How can a RB help a defense stop the run? Find peace grasshopper, and check this out:
Can Score Can't score
- NE - 32 MIA - 26
- DAL - 28 NYJ - 25
- IND - 10 SF - 32
- GB - 18 DEN - 21
- SD - 21 OAK - 23
- JAX - 27 ATL - 29
- ARZ - 24 KC - 31
- CLE - 9 CAR - 26
- PIT - 31 CLE - 8
- SEA - 19 BUF - 30
The teams that can score are listed in order for 2007 regular season scoring offense and the number next to them corresponds to their defensive rank for rushing attempts against. You might also note that of the top 10 teams that could score last year, eight made the playoffs.
Conversely, the teams that can't score are listed in order for 2007 regular season rushing attempts against and the number next to them corresponds to their scoring offense rank. It's also worth noting that none of the teams that can't score made the playoffs.
As a cautionary note, the Super Bowl Champion New York Giants are not on either of these lists, so take that for what it is worth. Don't, however, fail to understand that a potent scoring offense takes the running game away from your opponent and considerably increases your chances of winning. It's not like the numbers show that if teams stop the run, they score more.
Now if you want to argue that Darren McFadden is not the best scoring threat in this year's draft, I'd have to disagree, but I'm all ears and would love to hear your reasoning on how you would defend that assertion. But if you are trying to tell me that the Raiders should pass on McFadden, if available, in order to put another player on defense, because that would give the team the best chance of winning, I say take another look at the numbers.
To me, Darren McFadden is the best scoring threat in this draft and brings a skill set not found on the current roster that would provide the Raiders offense with the versatility and potency to make them winners. I'm not saying the Raiders will or even should take McFadden, if available. What I am saying is that I understand why they are looking at him, and they wouldn't be so wrong to draft him.
comments (41) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
Fun idea. But your argument only works if Oakland can put up so many points that the opposition will be forced to pass the ball. Mcfadden probably can't help enough for that; ie we are not turning into NE, DAL, IND, GB overnight. However, if OAK can stop the run and are excellent against the pass, they will get more tries on offense with an already good backfield that will keep the defense rested.
Another way to look at it is- if we are worst in AVG, +20 and +40 runs, why would anyone ever be forced to abandon the run?
lemme know what u think-
3 months ago
Thanks for the reply. It's more than just a fun idea, its an intuitive truth in football; if you can't score, you get run on and if you can score you don't. The numbers bear it out. Of course there are exceptions, NYG (10th least rushes against, 14th in scoring), CLE, (when isn't Cleveland an exception, their lake burns) even TEN (3rd in rushes against, 22 in scoring offense), but I'll take my chances going with the trend. Your point about the Raiders giving up the high avg and big runs is well taken and of course is personified by Ladanian Tomlinson. But if we're not going to turn into NE, DAL or IND overnight we're not going to turn into MIN, TEN, PIT or the 2000 Ravens either. Scoring gives you the best chance at winning and the Raiders don't have anyone on the roster that is as great a scoring threat as McFadden. Teams will have to respect his skills and whether you line him up in the I, split him out or put him in motion he'll force the defense to react and punish them for missing or making mistakes. Then they are passing against our corners and DBurgess to catch up. DMC if available, I get it.
3 months ago
me agian,
you said "if you can't score, you get run on and if you can score you don't"
if OAK can't score: at least OAK could stop the run and get more tries on offense, (turnovers and punts)
if OAK can score : they will still get run on, because they suck at stopping it
Maybe you should look at it like this:
If you can't stop the run, you will get run on!!!!
It's the most important axiom in football!!!
Your concept just doesn't apply to the raiders situation!
from 3 months ago
Ok, back off the ledge, after all talking emotional free-fallers out of jumping off is what I was trying to accomplish with this article. "If you can't score you get run on" is as old and worn a football truism as "defense wins championships". Its really not that controversial and is the basis of my reasoned argument why drafting DMC is not the end of the world. If you're the same Oregon student who edited this article (thank you, BTW) then accept it from an old graybeard like me, I didn't make it up. As I've pointed out there are exceptions; if you can score and still get run on you're Cleveland. If you can't score but don't get run on you're Tennessee. For everybody else, including the Raiders the old wisdom holds true according to last season's stats.
