View Full Version : God damn it.
God damn it. God damn it. God damn it.
Raiders | Ryan will remain defensive coordinator
Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:18:16 -0800
Updating previous reports, the San Francisco Chronicle reports Oakland Raiders defensive coordinator Rob Ryan will remain with the team after agreeing to a three-year contract extension Wednesday, Jan. 18.
We may as well just trade Brayton now.
Maybe we'll stick with that 4-2-5 base. That would actually be okay by me, so long as we really make it a point to upgrade at DE and safety.
Still...31st ranked defense, 27th ranked defense, league record for fewest INTs in a season...
Why, Al? Why?
Apparently because improvement from really bad to bad means something in this day and age.
Raiders | Team wants to retain R. Ryan; Jets want him too
Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:50:11 -0800
Jerry McDonald, of the Oakland Tribune, reports an Oakland Raiders team official said the club is working to retain the services of defensive coordinator Rob Ryan. An NFL source said Ryan had already agreed to stay in Oakland but has since asked to be released from his contract so he could join head coach Eric Mangini on the New York Jets staff.
Let him go. Ugh.
But, in the interest of tempering bad news with good news...
Raiders | Team retains Millard
Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:54:35 -0800
Jerry McDonald, of the Oakland Tribune, reports the Oakland Raiders have retained defensive line coach Keith Millard.
Retaining this guy was large. Huge, even.
Millard is huge...I really was hoping we'd find a way to retain him, obviously he was money getting the kids on the DL coached up.
When we brought him over from Denver, I couldn't believe they let him slip away. This is the guy who developed Bert Berry and Reggie Hayward. Now, he's the guy who developed Derrick Burgess as well. Let's get him some more DEs to play with, stat.
Rupert
01-19-2006, 11:36 AM
For starters I think having Kelly and Burgess at DE is GREAT! Those guys are excellent! But I'm totally behind bringing in another guy or two.
Maybe Riddle is the guy to back up Burgess, I just don't know. But there is absolutely no-one to back up Kelly, at least there's no functional equivalent. Yeah, I know, your backup shouldn't be as good as the starter or he'd be the starter. Yeah, I get it. But when Kelly moved inside we got JSN (Jack Shit Nothing) out of the RDE.
Okay, so Kelly is very good and should improve on the inside to replace Sapp. I like that move too, but in that case we need a starter ot RDE. So at a minimum we need one guy who could potentially start at RDE. I say bring us Williams!!!
I'm still puzzled as to why you'd want to keep a DT at RDE. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Rupert
01-19-2006, 11:46 AM
As far as Ryan staying. I like it. In fact, I like it a lot. He made a credible knockoff of a silk purse out of half a bolt (or whatever) of silk and a sow's ear. That in my book says one hell of a lot. Did Al have to "convince" him to run the 4-3 (425 nickel)? Yeah, but it didn't look like he was clueless at doing it. I was personally sold by the result, and I think Al was too.
The fact that Ryan was able to make it work demonstrates his ability to think on his feet and work for results on the field. How many of you think Bresnahan could have pulled this season off with the personnel we had? I don't. (Not that I think any of you want him back either.) And a LOT of the coordinators people are talking about didn't have the personnel issues we had either. I think Ryan did very well, and I am glad to have him back.
Let's improve the personnel and speed on defense and we'll see HOW good he is. Improvement to sub 20 territory (with all healthy personnel of course) next season should be expected with the continued development of the kids, some solid depth here and there, the return of Sam Williams, and a better starting SS (Gibson would only be a very minor improvement over what we had).
31st ranked defense, 27th ranked defense, league record for fewest INTs in a season...
I'm still stuck on this. Either Ryan is a shitty DC, or Al is a god awful personnel guy. One or the other has to be an undeniable fact.
CrossBones
01-19-2006, 12:22 PM
The situation in Oakland is again resembling a Three Ring Circus...
Yes he is -- no he isn't. Singed? Maybe? Wants to be released? WTF is going on in Raiderland?
Sigh. :rolleyes:
Well, just hire him as the HC and get it over with I guess...we still don't have one of those?
Surely we'll let the new HC hire one assistant on his own, right?
Rupert
01-19-2006, 03:57 PM
I personally don't think it's an either or situation. But mistakes were made, bigtime.
I think the biggest one was Ryan thinking he could make credible backers out of some of our DE's. Brayton has come the farthest and actually looks decent playing the flat and hook zones.
I think the second mistake was Al allowing him to try it and NOT having a backup plan at LB. I mean seriously, we broke camp with 3 LB's on the roster (I forget when Williams went on IR but I believe it was early in pre-season - I must have been out of the country). No! We had Grant and Brayton listed as LB's - RIGHT! One of those backers was Tim Johnson, a fire plug who only got PT when there were injuries.
The way Ryan worked the nickel was pretty damned impressive to me. I think part of the personnel problem was Ryan insisting that Brayton could be a 3 down LB, and that Grant ot Irons could be decent emergency guys.
Al Davis has constantly let his coaches climb out on thinner and thinner branches and letting them break their own necks. This time he kept Ryan. That says a lot to me.
Fewest INT's in the history of the NFL doesn't concern me one bit. Not in the slightest. Asomugha in his first season starting at corner after being a college tweener. Schweigert in his first season starting at FS. Jarrod Cooper, a career backup starting at SS. Rookie Fabian Washington starting at the other corner for most of the season. Reynaldo Hill starting at nickel for most of the season.
Let's look at some of the details of having a nickel on the field all season:
Rushing
We had the 3rd most running plays against us.
But only the 8th worst yards and TD's against.
12 worst first downs against.
14th worst yards per attempt against.
And 10th best plays of 20+ yards against.
Passing
9th fewest passing attempts against.
But 7th worst yards per attempt and 8th worst yards per completion.
10th worst completion %.
12th best TD's against (worse than 9th though).
