:lol: just like champ. You know when they will and won't appear, but when asked why they were hiding, it's "I was on vacation." jeaux, are you always on vacation when your team is getting its collective %#&es handed to them?
The Raiders have the 5th ranked defense in which meaningless stat? Yards? Points? Who cares? I don't. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef.php 24th in DVOA
Rome wasn't built in a day. They're 10th in the NFL in rushing offense (if you will accept THAT yardage stat as being valid) when they were ranked a lowly 29th last year. They did it with a trio of Fargas, Rashard Lee, and Zack Crockett on Sunday. The offensive line is improved, and the only guy with more than three years experience as a starter is Sims. Pass blocking is not consistent enough yet, but some of those sacks are a reflection of a young QB, as was the case on two of Sunday's sacks. No, they're not giving them away. Since you follow the Raiders pretty closely, I'm sure you're aware that the city of Oakland was responsible for ticket sales since their return from L.A. The Raiders took over ticket sales and marketing this year and promptly got rid of the PSLs and surcharges, lowered ticket prices in the cheap seats (which were anything but cheap previously) and actually raised prices for some premium seats. The result? The blue collar Raider fan in the East Bay who could not afford tickets for themselves and their families in the past are back in the fold. And contrary to what some have suggested, I didn't see a ton of empty seats on Sunday, even on "Mount Davis"... Hey I'm a big fan but I can't tell you or anyone what's on that guy's mind. But a lot of people close to him like Jim Otto and Amy Trask insist that picking up stakes and moving again is the last thing he wants to do, especially given his age. And that's why they finally called off the dogs, made peace with Oakland, and took over ticket sales and marketing. If the Raiders drew 40,000 a game for the next 5 years, I would think they might move. But it doesn't appear that will be the case. When ESPN leads off every Sportscenter calling your team "the worst NFL team since the birth of our nation" and the fans still come out, it makes me optimistic about their future in the Bay area. The fan support this year has been amazing so far. It reminids me of the Grinch: "It came without packages, boxes or bows!" Maybe a little deceptive but I would argue that if you are terrible in time of possession, and your offense has turned the ball over a lot, you would be giving up more yards, not less. Either way, even if it is deceptive, it doesn't make a 5th ranked defense into a 30th ranked defense if you know what I mean. They're not great yet, but they have a lot of pieces in place and they're pretty good. Which is a far cry from last year's "putrid".
Yardage and points are meaningless? Do you even watch football? And what stat geek cooked up DVOA? Have you ever perched on a barstool and argued about DVOA with someone?
Those stat geeks do come up with some interesting and useful stuff, but I have had arguments with those people. One example: LaMont Jordan's receptions numbers of 2005. The main stat geek, Aaron Schatz, noted how Jordan had quite a few receptions like this: 18 yard reception on 3rd and 19 10 yard reception on 3rd and 11 14 yard reception on 3rd and 17 Schatz argued that Jordan's receiving stats were inflated because of useless receptions like in the above examples. Useless? Bogus? Bad? Hell no! 18 yards on a 3rd and 19 is usually a good play. The goal is to get a few yards worth of field position to put the opponent in worse field position after a punt. If you pick up the first down then it is gravy, of course. That's one example of me disagreeing vehemently with those stat geeks.
If you think yardage and points are a good measure of offense or defense, you can't know a heck of a lot about football. Anyone with a functional brain who stopped to think about it, would realize that yards and points are terrible measures. But you're a Raiders fan. No need for an explanation here. Points is better than yardage, but it doesn't take into account the opponent, the situation, or the impact that the OTHER UNITS had on those points. If your defense forces a turnover and you get the ball at your opponent's 5, does the ensuing touchdown mean you have a great offense? I've seen the Bears put up 30+ points in past years with almost a non-existent offense.
Schatz didn't say the yards were useless. They just don't count as much because the team didn't get the first down. People who bash DVOA either don't know much about it, or can't be bothered to actually think. Obviously getting 3 yards on 1st and 10 is a lot more helpful than getting 3 yards on 3rd and 10.
You're the one who said yardage and points are "meaningless" stats, that's what I'm talking about. Yardage and points aren't the only measures, but it's ridiculous to say they're terrible measures. That DVOA ranking had the Broncos ranked 7th. Any reasonable fan who has watched them this year would have to say that there's no way there are 6 defenses in football better than the Broncos right now. And as I've said a million times, nobody had a problem calling the Raiders the "29th ranked defense" when that was their yardage stat. Now that they're ranked 5th in yardage, DVOA is the way to go. Whatever floats your boat, I'll say it again: you can make stats say anything you want. And as for the Raider fan cheapshot, at least I have the good sense to not use a fat, useless, waste of a draft pick for my signature!:grin:
I've mentioned this in past threads, but it bears repeating: Amy Trask is the only Raider I've ever liked, or ever will. She cracks me up every time she speaks.
Yardage and points are a bad way to rank offensive or defensive units. Period. I have never argued otherwise. I've been railing against the idiots who think these stats are good indicators for years. It's kind of like the people that say "team with 100 yard rushers were 7-2 today, while teams with 300 yard passers were 3-6. Therefore, it is clearly better to run the ball." It just shows a basic lack of understanding of how the NFL works. Same thing here. I don't give a damn where the Raiders rank in yardage. I didn't care early in the season, and I don't care now. If you think they're a top defense, you're just fooling yourself. Sorry, the "Raider fan" blast was too easy. As for Pouha, he looks like a [blank]. But I wanted to do Adopt a Jet, and the more "useful" players were taken. The ^$%@&ers pulled rank on me.
Again, I'm not saying they are literally the 5th best D in the NFL. But they are certainly improved from last year and going in the right direction, whether you're looking at points, yards, or DVOA (where they have moved up to 18th since you posted they were 24th). As for Pouha, he was an easy comeback for the "Raider Fan" comment. Maybe you should have picked Cotchery!
I don't recall reading you commenting on Amy Trask! I love this gem of a response to the stories of Eddie DeBartolo and Carmen Policy trying to buy the Raiders: She's great, a real pit bull.
Mabey someday the raiders can get themselves a positive record. I would have said win but you guys have managed to get one so im sorry good on you guys for that.
In fact, there's an article devoted to the defense: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/10/31/ramblings/any-given-sunday/4477/ Any Given Sunday: Raiders Over Steelers Who knew specimens like Fabian Washington and Thomas Howard would become good defensive players?