But you don't need stats to know that the Raiders impotent offense stacks the opponent's run game. Starting with Martyball two years ago on MNF every coach in the league knows they can just hand the ball off because the Raiders O poses no threat and the D will wear down. You don't need to look up any stats on that, you just watch it on TV (if the game is even shown in your area) and if you can stand the pain long enough you begin to understand how it happens.
If you can't learn from your own experience or need corraboration, then ask a Niner fan. They got rushed on 18 more times than us, gave up 438 fewer rushing yards, good for a 3.8 yard per rush average tieing them for 4th best in the league. Per carry they were nearly as stingy as anybody, but opponents kept rushing because their last ranked scoring offense made us look prolific by comparison.
3 months ago
Mcfadden has Marcus Allen ability. Im so glad that you wrote this article because just 2 days ago i posted a comment on how drafting McFadden would help the run defense. Its nice to know that there is Raider fans who understand how the tempo of the game work. Keep up the good work.
from 3 months ago
How dare you compare D-Mac w/ Marcus Allen. D-Mac is soooooooooo overated anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 months ago
I've said from the beginning of the post season that I hope the Raiders take McFadden. I thought they'd let Fargas walk, but that doesn't matter. They have lots of options for the team including cutting some guys like LaMont Jordan or trading and the later FA signings. D-Mac gives them an offensive weapon that Oakland hasn't had since Bo Jackson. If Al Davis passes on him, I'll pass out at the sports bar.
And as Rob Ryan was trying to tell everybody last year, the Raiders run D isn't as awful as it first looks. A better offense next year, Gabril Wilson at SS, an upgrade at CB with Hall, all these things will help the run D. I'm also sure that Al has some wheeling and dealing in mind and the roster will continue to improve. Everybody disagrees with me on this one, but look at the DTs in this draft. When we pick in the 4th round there will be 2 or 3 wide bodies there who eat up a ton of space and can help plug the middle. Heck, we may even entice Grady Jackson back for an encore! Don't get so focused on the run D that you miss the potential of a guy who can break any run for a long TD and what that can do for the whole team. Run-stuffers are a lot easier to find than kick-ass RBs.
3 months ago
Yeah, except that McFadden is the next Reggie Bush (not a good thing). He is mostly speed, although not purely so (that'd be Felix Jones). He's a gamebreaker in college because he can make and turn the corner... but in the NFL defenses have much better lateral speed. He has to prove that he can pound the middle to open up the outside- and by my guess, Darren McFadden won't be able to pound the middle in the NFL.
This article, while well written, talks about why McFadden helps indirectly. If the Raiders still had Randy Moss, signed Wes Welker AND drafted McFadden, I'd see your point. But it's far better to draft a DT and run a 3-man rotation (Sands/Warren as the others) so that you keep your DTs fresh and have Glenn Dorsey or Sedrick Ellis to clog the middle. Those two will not bust unless they get injured... and while you can find decent run stoppers a dime a dozen, Dorsey and Ellis are VERY GOOD run stoppers. Pick one of them.
Besides, Michael Bush and Justin Fargas aren't too shabby. Wait until next year to take a big-time runner, if you must, and let Michael Bush show you that he's the man (and he is).
3 months ago
Anonymous is right, this article is silly; doesn't apply well to raiders; mcfadden won't help stop the run.
But, it still might be good to draft mcfadden-
3 months ago
DMac is a considerable offensive threat but I think the Raiders are already set on all skill positions. QB and TE are a lock. The tandem of Fargas and Rhodes should keep the Raiders in the top rushing attacks, more so given the line has had more time to learn the scheme. Also Bush could very well have a better career than McFadden. The additions at WR, although there are injury concerns, should allow for a respectable passing game. The only position the Raiders should consider drafting on the offensive side, other than LT given Kwame Harris isnt looking AMAZING, is a young, talented WR to grow with JR.