14th best first downs (still worse than 9th).
Overall
7th worst 3rd down com %.
But 5th best defensive penalties.
There were definitely some things to look at as positive. Like our ability to clamp down on our opponents rushing ability even though they ran on us a LOT.
Our pass defense wasn't great but our sack numbers were dead average (15th). And this in spite of all the personnel problems. Said a lot about Ryan's ability to make lemonaide out of lemons, sugar, and water.
Al Davis has constantly let his coaches climb out on thinner and thinner branches and letting them break their own necks. This time he kept Ryan. That says a lot to me.
About Ryan or about Davis? That could go either way.
We can talk all night about Brayton making progress as an OLB, but the fact still remains he's not any good at it. He can't rush the QB at all from a standing position. He's useless in man coverage. Whiffs too many tackles. Is far too slow in pursuit. There are no upsides to Brayton playing LB.
As for our run defense, when your 4 man D-line consists of 1 DE and 3 DTs for most of the season, you're going to be fairly difficult to run against for a lot of teams. Sadly, you can't get any consistant pressure on the QB that way. Consistantly non-existant pressure, yes...but that's about it.
Overall, the defense stunk. Retaining Ryan will prove to be a mistake, IMO.
Rupert
01-19-2006, 11:53 PM
Well, with 1 DE and 3 DT's we were right in the middle of the league in sacks while facing the 9th fewest pass attempts. That sounds like better than average production per snap, but I guess that doesn't count a better than average pressure in your book.
We certainly won't agree on this.
On Brayton: I'm not sure what you think of him as a DE, but I thought he was pretty damned pedestrian there too. So what is he? I think he could only keep the weight on with supplements, so he's better off dropping the weight and working on his other abilities. Will they develop? It's doubtful, but that's all he has in my opinion.
Well, with 1 DE and 3 DT's we were right in the middle of the league in sacks while facing the 9th fewest pass attempts. That sounds like better than average production per snap, but I guess that doesn't count a better than average pressure in your book.
You guess correctly. Stats are pretty, but game tape doesn't lie. Opposing QBs routinely had all day to throw against us. A few meaningless sacks does not equate to consistant pressure.
Here's a stat for you: We were 26th in the league in 3rd down defense. Teams with an actual pass rush rarely rank so low in such a key stat, especially when you consider most 3rd down plays are pass plays.
We certainly won't agree on this.
I don't mind admitting when you're wrong if you don't. ;)
On Brayton: I'm not sure what you think of him as a DE, but I thought he was pretty damned pedestrian there too.
Prior to Ryan screwing his career, he was hardly pedestrian. He showed promise as a rook, even though he was playing out of position at RDE. As a 3-4 DE, he managed 2.5 sacks, 9 tackles, and 2 passes defensed in 2 games and held up fairly well against the run considering he was a little light for the position. All in all, if not for Rob Ryan, I'd say Tyler Brayton would have become a pretty solid DE...and still could have, had we not rewarded Ryan's incompetance with a contract extension.
I think he could only keep the weight on with supplements
Based on what exactly? And, seeing as they're legal, what's wrong with a player taking supplements?
so he's better off dropping the weight and working on his other abilities. Will they develop? It's doubtful, but that's all he has in my opinion.
Seems to me your opinion flies in the face of his best interests and the abilities he demonstrated prior to being "Ryaned". Most curious.
Rupert
01-21-2006, 12:19 PM
Well Crow, prior to Ryan, Brayton played mostly LDE. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. Brayton was decidedly pededstrian at LDE. He didn't hold up well against the run, he couldn't shed blockers, and he was consistently two steps slow on the pass rush. I guess it's to his credit that he showed a lot of hustle and chased plays down from behind (still too slow to make tackles though).
So I don't mind admitting when you're wrong if you don't either. :p
If Brayton was all that good at DE do you think Al Davis would have allowed him to be moved to OLB? I guess you think he would. I don't.
When I talk about supplements I'm talking about steroids. I have no corroborating evidence other than the neanderthal brow that Brayton sports that is one of the stereotypical signs of steroid use, and just a hunch in general.
As far as which defensive end he plays. Under Ryan at RDE this season he should have been able to speed rush the smaller more agile LT's and should have been able to withstand their power blocking better, but he wasn't. The guy is pedestrian at best as a DE and always has been at the NFL level.
You can blame Ryan for trying to change him, but I put the blame squarely where it belongs, on Brayton, who wasn't good enough as a DE but had enough energy and desire to try to find a role on the field. Brayton has value as a football player, and if he's going to realise it, it's NOT as an every down DE.
Rupert
01-21-2006, 01:19 PM
One more thing. Brayton doesn't change directions well enough with a blocker on him to be a speed rushing DE and he's too small (not strong enough) to hold up as a run stopping DE. He shows positional smarts and awareness, and if he drops weight and works on his speed he could become a decent SAM backer. The problem is, when guys bulk up, as Brayton did, they usually cost themselves their speed forever. A proper off-season workout can bring some of it back, but he'd have to be seriously dedicated. He did show improvement in that area since last season.
Additionally, you accurately point out his inability to react well to runners in the open field. What makes you think he can be any better reacting to the QB in the backfield? Especially since he hasn't in his entire career with us. That sort of flies in the face of your own logic, doesn't it?
The reason I think he could possibly be a decent OLB in a 3-4 is because Willie McGinnest was decent (not even above average) when he dropped back as an OLB. They don't ask it of him as often because he's losing his lateral quickness in space which wasn't great to begin with. Also, on zone blitzes, DT's drop back into space and are quite effective at handling their responsibilities. They key in both those situations is a pass rush. Brayton could potentially handle TE's and FB's as lead blockers, but I still wonder about his ability to shed blockers. Maybe the smaller players would be easier for him to handle, but their speed would make his footwork more critical. Still he has the desire, and that might be his advantage in the off-season. He showed quite a bit of mental development between last season and this season as an OLB. Now if he can get the physical to line up with the mental, he might be worth more than he is.
