Rupert
The Long Wind
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 10,109
- Reaction score
- 3,426
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Week 4 – Oakland v Cleveland
October 2, 2006
By Rupert Pollard
The Good
The first half. In true Raider fashion the Raiders had time consuming drives and quick strikes. Okay, I’m stretching the truth. There were only two time consuming drives. They took a about 8 minutes off the clock, spanned a whole 17 plays, netted 39 yards, and resulted in 2 punts. Still, the defense actually got to make a portion of the bench warm and get a couple swallows of sports drink before having to go back in to the game. Two quick strikes put touchdowns on the board. That is really the Raiders offense of old, burn the clock in futility and put points on the board by striking fast.
The offensive line put together its best pass protection of the season and blocked well enough to allow Jordan and Fargas to amass 194 rushing yards.
Derrick Burgess collected two sacks, marking the second time we’ve had one player collect our only two sacks in a game this season (Sapp against Baltimore). While this is not good, it’s nice to see pressure coming from different guys every week. The next step is to get them to do it in one game.
Sam Williams took the first Cleveland turnover into the end zone. SCORE!!! Someone has been preaching opportunistic defense and turnovers, and it looks like we’re starting to get it.
Nnamdi Asomugha decided that poor throws by an opposing QB are actually supposed to be caught by Raider DB’s. He collected two: one to disrupt a quick strike opportunity, and another to foil a potential game-clinching drive.
The running game. Fargas looked sharp getting width and making explosive cuts. He rattled of 48 yards on one carry with this approach. After Fargas’s example, Jordan decided he needed to emulate his young backup and ran more decisively. Wouldn’t you know it, he rumbled for a 59 yard touchdown by being more aggressive.
The Bad
How about all those dropped/missed passes? 68 yards passing might be a combination of the drops and the effective running game, but it’s also a sign of a passing game in its infancy. I guess we’re going to continue to see that until receivers get used to Walter, or until they get used to Brooks again. Not too pleasant an idea either way, but those are the growing pains of a rebuilt offense.
We still gave up four sacks. Maybe Cleveland’s front seven are half as good as San Diego or Baltimore. No matter what, four sacks in a game might not kill you, but they’ll put undue pressure on your QB and eventually wear him out. Four per game would add up to 64. Who wants to put their QB on his back that many times? No-one, that’s who. Considering Cleveland about half as good as the first two teams we played means our pass protection hasn’t really improved. Keep working guys.
The defense again allowed late half drives. In the fourth quarter they were able to forestall the inevitable by picking off a pass made under duress in the end zone, but when they needed a stop to get one more shot at tying the game, they gave up 15 yards, 9 yards, and then a first down to let Cleveland run out the clock. Do we lack enough talented depth to give players time to catch their breath along the front seven? Is it a conditioning problem for the kids? Regardless, it’s a trend that needs to be stopped. Blame the offense’s poor time of possession if you want, but at some point you have to try to compensate for it. If it’s the depth, I can accept that, but I don’t see much of a rotation nor do I see much balance in it. I could be wrong, it’s juts the impression I get.
The Ugly
Walter trying too hard to get the ball to a covered Randy Moss. Some day these two will get on the same page. Until then, it’s going to look more than a little forced. Of course the TD connection was sweet, but it wasn’t the product of anything other than playground execution.
So the offensive line helped the running game get 194 yards, yippeeeeeee!!! But not being able to convert fourth and inches when the game is on the line is inexcusable. You can question deciding to go behind Langston Walker. You can question using a stretch play across the dirt of the infield. And you can question not putting Foschi in and letting Crockett charge up the gut. I see it as the offensive line not executing in a critical situation.
The capping ugliness was our kick coverage. Cleveland started at our 32 before converting a field goal (the winning margin by the way). They started at the Oakland 43 before collecting a touchdown to go into the half within 11 points. And we set them up at our 17 before giving up the go-ahead touchdown. I couldn’t have imagined that one mistake in coverage last week would wind up as three this week.
All I know is this team won’t improve until the can eliminate the truly ugly and minimize the bad.