On the other side of the ball the Raiders have 3 apparent holes: DT, DE and OLB(Hard Hitter). While a trade down is possible, allowing for all three of these needs to be filled, it is unlikely. OLB can wait for another season so its DE and DT the Raiders need. Trades with Fabian involved will allow for one of these to be taken at #4 while the other should be in the late second round as a result of the trade. The NT position cant be effectively filled with Ellis or Dorsey, they are UTs, adn you dont play at #4 out of position and Kelly should be the UT with the money he is making so it should be a DE the Silver and Black take at #4.
Also going against DMac is the lack of recent success for top 10 picked RBs. Sure AD did well all last season but he will always have injury concerns. Discounting last year, I do not think AD is proven that he was a good pick until he survives at least 3 years, every RB taken in the top 10 picks has been a letdown. Most of these through injuries that could cripple their careers. Such a high pick should be used for a player that will be a foundation for the team, not a risk. Also linemen tend to last much longer in the league that RBs.
Also consider the Raiders injuries last year. For 9 starting linemen they had maybe 4 or 5 injuries. At the 1 RB position they had 2 players go down.
As much as I would love to have him I think the Raiders should go smart and take a DE, DT or possibly Jake Long. Trading down wouldn't be out of the question either allowing for most or all of the few remaining holes on the team to be filled. A trade with Dallas for their 2 firsts, second and Bobby Carpenter for the #4 and Fabian would allow the raiders to acquire an OLB(Carpenter), DE, DT and WR or LT in the first two rounds.
Build a team Al Davis, not a collection of Stars.
from 3 months ago
Thanks for the note. Like I've said above I wrote this in an attempt to explain why drafting McFadden wouldn't be the end of the world. IMO we've earned yet another top 5 pick with our lack of talent on both sides of the ball, we've got plenty of holes, we lack playmakers. In this article I am arguing that adding the best offensive playmaker in this draft helps the defense more than adding the 2nd or 3rd best D-lineman in this draft will help the offense. Of course its all hypotheticals and speculation, but its the draft.
The most attractive hypothetical for me is trading down for at least 3 top 60 picks. If we can't get that deal and keep the pick what then? For me it comes down to who is available. If CLong and DMC are there I'd prefer CLong. I don't like Gholston, he disappears in the Big 10, too risky. If its Dorsey and DMC I pick DMC because of the money we've already spent at DT and what you said. I disagree that we are all set at skill. Nobody on the roster matches DMCs skill set. We have a nice possesion offense but we need a playmaker in the slot and/or in the backfield. If a trade down nets us DeSean Jackson and fills another need you won't hear me crying.
I question whether JLong fits our system, but if Tom Cable says we need him then I'd take him over anybody. As far as I'm concerned what Cable wants, Cable gets. Bottom line, if CLong or JLong are unavailable or don't fit, and a trade dosen't happen, I'm happy with DMC.
3 months ago
yes, this is the idea. all the anonymous are right!
3 months ago
Ok greg since you brought up 49ers and avg...lets look at that concept in general.
If you look at the best 10 teams in terms of attempts/game,
vast majority are good in average/attempt.
If you look at the worst 10 teams in terms of attempts/game,
vast majority are bad in average/attempt.
top ten averaged:3.9/att (number would be 3.46 if not for PATS an obvious exception)
worst ten:4.25/att
In general, teams that get run on less are more effective at stopping it.
(and don't say its fatigue, OAK can't stop the run in any quarter)
Stop the run, free up the pass defense, cause major problems.
Run the ball(which OAK does well), control the clock, and use the new offensive receiver weapons.
So get Dorsey if possible.
Do some trade for picks and pick up some more receivers/play-makers in draft.
That's my best scenario.
in other words:
SECURE THE LINE, THEN GAMBLE ON PLAY-MAKERS. DO YOU WANT TO BE DENVER PART2???
(but if Mcfadden is going to turn out to be the next LT, I would say get him. I am just not a psychic.)