RaiderIVlife
01-21-2006, 03:01 PM
Brayton - I don't think he's either much of a player that this level at any position. Not only is he a step slow (IMO) at DE, he can also get overpowered against the run.
The Raiders are scrambling to find a place for him on the roster, but I simply think Al swung and missed on this draft pick. At least Nmandi Asomugha is a solid CB. You win some, you lose some.
CrossBones
01-21-2006, 03:19 PM
To me somebody gave uop on Brayton too early.
As Crow points out the guy had a pretty decend rookie year. He needs coaching IMO.
Now that they have taken weight off him and moved him all over the place I'm not sure he gets back to his rookie form. If not I'd rather they cut him then continue this OLB crap. It's not working!
Rupert
01-22-2006, 09:37 AM
Bones: I remember Tony Bryant had a decent rookie year too. In 10 games he had 13 tackles, 4.5 sacks, and forced a fumble. Damn, that looks better than Brayton. But Bryant could never get off that blocker, and was always a step or two slow getting to the QB. They gave him 3 more years to try to improve and he stayed basically the same player. Brayton would have been the same.
I'm pretty sure that giving Brayton additional time at DE wouldn't have given us any real production boost. I just don't think he'd have improved enough because he never demonstrated improvement at DE. He has shown improvement as an OLB (yeah I know, from complete shit to mostly shit :cool: but it's something).
Personally, it comes down to what defense we're going to run. 3-4: keep Brayton at OLB, drop some more weight off the sucker, keep him working on those agility drills, and plop him down on the bench. 4-3: keep him at his current weight, train him to get to the QB as a speed rushing DE, and plop him down on the bench. Either way he's a 1st round bust who might one day get a chance when someone's injured.
Well Crow, prior to Ryan, Brayton played mostly LDE. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.
He played his entire rookie season at RDE, playing over the LT.
Brayton was decidedly pededstrian at LDE. He didn't hold up well against the run, he couldn't shed blockers, and he was consistently two steps slow on the pass rush. I guess it's to his credit that he showed a lot of hustle and chased plays down from behind (still too slow to make tackles though).
So I don't mind admitting when you're wrong if you don't either. :p
That's kinda funny, considering you didn't even know which side of the line he played on. ;)
If Brayton was all that good at DE do you think Al Davis would have allowed him to be moved to OLB? I guess you think he would. I don't.
I don't think Al Davis even knows where he is 3 days out of the week.
When I talk about supplements I'm talking about steroids. I have no corroborating evidence other than the neanderthal brow that Brayton sports that is one of the stereotypical signs of steroid use, and just a hunch in general.
There's a world of difference between supplements and steroids. I take supplements. I've never taken steroids. Supplements are legal, and often still legal to use in the NFL.
As far as which defensive end he plays. Under Ryan at RDE this season he should have been able to speed rush the smaller more agile LT's and should have been able to withstand their power blocking better, but he wasn't. The guy is pedestrian at best as a DE and always has been at the NFL level.
When you spend the last two years of your career practicing with the LBs, sitting film study with the LBs, and being told to accept the fact that you're now a LB...it's a pretty safe bet that you're not going to grow or develop as a DE. Don't let common sense interfere with your argument. ;)
You can blame Ryan for trying to change him, but I put the blame squarely where it belongs, on Brayton,
Yes, because the player is the only one responsible for his own development. The coaching staff has nothing to do with that.
Garbage.
who wasn't good enough as a DE
Said the guy who didn't even know which side of the line he'd mostly played on prior to being moved to LB.
but had enough energy and desire to try to find a role on the field.
He doesn't want a "role". he's a defensive linemen and he's stated as much. He wasn't shy at all about letting people know getting moved to LB sucked and pissed him off royally.
Brayton has value as a football player, and if he's going to realise it, it's NOT as an every down DE.
It's certainly not as a LB. Any fool can see that. His best value will be taking on a Bobby Hamilton type role, splitting reps with Burgess so our delicate pass rusher doesn't shatter due to overuse.
One more thing. Brayton doesn't change directions well enough with a blocker on him to be a speed rushing DE
I don't recall anyone ever expecting him to be a speed rusher.
and he's too small (not strong enough) to hold up as a run stopping DE.
The weight room does wonders for things like this.
He shows positional smarts and awareness, and if he drops weight and works on his speed he could become a decent SAM backer.
No, he really couldn't. How can you sit there and say he doesn't move well enough to be a rush end, but you think he can line up and run with TEs? Are you kidding me?
The problem is, when guys bulk up, as Brayton did, they usually cost themselves their speed forever. A proper off-season workout can bring some of it back, but he'd have to be seriously dedicated. He did show improvement in that area since last season.
He came into the league at 280 and showed a good burst. Let him spend this offseason moving back into the 280-290 range, strength train like a mother fucker, and work with Keith millard on his technique...or just give the sumbitch the chance to work with the DL again in film study and practice...and we'll see what the guy has got. All they're doing right now is sucking the life out of him. Ryan is killing this guy's career, and at some point, even a guy with Brayton's heart will stop giving a damn because of it.
Additionally, you accurately point out his inability to react well to runners in the open field. What makes you think he can be any better reacting to the QB in the backfield? Especially since he hasn't in his entire career with us. That sort of flies in the face of your own logic, doesn't it?
Not at all. A DE doesn't have to bring the QB down to be effective. Pressure creates turnovers and/or incompletions. It's Football 101, really.
By comparison, there's no such thing as pressuring a ballcarrier. If you miss him, you just missed him. The two aren't even remotely comparable.
The reason I think he could possibly be a decent OLB in a 3-4 is because Willie McGinnest was decent (not even above average) when he dropped back as an OLB. They don't ask it of him as often because he's losing his lateral quickness in space which wasn't great to begin with.