Week 4 – Oakland v Cleveland
October 2, 2006
By Rupert Pollard
The Good
The first half. In true Raider fashion the Raiders had time consuming drives and quick strikes. Okay, I’m stretching the truth. There were only two time consuming drives. They took a about 8 minutes off the clock, spanned a whole 17 plays, netted 39 yards, and resulted in 2 punts. Still, the defense actually got to make a portion of the bench warm and get a couple swallows of sports drink before having to go back in to the game. Two quick strikes put touchdowns on the board. That is really the Raiders offense of old, burn the clock in futility and put points on the board by striking fast.
The offensive line put together its best pass protection of the season and blocked well enough to allow Jordan and Fargas to amass 194 rushing yards.
Derrick Burgess collected two sacks, marking the second time we’ve had one player collect our only two sacks in a game this season (Sapp against Baltimore). While this is not good, it’s nice to see pressure coming from different guys every week. The next step is to get them to do it in one game.
Sam Williams took the first Cleveland turnover into the end zone. SCORE!!! Someone has been preaching opportunistic defense and turnovers, and it looks like we’re starting to get it.
Nnamdi Asomugha decided that poor throws by an opposing QB are actually supposed to be caught by Raider DB’s. He collected two: one to disrupt a quick strike opportunity, and another to foil a potential game-clinching drive.
The running game. Fargas looked sharp getting width and making explosive cuts. He rattled of 48 yards on one carry with this approach. After Fargas’s example, Jordan decided he needed to emulate his young backup and ran more decisively. Wouldn’t you know it, he rumbled for a 59 yard touchdown by being more aggressive.
The Bad
How about all those dropped/missed passes? 68 yards passing might be a combination of the drops and the effective running game, but it’s also a sign of a passing game in its infancy. I guess we’re going to continue to see that until receivers get used to Walter, or until they get used to Brooks again. Not too pleasant an idea either way, but those are the growing pains of a rebuilt offense.
We still gave up four sacks. Maybe Cleveland’s front seven are half as good as San Diego or Baltimore. No matter what, four sacks in a game might not kill you, but they’ll put undue pressure on your QB and eventually wear him out. Four per game would add up to 64. Who wants to put their QB on his back that many times? No-one, that’s who. Considering Cleveland about half as good as the first two teams we played means our pass protection hasn’t really improved. Keep working guys.
The defense again allowed late half drives. In the fourth quarter they were able to forestall the inevitable by picking off a pass made under duress in the end zone, but when they needed a stop to get one more shot at tying the game, they gave up 15 yards, 9 yards, and then a first down to let Cleveland run out the clock. Do we lack enough talented depth to give players time to catch their breath along the front seven? Is it a conditioning problem for the kids? Regardless, it’s a trend that needs to be stopped. Blame the offense’s poor time of possession if you want, but at some point you have to try to compensate for it. If it’s the depth, I can accept that, but I don’t see much of a rotation nor do I see much balance in it. I could be wrong, it’s juts the impression I get.
The Ugly
Walter trying too hard to get the ball to a covered Randy Moss. Some day these two will get on the same page. Until then, it’s going to look more than a little forced. Of course the TD connection was sweet, but it wasn’t the product of anything other than playground execution.
So the offensive line helped the running game get 194 yards, yippeeeeeee!!! But not being able to convert fourth and inches when the game is on the line is inexcusable. You can question deciding to go behind Langston Walker. You can question using a stretch play across the dirt of the infield. And you can question not putting Foschi in and letting Crockett charge up the gut. I see it as the offensive line not executing in a critical situation.
The capping ugliness was our kick coverage. Cleveland started at our 32 before converting a field goal (the winning margin by the way). They started at the Oakland 43 before collecting a touchdown to go into the half within 11 points. And we set them up at our 17 before giving up the go-ahead touchdown. I couldn’t have imagined that one mistake in coverage last week would wind up as three this week.
All I know is this team won’t improve until the can eliminate the truly ugly and minimize the bad.
