.csnbayarea.com/football-oakland-raiders/raiders-talk/Did-the-Raiders-get-greedy-on-offense?blockID=797953&feedID=2801


Fair question. I understand that we were beating them in one-on-ones but the fact remains that we had hella time to come back. No reason to go deep other than the matchups. And with the game on the line and a QB prone to the occasional bad decision, I wouldn't trust young WRs like we have to run option routes against a Cover 2 team. Can't remember if we were in no huddle or not but whoever called those plays should bear that in mind next time.


I agree, that was a stupid move. With nearly 2 minutes left they should have gone with a different play. Still, I'm proud of Palmer. Once again he had no run game. 10 run plays called, totalling 19 yards and he threw for a ton of yards, a ton of TDs, carried the team on his back and came so close to pulling out a big win.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 34680
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZoomWaffle wrote:
NickButera wrote:
Its not so cut and dry as to say "All he had to do was score and the first thing he did was throw a pick". When actually it was, all he had to do was come back from 17 points with half a quarter remaining. He led a clutch drive not once, but twice, setting himself up for a third. So yes, he failed to be clutch after being pretty dang definition of clutch twice before he let us down. The only way we were able to get in that position was from "clutch" qb play.


+1

Good post. When you give up 250 yards and 4 TDs to an opposing RB, you usually lose. That game should have been in the books by the end of the 3rd quarter but Palmer threw 3 4th quarter TDs and cut a 17 point deficit to just 3 points with 2 clutch drives with under 10 minutes left in the game. The interception sucks, but without him we wouldnt have even been in a position to make a comeback.


Doesn't completely excuse his aptness for turning over the ball over. But with sub par pass protection, no running game and receivers running the wrong routes, and everything you just mention, it's hard for me to get upset with him.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 15297
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZoomWaffle wrote:
NickButera wrote:
Its not so cut and dry as to say "All he had to do was score and the first thing he did was throw a pick". When actually it was, all he had to do was come back from 17 points with half a quarter remaining. He led a clutch drive not once, but twice, setting himself up for a third. So yes, he failed to be clutch after being pretty dang definition of clutch twice before he let us down. The only way we were able to get in that position was from "clutch" qb play.


+1

Good post. When you give up 250 yards and 4 TDs to an opposing RB, you usually lose. However, Palmer gave us life and threw 3 4th quarter TDs and cut a 17 point deficit to just 3 points with 2 clutch drives with under 10 minutes left in the game. The interception sucks, but without him we wouldnt have even been in a position to make a comeback.


i agree except i think without the ints we would have won the game. also like clockwork at least one of those long runs came after a int. i give cp props for not giving up.

us disappearing int the 3rd and those quick ints have always killed us. the defense gets off the field after stopping a drive, they go to the sideline for a breather. one or 2 plays later a int happens and they are back out there hella winded and they get gashed by a big run.

who is our strength and conditioning coach cause the defense always looks winded after half time. is it bad training, age or are they just on the field too much?
_________________


green24 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN > all of you


Raider X wrote:
This is football, not pussology 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 34680
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCOUGHMAN wrote:
who is our strength and conditioning coach cause the defense always looks winded after half time. is it bad training, age or are they just on the field too much?


Actually in other games, it looks like our guys are in better shape than the others. This past game, I blame an ineffective offense more than anything. Our 3rd quarter offense was pathetic and didn't give the D time to rest as you alluded to. Additionally, Bryant left the game which left our geezers at DT in for a lot of time. Of course they're gonna get gassed in a game like that. I hope this doesn't become a persistent thing though.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 15297
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
Quote:
Some might see it as getting greedy.

Palmer went deep to rookie Rod Streater down the left sideline but the pass was incomplete. Then Palmer went at Streater again, the ball arriving between Streater and Denarius Moore -- Palmer said the play was actually a miscommunication between himself and Moore, though the ball was closer to Streater -- and being picked off by safety Ahmad Black and returned 34 yards. Three plays later, Doug Martin plunged in from a yard out and that was essentially the ballgame. Buccaneers 42, Raiders 32.

Regardless if the young receivers ran wrong option routes and the veteran quarterback threw the ball where they were supposed to go, why did the Raiders throw deep with seemingly all the time in the world to grind out a game-winning drive?

http://www.csnbayarea.com/football-oakland-raiders/raiders-talk/Did-the-Raiders-get-greedy-on-offense?blockID=797953&feedID=2801


Fair question. I understand that we were beating them in one-on-ones but the fact remains that we had hella time to come back. No reason to go deep other than the matchups. And with the game on the line and a QB prone to the occasional bad decision, I wouldn't trust young WRs like we have to run option routes against a Cover 2 team. Can't remember if we were in no huddle or not but whoever called those plays should bear that in mind next time.


yea like they say "if it aint broke dont fix it" we had almost 3 min and 2 t.o.'s left and the ball at the 38. why go deep? TB was giving us the under routes all thru the 4th and guarding the deep stuff and we were moving with ease and scoring. even if we scored a fast td we would have gave them the ball back with plenty time to score again. i just dont understand
_________________


green24 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN > all of you


Raider X wrote:
This is football, not pussology 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 15297
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
who is our strength and conditioning coach cause the defense always looks winded after half time. is it bad training, age or are they just on the field too much?


Actually in other games, it looks like our guys are in better shape than the others. This past game, I blame an ineffective offense more than anything. Our 3rd quarter offense was pathetic and didn't give the D time to rest as you alluded to. Additionally, Bryant left the game which left our geezers at DT in for a lot of time. Of course they're gonna get gassed in a game like that. I hope this doesn't become a persistent thing though.


yea you are right.

i just see how much the other teams score on us during the 3rd.
_________________


green24 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN > all of you


Raider X wrote:
This is football, not pussology 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 34680
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCOUGHMAN wrote:
"if it aint broke dont fix it" we had almost 3 min and 2 t.o.'s left and the ball at the 38. why go deep? TB was giving us the under routes all thru the 4th and guarding the deep stuff and we were moving with ease and scoring. even if we scored a fast td we would have gave them the ball back with plenty time to score again. i just dont understand


I'm in the same boat brotha

NCOUGHMAN wrote:
i just see how much the other teams score on us during the 3rd.


I think that goes back to coaching. Its like we don't make adjustments. Or we do, and they're wrong. I hate it.
_________________
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 - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44  Next
Page 41 of 44

 
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