The difference is that McGinnest came into that system as an accomplished pass rusher. Brayton was a hustle guy with potential who needed to be developed. As is typical of this team, we're not doing a good job of developing him. In fact, we're doing everything we can to cause him to regress and setting him up to fail. That's you boy Ryan's doing, not Brayton's.
Also, on zone blitzes, DT's drop back into space and are quite effective at handling their responsibilities. They key in both those situations is a pass rush. Brayton could potentially handle TE's and FB's as lead blockers, but I still wonder about his ability to shed blockers. Maybe the smaller players would be easier for him to handle, but their speed would make his footwork more critical.
He's never going to be an effective LB. There's just no reason to believe that he ever could be. LBs are apples, Brayton is an orange. I don't know any other way to put it right now.
Still he has the desire, and that might be his advantage in the off-season. He showed quite a bit of mental development between last season and this season as an OLB. Now if he can get the physical to line up with the mental, he might be worth more than he is.
Had he been left at DE, we'd be talking about his development there and what a solid pick Al made that year. Instead, we've got people trying to defend Ryan for sabotaging this guy's career and trying to polish this turd...and you just can't polish a turd, man.
Angel
01-22-2006, 11:53 AM
We may as well just trade Brayton now.
Maybe we'll stick with that 4-2-5 base. That would actually be okay by me, so long as we really make it a point to upgrade at DE and safety.
Still...31st ranked defense, 27th ranked defense, league record for fewest INTs in a season...
Why, Al? Why?
I told ya....he loves to mess up your dreams :p:
Bones: I remember Tony Bryant had a decent rookie year too. In 10 games he had 13 tackles, 4.5 sacks, and forced a fumble. Damn, that looks better than Brayton. But Bryant could never get off that blocker, and was always a step or two slow getting to the QB. They gave him 3 more years to try to improve and he stayed basically the same player.
You mean moving Bryant from RDE to LDE, to DT, making him gain and lose weight every season was meant to help his development? I never would have thought of trying that...
Also, prior to his neck injury, when we moved him back to RDE, he was getting very good pressure on the QB. had he not gotten hurt, he could have had a pretty solid season.
Brayton would have been the same.
Baseless speculation by someone who actually believes that Rob Ryan did the right thing by screwing this guy.
I'm pretty sure that giving Brayton additional time at DE wouldn't have given us any real production boost. I just don't think he'd have improved enough because he never demonstrated improvement at DE.
3 sacks in 2 games as a 3-4 DE...never showed any improvement. Gotcha. :rolleyes:
He has shown improvement as an OLB (yeah I know, from complete shit to mostly shit :cool: but it's something).
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Personally, it comes down to what defense we're going to run. 3-4: keep Brayton at OLB, drop some more weight off the sucker, keep him working on those agility drills, and plop him down on the bench.
He looked a lot better as a DE in the 3-4 than he ever has as a LB.
4-3: keep him at his current weight, train him to get to the QB as a speed rushing DE, and plop him down on the bench. Either way he's a 1st round bust who might one day get a chance when someone's injured.
Hang the fault of that "bust" label squarely on the shoulders of your boy Ryan. Brayton was doing fine until that hack showed up.
CrossBones
01-22-2006, 11:55 AM
Bones: I remember Tony Bryant had a decent rookie year too. In 10 games he had 13 tackles, 4.5 sacks, and forced a fumble. Damn, that looks better than Brayton. But Bryant could never get off that blocker, and was always a step or two slow getting to the QB. They gave him 3 more years to try to improve and he stayed basically the same player. Brayton would have been the same.
I'm pretty sure that giving Brayton additional time at DE wouldn't have given us any real production boost. I just don't think he'd have improved enough because he never demonstrated improvement at DE. He has shown improvement as an OLB (yeah I know, from complete shit to mostly shit :cool: but it's something).
Personally, it comes down to what defense we're going to run. 3-4: keep Brayton at OLB, drop some more weight off the sucker, keep him working on those agility drills, and plop him down on the bench. 4-3: keep him at his current weight, train him to get to the QB as a speed rushing DE, and plop him down on the bench. Either way he's a 1st round bust who might one day get a chance when someone's injured.Yeah, I had high hopes for Bryandt. Coming form FSU I thought we had a gem but it didn't turn out that way and every year I got more and more disappointed.
As for Bryaton...maybe it's just the whole "he's a first round pick" that is causing the Raiders to hold onto this guy. If he can't cut it at DE then there is no sense continuing the charade. I don't want to see this guy at LB again. We need to upgrade that position not try and force the issue with Brayton.
If he can't get the job done it's time to take our lumps and move on and cut this guy.
Rupert
01-22-2006, 10:26 PM
Crow I still say you're wrong about Brayton's rookie season. I remember him driving at RT's all game long. I think you've got it ass backwards. I know exactly where he lined up. So all the rest of your stuff is backwards as well. I could go point by point but it's useless when you're wrong on the very first point. Brayton was LDE Grant was RDE. Grant is exclusively a right side guy, Brayton was over on the left. Ooops.
As far as Bryant goes, he played LDE for the first 3 seasons and couldn't get consistent pressure. So they pushed him inside to try to get him closer to the QB to start with. Finally, they decided to try the tack they're still using with a larger DE on the smaller LT using power rush techniques. And yeah it worked, like having Kelly over at RDE.
Angel
01-23-2006, 03:43 AM
LMAO @ Rupert calling Crow "ass backwards"...:p He'll argue with ya all year long Rupert....get used to it ;)
Rupert
01-23-2006, 09:14 AM
Yes, well now I've got to clear my head a little. Yep, Brayton started over at RDE while Trace Armstrong started at LDE. Armstrong only played in 10 games. I guess I'm remembering the other 6 games when the line was flopping personnel around looking for some production. Problem is that was a horrible season, which one is likely to forget details about.