-the first Anonymous-
3 months ago
yeah, and furthermore, getting any good player anywhere can be argued to help stop the run, this article is stupid, maybe Raiders should get a new kicker, the scoring will help stop the run! LOL
from 3 months ago
You're right, a new kicker that could hit from 85 yards out would stop the run. 3 points on every possession, never punt again. Good plan, maybe we'll find him in the 7th round or better yet, undrafted FA.
from 3 months ago
It worked for Gus the Mule, I mean, your momma!
3 months ago
Good, so you've almost got it. Yes, "in general, teams that get run on less are more effective at stopping it." And conversely, in general, teams that get run on more are less effective at stopping it. Its so simple we call it intuitive and the stats back it up nicely.
Now go back to the chart at the top of the article. Look at the teams that can't score. They are actually listed in order from top down, the 10 teams that had the most rushing attempts against. These are the teams that get run on and in general are less effective at stopping it. 1 out of those 10, CLE had a scoring offense ranked above 21. None of them made the playoffs. Coincidence? Hey, don't argue with me, argue with the numbers. While you're at it, tell me exactly how these numbers don't apply to the Raiders. TEN was 30th in rush attempts against, 22nd in scoring offense and they made the playoffs, I'll accept that they buck the trend, but not my Raiders.
Now look at the teams on the right, the teams that can score. Two of them were in the top 10 for most rushing attempts against, no one else higher than 18. These are the teams that don't get run on and in general are more effective at stopping it. The two teams in this category that did get run on, IND and CLE had enough scoring to win. 8 out of 10 of these teams made the playoffs. Again, coincidence? Argue with the numbers, not me.
So my case is an offensive playmaker, a game-breaker who is scoring, helps the D stop the run. Less rushing attempts = less rushing yards. He forces the opposition to pass. Or at least he should, but the fact is the Raiders gave up 24 rushing TDs, 5 more than the Lions and exactly twice as many rushing TDs as 20 other teams. That fact supports your point about scoring stats not applying to the Raiders. And that is the entire case for selecting Dorsey. But again we don't have a game-breaker to overcome all those scores. For all of our offensive rushing yards, our time of possession, we ran for 11 TDs all year, T-18th, and passed for 17, T-24th.
So for me, here's the tiebreaker. Head-to-head DMC/Arkansas v. Dorsey/LSU the last two years. 2007 DMC 32-206yds 6.4avg 3TD; Dorsey 1T-5assists. 2006 DMC 21-182yds 8.7avg 2TD; Dorsey 6T - 1 for a 1 yard loss. OK Dorsey played hurt, but DMC was a freak last year and if Dorsey slowed him down at all in 2006 it wasn't much.
What's more, Dorsey's not a 2 gapper, he's a 3-technique tackle. The best 3-tech ever in the NFL, Warren Sapp just retired from the Raiders and where did he get us against the run? Al D just spent the most $$ ever on a D lineman, another 3 tech. Why would throwing $20 mil more and another rookie 3-tech on the line stop the run? After 5 years of suffering with our anemic offense, and our woeful record, I want to see the Raiders score again. That would be different. Give me a game-breaker on O, lets score, and find a wide body in the 4th round. Either that or I'll take Chris Long if he falls to #4, barring favorable trade offers.
3 months ago
you really are a greybeard...why push the point so far?
the correlation u are making is weak at best...
kind of insignificant; mcfadden will help score, but the other team will still run if we can't stop it
(fyi dorsey can play nose tackle or 3 tech)
from 3 months ago
I'm challenging you critics. I want someone to punch holes in my argument. Point to the numbers and show me how I'm wrong. All the critics so far have dismissed the idea as stupid, silly, weak, irrelevant. No one yet has pointed to any data and said no, the highest scoring teams in the league don't face the least rushes or even that the lowest scoring teams face the least. If there's no correlation, show me. The one guy who tried to form a counterargument ended up supporting mine, whether he wants to admit it or not.