Gotta fess up when you screw up.
Rupert
01-23-2006, 10:37 AM
Now for a point by point on Crow:
When you spend the last two years of your career practicing with the LBs, sitting film study with the LBs, and being told to accept the fact that you're now a LB...it's a pretty safe bet that you're not going to grow or develop as a DE. Don't let common sense interfere with your argument. ;)
Here's the common sense you're missing. He should have shown improvement during the season. He didn't. He showed improvement during each of the last two seasons at LB, not just a jump after the off-season. He didn't show a similar improvement as a DE his rookie season, which is my major reason for panning any significant development from him.
Yes, because the player is the only one responsible for his own development. The coaching staff has nothing to do with that.
That's you saying it, not me.
There's a world of difference between supplements and steroids. I take supplements. I've never taken steroids. Supplements are legal, and often still legal to use in the NFL.
I never said there wasn't. It's like someone saying drugs. It's often used as a catchall for "illegal" drugs. So I used supplements in that sense, "illegal" supplements. Why complain about legal supplements? No sense doing that, and I wasn't. So when I made the correction to your understanding of what I meant, accept it, because you're not going to change either what I said or what I meant. But you'd rather nit pick. I understand.
He doesn't want a "role". he's a defensive linemen and he's stated as much. He wasn't shy at all about letting people know getting moved to LB sucked and pissed him off royally.
Brayton has value as a football player, and if he's going to realise it, it's NOT as an every down DE.
It's certainly not as a LB. Any fool can see that. His best value will be taking on a Bobby Hamilton type role, splitting reps with Burgess so our delicate pass rusher doesn't shatter due to overuse.
Obviously your opinion mirrors his. I don't think he's a good DE. You think he is. Unfortunately for both of you, his production at DE doesn't back up either your opinion or his. But in the end you agree with me, he is NOT an every down DE. And a 1st round DE should be an every down guy not just a rotational guy.
and he's too small (not strong enough) to hold up as a run stopping DE.The weight room does wonders for things like this.
Actually, it doesn't. The weight room can give him bulk and strength, but only time on the field can teach him how to use it. That's the biggest part of his game that's lacking and that didn't develop on the DL. Maybe the DL coach sucked, I'll give him that. But he should have learned something about leverage just by playing with consistently bigger OT's in front of him. He didn't.
He shows positional smarts and awareness, and if he drops weight and works on his speed he could become a decent SAM backer.
No, he really couldn't. How can you sit there and say he doesn't move well enough to be a rush end, but you think he can line up and run with TEs? Are you kidding me?
Again, you're making assumptions about what I mean. I've said before that Brayton showed ability to cover in the flat and hook zones. Read that again, ZONES. Not man coverage. In run defense and short zones the Sam backer has to defeat blockers, typically the TE and sometimes the FB. Since Brayton couldn't defeat the bigger blockers it would make sense to match him up against the smaller blockers.
He came into the league at 280 and showed a good burst. Let him spend this offseason moving back into the 280-290 range, strength train like a mother fucker, and work with Keith millard on his technique...or just give the sumbitch the chance to work with the DL again in film study and practice...and we'll see what the guy has got.
Not a bad idea. Really, you think I'm too stuck on him as a LB. And you place me in the boat with Ryan when you vilify the move. Brayton showed development as an OLB between and during the season, he didn't as a DE. You nave never done anything but claim Ryan screwed him up. This was the first decent suggestion you've made. But what happens when he doesn't demonstrate his "great" potential as a DE, do you finally admit your errror?
Additionally, you accurately point out his inability to react well to runners in the open field. What makes you think he can be any better reacting to the QB in the backfield? Especially since he hasn't in his entire career with us. That sort of flies in the face of your own logic, doesn't it?Not at all. A DE doesn't have to bring the QB down to be effective. Pressure creates turnovers and/or incompletions. It's Football 101, really.
By comparison, there's no such thing as pressuring a ballcarrier. If you miss him, you just missed him. The two aren't even remotely comparable.
No, actually football 101 says you bring down the ballcarrier, no matter who it is. In that sense they're completely comparable. If the QB escapes your pressure and still delivers the ball, you weren't effective as a pass rusher. Brayton wasn't very effective at pressuring the passer. If you'd have complained that his linemates weren't top notch, or that the coaching wasn't top notch, I could have accepted that angle of argument, but YOU didn't go there. You lose that point of contention. Period. It's all on Brayton, but you want to pawn his lack of development on the organization and Ryan. Brayton didn't develop as a DE, on the field during the season, prior to Ryan's arrival. He has developed on the field and during the season as an OLB. Seems like he has a future somewhere other than DE.
Anyway, I though you preferred LB's to DL's. Shouldn't you want your boy at your favorite position on defense?
As far as Bryant goes, he played LDE for the first 3 seasons and couldn't get consistent pressure. So they pushed him inside to try to get him closer to the QB to start with. Finally, they decided to try the tack they're still using with a larger DE on the smaller LT using power rush techniques. And yeah it worked, like having Kelly over at RDE.
Kelly doesn't get 1/4 of the pressure from outside that Bryant got. Don't be silly.
Now for a point by point on Crow:
Here's the common sense you're missing. He should have shown improvement during the season. He didn't. He showed improvement during each of the last two seasons at LB, not just a jump after the off-season. He didn't show a similar improvement as a DE his rookie season, which is my major reason for panning any significant development from him.
What improvement has he shown at LB? What games have you been watching?
The improvement he demonstrated after his rookie season, during the 2 or 3 games he actually got to play DE as a sophmore, was more than notable. As a LB, he's been inept on his best days.
That's you saying it, not me.
If you actually believe that coaches have nothing to do with a player's development, your credibility is being fitted for a toe tag as we speak.
I never said there wasn't. It's like someone saying drugs. It's often used as a catchall for "illegal" drugs. So I used supplements in that sense, "illegal" supplements.
That's an interesting way of keeping your statements vague and confusing. Kudos.
Why complain about legal supplements? No sense doing that, and I wasn't. So when I made the correction to your understanding of what I meant, accept it, because you're not going to change either what I said or what I meant. But you'd rather nit pick. I understand.
:rolleyes:
Obviously your opinion mirrors his. I don't think he's a good DE. You think he is. Unfortunately for both of you, his production at DE doesn't back up either your opinion or his. But in the end you agree with me, he is NOT an every down DE. And a 1st round DE should be an every down guy not just a rotational guy.
My opinion is based on his play at the position prior to getting Ryaned. I never expected the guy to be a 10 sack end. But as a 6-8 sack, 60-70 tackle base end, I think he could do pretty well.
As for not being an every down player, Bobby Hamilton's role involves sliding inside as a pass rushing DT when Burgess comes in on passing downs. I think after an offseason of getting back into the DL swing of things, Brayton could perform in a similar capacity on a similar level.
Actually, it doesn't. The weight room can give him bulk and strength,
and he's too small (not strong enough) to hold up as a run stopping DE.
So...what's the issue again? You say he's not strong enough. I point to the weight room. You say that won't help him because it only makes him stronger. Isn't that what we were talking about?
Rupert: Spin Daddy ;)
but only time on the field can teach him how to use it.
Also time in practice, time in film study, one on one time with his position coaches...all things that he's been denied for these last two years.
That's the biggest part of his game that's lacking and that didn't develop on the DL. Maybe the DL coach sucked, I'll give him that.
He just got fired, so...it stands to reason.
But he should have learned something about leverage just by playing with consistently bigger OT's in front of him. He didn't.
I would dispute this claim by pointing to his improvement during his 2nd season prior to have his career destroyed.
Again, you're making assumptions about what I mean.
I'm not making assumptions. I'm going strictly on what you say. If you'd like to speak more clearly, i.e., leave yourself less wiggle room, then maybe we won't have this problem.
I've said before that Brayton showed ability to cover in the flat and hook zones. Read that again, ZONES. Not man coverage. In run defense and short zones the Sam backer has to defeat blockers, typically the TE and sometimes the FB. Since Brayton couldn't defeat the bigger blockers it would make sense to match him up against the smaller blockers.
You may have said that before, but I don't see that anywhere in the post I replied to. You said he'd be a decent Sam backer. There's no spinning out of that. Sam backers have to play man coverage. That's part of the gig. On the other hand, Brayton hasn't exactly impressed in zone coverage either. Sure, he's getting into position easier than last year, but he still whiffs open field tackles. He still lets backs and TEs run past him. He's completely out of place back there.
Not a bad idea. Really, you think I'm too stuck on him as a LB. And you place me in the boat with Ryan when you vilify the move. Brayton showed development as an OLB between and during the season, he didn't as a DE.
That's never going to be an accurate statement, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. Sorry. The improvement at DE was visible. At LB? Not so much.
You nave never done anything but claim Ryan screwed him up.
And you've yet to say a single believable thing that disputes that.
This was the first decent suggestion you've made. But what happens when he doesn't demonstrate his "great" potential as a DE, do you finally admit your errror?
The only error made was taking his hand off the ground. I don't see where I'd have an error to admit to. His first best position is on the defensive line. Playing someone against their strengths is just ignorant. Supporting such a move is just mind boggling.
No, actually football 101 says you bring down the ballcarrier, no matter who it is. In that sense they're completely comparable. [quote]
So let's just move Schwiegert to DE and bash him for not making the conversion. :rolleyes:
[quote]If the QB escapes your pressure and still delivers the ball, you weren't effective as a pass rusher. Brayton wasn't very effective at pressuring the passer.
Sure he was. He never gave the impression that he was the next Michael Strahan, but he did well enough while he had the chance. He did a far better job of pressuring the QB from the outside than Kelly did this year. Another mindless conversion project you support. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you and Ryan were on some other team's payroll.
If you'd have complained that his linemates weren't top notch, or that the coaching wasn't top notch, I could have accepted that angle of argument, but YOU didn't go there.
Why would i have needed to? Is that not understood? Is that some great secret that's been kept from you until just now?
What I'm seeing here is that you don't care about being right or wrong. You just want to win an argument. Damn shame.
You lose that point of contention. Period. It's all on Brayton,
Garbage, just like the first time you said it.
but you want to pawn his lack of development on the organization and Ryan. Brayton didn't develop as a DE, on the field during the season, prior to Ryan's arrival. He has developed on the field and during the season as an OLB. Seems like he has a future somewhere other than DE.
Keep on pushing that bullshit. Maybe someone will actually buy that. Me? I actually watched him play, so I know better.
You were so sure that Brayton was a LDE as a rook. Now you're so sure that he never displayed any improvement as a DE. You're making a habit of this sort of thing. I'd offer you the chance to quit while you were ahead, but unfortunately you missed that boat a few harbors back.
Anyway, I though you preferred LB's to DL's.
You must have me confused with someone else. I'm the D-line & safety guy. So, once again, you're wrong. This has been a pretty forgettable thread for you, my man. One false step after another. Whiffing on points like Anthony Dorsett trying to tackle Shannon Sharpe.
Shouldn't you want your boy at your favorite position on defense?
This is the logic that 4-12 seasons are made of. :rolleyes:
Rupert
01-24-2006, 08:03 PM
Well, I've tired of this silly debate. I thought you'd approach it from a serious standpoint, but you even revise your own opinions as you see fit. You also only choose to see what you like to see, and deny what others see. You don't even have realistic expectations of DL play. 60-70 tackle base end? Okay.
I'll try to learn from this experience. You're not realistic at all, and you like to make up what other people think.