If you critcs can't meet the challenge, then have the class to dismiss the point the right way. "Interesting point. I'd never considered that. That hadn't occurred to me."
I'm a 40 year old Raiders fan from Oakland who in the last couple of years has had to admit for the first time in his life that his team sucks. I'm pissed off. I'm used to sitting around knowledgable, passionate fans at the Coliseum. If I'm going to have to sit around a bunch of thick headed quitters they'd better be polite thick headed quitters. Because I'm not giving up.
3 months ago
OAKs best attribute last year was its running game (among the best in the league).
OAKs worst attribute was its run defense. (pathetic, the worst)
So lets be smart like Greg...to solve this problem we should boost our running game...
woops, sounds kinda silly Greg....
from 3 months ago
Gee, we traded our 2nd round pick for a cornerback. Go figure.
3 months ago
I look at it this way:
New England Pats D-Line:
Seymour, Warren, Wilfork
Steelers D-Line:
Hampton, Keisel, Eason
Titans D-Line:
Haynesworth, Odom, Brown, Vanden Bosch
These are the Top 3 teams in the least amount of rushing attempts/game from their opposing teams. All three teams have a BIG anchor to their D-Line to STOP the run: Hampton, Wilfork, and Haynesworth. That's how you stop the run, by stopping the run with your D. The Raiders D-line needs a solid anchor like a Dorsey to stop the run, which is something they are currently lacking. Football games are won and lost starting at the line of scrimmage (case in point the Super Bowl with the Giants D-Line), not by overloading your personnel at one offensive position.
3 months ago
thats right! duh...
got to secure the line dude.
BTW, the numbers you used in ur article do not apply to the raiders.
reasons:
-they suck so bad at the run, lead league in worst avr/20+/40+/TDs.
-also their offense does not even closely resemble the teams that "can score" you mentioned
***let say Mcfadden helps out a little scoring wise- 10 more TD's, how much less will other teams run?
***look at the broncos, they scored 10 more TDs than us but still were 3rd worst in yds/games 142.6 and 2nd in average at 4.6.
hows that for numbers? and they actually apply to raiders situation-
No one is arguing with the correlation u are making, its just the way u are using it.
Doesn't apply to raiders dude-
from 3 months ago
"also their offense does not even closely resemble the teams that "can score" you mentioned"
What? Thanks for the numbers but they'd work better if you applied them to what I'm talking about. Focus the eyes, dude. The Raiders offense can't score. That's the point. If you can't score you get run on, whether or not you're giving up long gains and TDs. Applies to just about everybody except TEN. If you haven't already, check out the Niners and their 3.8 avg, applies to us and them too.
Since we lost 6 games by 7 or fewer I'll take those 10 touchdowns and at least match Denver with 7 wins including a sweep of those same donkeys.
Here's more numbers that apply to the Raiders.
1 - number of picks we have in 1st 3 rounds.
2 - percent chance of Chris Long being there at #4.
5 - # of TDs DMC scored on Dorsey and LSU head2head for the last 2 years.
8 - # of TDs our returning leading scorers combined for last year.
10 - pick # above which Gholston is a reach.
50 - percent chance that Falcons pass on Ryan and take Dorsey
31,000,000 - what we are paying our starting QB
51,000,000 - what we are paying our starting 3 technique tackle
0 - # of offensive starting players on current roster with sub 4.3 speed
3 months ago
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You're absolutely right those are all excellent lines anchoring solid defenses. TEN has built the D the Ravens used to have, a D that carries a poor offense to the playoffs. I'm glad you brought TEN up because I think the game we played against them last year really encapsulates last season and best illustrates my point.
We lost @ TEN 13-9. They rushed 36 times (passed 14) on us for 192 yards, 5.3 avg scoring one TD. We were more balanced, rushed 27, passed 32. We ran nine more plays, out gained them by 18 yards and held the ball almost 5 minutes longer as Fargas and Jordan each carried 12 times for a total of 77 yards. Now how do you explain that?