Well, I've tired of this silly debate. I thought you'd approach it from a serious standpoint, but you even revise your own opinions as you see fit. You also only choose to see what you like to see, and deny what others see. You don't even have realistic expectations of DL play. 60-70 tackle base end? Okay.
I'll try to learn from this experience. You're not realistic at all, and you like to make up what other people think.
Are you normally this hypocritical, or are you just especially full of shit in this thread? I can't believe you just typed that nonsense with a straight face. Reading over this thread, I'd honestly wager that you've never watched a single game since Brayton was drafted.
Insert your favorite "pot/kettle" joke here. :rolleyes:
As for the tackle numbers, sure. Those expectations for Brayton may be a little high, but they're not out of the question. Michael Strahan, Osi Umenyiora, Will Smith, Charles Grant, Justin Smith, Aaron Schobel, Aaron Kampman, Terrell Suggs, and Kyle Vanden Bosch all had over 60 tackels each..some over 70 and 80 tackles. Countless other DEs registered well over 50 tackles, including Hamilton and Burgess. To believe that Brayton couldn't hit that mark given the same opportunities these players were given just isn't a fair assessment of the man. He had 61 tackles as a rookie, you realize.
Again, don't let the facts interfere with your "argument".
Angel
01-29-2006, 07:17 AM
And it only took 5 days to get that ^^ response!! ;)
I was a little busy, a'ight? ;)
Rupert
01-29-2006, 07:35 PM
The point on the number of tackles is that I find it odd that you think Brayton could be a top 10 DE. Note that some of those DE's are in the 2-4 sack range, but you'd like Brayton to be 6-7. That's not a sack total from a "base" DE. That's a sack total from a sometimes (or average) pass rusher, and those guys generally don't get in the 60's for tackles, they tend to be in the upper 40's lower 50's. I still say your expectations are unrealistic for a "base" DE. Few players get close to those combined numbers. And you bring out some of the game's best as examples. Do you really think Brayton could be one of the game's best? I seriously doubt that expectation is realistic.
Pretty forgettable thread? No quite memorable. In one breath you say you don't expect Brayton to be Michael Strahan and in the next use Michael Strahan to justify the numbers you expect of Brayton. I also find it very amusing that you use a statistical fallacy to suggest Brayton improved. 3 sacks in 2 games? So why didn't he post 24 on the season? Could it possibly be that he played against a chump? It's like saying some guy who hit 2 homers on opening day is going to hit 322. Ridiculous, and indicative of nothing, least of all improvement.
But then I'm the one whiffing on tackles like Dorsett.
The point on the number of tackles is that I find it odd that you think Brayton could be a top 10 DE. Note that some of those DE's are in the 2-4 sack range, but you'd like Brayton to be 6-7. That's not a sack total from a "base" DE. That's a sack total from a sometimes (or average) pass rusher, and those guys generally don't get in the 60's for tackles, they tend to be in the upper 40's lower 50's. I still say your expectations are unrealistic for a "base" DE. Few players get close to those combined numbers. And you bring out some of the game's best as examples. Do you really think Brayton could be one of the game's best? I seriously doubt that expectation is realistic.
I'm not saying Brayton would rank among the league's best DEs. I'm just politely shooting down the nonsensical belief that a DE can't roll up that many tackles. The fact that he's done it already speaks volumes.
Pretty forgettable thread? No quite memorable. In one breath you say you don't expect Brayton to be Michael Strahan and in the next use Michael Strahan to justify the numbers you expect of Brayton. I also find it very amusing that you use a statistical fallacy to suggest Brayton improved. 3 sacks in 2 games? So why didn't he post 24 on the season? Could it possibly be that he played against a chump?
You don't suppose it was due to your idiot buddy Rob Ryan dropping him back to OLB a week or two later, do you? Naw, that can't be it. :rolleyes:
It's like saying some guy who hit 2 homers on opening day is going to hit 322. Ridiculous, and indicative of nothing, least of all improvement.
But then I'm the one whiffing on tackles like Dorsett.
Indeed you are, and this post just provides another highlight of that. Why didn't he post 24 on the season? :rolleyes: Anyone who actually paid attention knows why he didn't continue his strong play. He got fucked over by your boy. Pretty simple, really.
Don't let facts get in the way of your argument. Stay strong in the struggle. :rolleyes:
Rupert
01-29-2006, 10:23 PM
Still off on tangents and not on point.
Since the majority of DE's do NOT post 60-70 tackles, it is you who is in error. When a VERY SMALL handfull post those stats, that is NOT the norm. And where did I EVER say DE's can't post 60-70 tackles? I didn't. But you again jumped to a nonsense conclusion. You even disproved your own point about Brayton. Keep fishing.
A small two game stint means nothing. Are you suggesting that Brayton could or would have posted 24 sacks if Ryan would have left him at DE? You're talking more nonsense as time goes on. But check your own facts, Brayton didn't even have 3 sacks his sophomore season.
Still off on tangents and not on point.
Since the majority of DE's do NOT post 60-70 tackles, it is you who is in error. When a VERY SMALL handfull post those stats, that is NOT the norm.
Brayton did it.
And where did I EVER say DE's can't post 60-70 tackles? I didn't. But you again jumped to a nonsense conclusion. You even disproved your own point about Brayton. Keep fishing.
Did I now? Please, do explain.
A small two game stint means nothing. Are you suggesting that Brayton could or would have posted 24 sacks if Ryan would have left him at DE?
No, you reading impaired ninny. I'm mocking your goofy question about why he didn't. Do try to keep up.
You're talking more nonsense as time goes on.
Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. I've read what you consider sense. I'll stick to the facts and what actually happened, thanks.
But check your own facts, Brayton didn't even have 3 sacks his sophomore season.
2.5, same thing. He had 3 sacks. He just had to share the credit with someone on one of them.
Again, don't let the facts interfere with your argument. You're doing fine.
Rupert
01-30-2006, 09:27 AM
Yes, neither should you, especially when you're wrong. Just joke away and call people names. That makes you right. :rolleyes:
Angel
01-30-2006, 04:11 PM
I was a little busy, a'ight? ;)
Yeah I know you were!! Glad you had a good time!! ;)
Yeah, it was a blast. I hope I get to do it again. ;)
Yes, neither should you, especially when you're wrong. Just joke away and call people names. That makes you right. :rolleyes:
I need a ruling. Does the word "ninny" really qualify as name-calling? Toughen up, Nancy. ;)
Rupert
01-30-2006, 05:48 PM
It has absolutely nothing to do with "toughening up" and everything to do with having a serious discussion. When you avoid the point and resort to diversionary tactics, it's obvious you have no serious desire to come to a resolution, even if that resolution is agreeing to disagree. So instead of wasting my time, I'll just bow out.
But if you want to continue, prove it.
How do you define "Base DE"?
It has absolutely nothing to do with "toughening up" and everything to do with having a serious discussion.
Kinda hard to have a serious discussion when you're not saying much that can be taken seriously. Sorry.
When you avoid the point and resort to diversionary tactics, it's obvious you have no serious desire to come to a resolution, even if that resolution is agreeing to disagree.
Diversionary tactics? What point am I avoiding? You've been babbling nonsense from the beginning. There hasn't been a point to this since the first page of the thread.
So instead of wasting my time,
Entering into a discussion when you don't know what you're talking about has wasted both of our time. I would actually like an apology for that.
I'll just bow out.
...for the second time.
But if you want to continue, prove it.
Prove what? There you go, talking out your ass again.
How do you define "Base DE"?
The left DE. The position Brayton was drafted to play originally. The position he played for a couple games in our 3-4 defense prior to getting jobbed by your boy Ryan. Granted, his 60+ tackle season came at RDE, but I see no reason at all to believe he couldn't have similar success on the left side against slower RTs.
Angel
01-31-2006, 06:51 AM
Are all raider fans as stubborn and hard headed as you two? :eek:
Rupert
01-31-2006, 05:02 PM
Well, now I see what you mean by "Base DE"; however, this is not what is typically meant when Base DE is said.
The media, and fans who know most of what they know about football from those talking heads, refer to the "Base DE" as the guy who is on the field with the "Base" defense. The Base DE is pulled for a pass rusher in obvious passing situations, but often returns to the field for prevent defense.
It is in that context that I said:60-70 tackle base end? Okay.
So in that context, Brayton wasn't a base end, since he was on the field in most defenses, and therefore did NOT collect 61 tackles as a "Base DE". He collected them as an "every-down DE". Which is a different animal. Additionally, by your own definition, Brayton wasn't a Base DE, so he didn't collect those tackles in that role. So in that context, you defeated your own argument. Shot your own dick off so to speak.
Rupert
01-31-2006, 05:08 PM
Regarding being serious: I don't like arguing with pre-pubescents. Most of your replies come off as if that's your age. And it's hard to take anything you say seriously when you undermine your own argument and think you're making a point. But you obviously don't see it that way, and that's the mark of the uninformed.
I've talked with you when you didn't act this way, and I hoped to discuss things with that individual. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what you want to do.
Rupert
01-31-2006, 05:10 PM
Are all raider fans as stubborn and hard headed as you two? :eek:
Nope, just the no-it-alls. :D
You guys are killing me...it's like the giant douche/turd sandwich debate.
You guys are arguing about Rob Ryan and Tyler Brayton?? Who the hell are they?
Just shake hands and end this retardedness...seriously.
CrossBones
01-31-2006, 07:18 PM
You guys are killing me...it's like the giant douche/turd sandwich debate.
You guys are arguing about Rob Ryan and Tyler Brayton?? Who the hell are they?
Just shake hands and end this retardedness...seriously.Excellent post JC --- the voice of reason! (REP)
Ghost Poster
01-31-2006, 08:03 PM
I agree with Bones. Double rep for that LMAO!
TommyGirl
02-01-2006, 04:43 AM
OMG. Did Crow really use the word "ninny?" LMBO!!! I must bookmark this for prosperity. That's one he's not called me...yet.
I gotta side with Crow on this one, though, Brayton being a CU boy and all.
CrossBones
02-01-2006, 08:26 AM
OMG. Did Crow really use the word "ninny?" LMBO!!! I must bookmark this for prosperity. That's one he's not called me...yet.
I gotta side with Crow on this one, though, Brayton being a CU boy and all.Pardon me if I'm out of line here but which of Crow's points are you siding with? This thread has gone horribily wrong and I think I've lost track of the issue.
I mean what exactly is the definition of a "base DE"?
TommyGirl
02-01-2006, 09:15 AM
I don't agree with anybody, I've decided. I think you should ban Crow.
Angel
02-01-2006, 12:03 PM
I don't agree with anybody, I've decided. I think you should ban Crow.
I second that motion :p
TommyGirl
02-01-2006, 12:50 PM
While you're at it, you can ban Angel, too. They can keep each other company. :D
Regarding being serious: I don't like arguing with pre-pubescents. Most of your replies come off as if that's your age. And it's hard to take anything you say seriously when you undermine your own argument and think you're making a point. But you obviously don't see it that way, and that's the mark of the uninformed.
I've talked with you when you didn't act this way, and I hoped to discuss things with that individual. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be what you want to do.
This might actually mean something had you made a single point over the course of this thread. But, I suppose knowing what you're talking about isn't a prerequisite to chest thumping. :rolleyes:
Rupert
02-02-2006, 10:55 AM
I actually made many points, your disagreeing with them is irrelevant, since we're mostly talking opinions. ;)
I don't think trying to convince me that Brayton played LDE as a rook was an opinion...
;)
TommyGirl
02-02-2006, 12:16 PM
Thassenoughofthisargument.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.