We moved the ball, kept the ball but couldn't score. We didn't have any speed on the field because we had none on the roster. Porter, Curry, M. Williams, Fargas, O'neal, who did TEN have to fear? Except for two long outside runs we played their run well enough to win. TEN never respected our ability to score, since we had none, so they only had to pass enough to keep us honest. Click here to watch the video and refresh your memory http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter?game_id=29304&displayPage=tab_gamecenter&season=2007&week=REG8
I'd love to get Chris Long but at #4 he'll be gone. Unless the Falcons pass on Ryan we're probably choosing between Dorsey, DMC and Gholston. Gholston's a reach at anything above #10, he disappears in the Big 10. Dorsey is probably going to make a fine tackle, but our real need is at end. IMO we aren't any less stacked at DT than we are at RB, with the same number of question marks but with more $ already invested in the line. For good or ill, our anchors Kelly and Sands are signed. For $20mil and your only pick in the first 3 rounds Dorsey's gotta start, what do you do with Sands and that contract, cut him?
And how stacked at RB are we really? As of June 1 Jordan is gone. Fargas runs hard but won't last. Rhodes is change of pace. Bush is promising but unproven and hasn't played in 2 years. Carrying 3 QBs this year instead of 4 will make room for another RB and we could use the depth. We can also use the speed. Our returning scoring leaders are Fargas 4 TD and Curry 4 TD. Do you really think Javon Walker has all the speed we'll need? He's all we've got so far. And for bonus McFadden returns kicks, Carr went to TEN.
McFadden's more bang for the buck even if you don't want to accept the fact that scoring teams generally fare better against the run and win more than teams that can't score. But why would you discount that?
3 months ago
-
3 months ago
please address these numbers:
remember i am only attacking the premise of your article in regard to OAK:
2007 broncos, they scored 10 more TDs than OAK but still were 3rd worst in yds/games 142.6 and 2nd in average at 4.6.
2006 colts: great playmaking offense, bad against run, second worst!
2007 pats vs 2006 pats: in 2007 they added so many playmakers
-2006 24.2/94yrds - 2007 22.5/98yrds
no one is arguing general rule, just that even if you draft mcfadden, people will still run all over OAK
from 3 months ago
Thanks for the reply.
Donks: I took a sample of the ten worst scoring offenses. Those 10 extra TDs put the Donks two above us, 12th worst. The trend still applies, Donks don't score, get run on. Just like us and 9 other teams in the worst ten.
Colts: The exception proves the rule. I'd take the 12 wins (15 including the Superbowl) along with the 2nd ranked passing D (we were 1st). Who says you have to run and stop the run to have a chance to win in this league? Scoring wins and winning cures everything. I wish we had it so bad.
Pats: The stats are game avgs for attempts and yards right? Obviously in 2007 they were #1 scoring offense, 2006 #7. They pretty much embody the converse trend, if you can score you don't get run on.
I appreciate the argument. Not many were arguing the general rule, just dismissing it as stupid, silly, whatever.
3 months ago
Ok, are you not getting this...
Here's another approach:
Those same top 3 teams I mentioned before (now looking at offensive statistics):
New England:
1849 Total Yards Rushing
Pittsburgh:
2168 Total Yards Rushing
Titans:
2109 Total Yards Rushing
Now, let's take a look at Oakland:
2086 Total Yards Rushing
If we are right up there with those guys in rushing, shouldn't the Raiders be better at stopping the run (according to your ingenious theory)??? This whole correlation is flawed.
from 3 months ago
No, I'm not correlating offensive yards rushing. I'm correlating scoring. NE #1 (and then some) in scoring, 589 points. PIT #9, 393 points. Titans #22, 301 points. Raiders #23, 283 points. Score more, get rushed on less.
Like I mentioned before, the Titans buck the trend. They've recreated the Ravens defense, able to carry a worthless offense to the playoffs. Lump them in with the 2006 Champion Colts and the 2000 Ravens as anomolies if it makes you sleep better. Yeah, this correlation is flawed. I'm identifying a statistical trend, not a mathmatical law, to rationalize selecting a RB over a DT in the NFL draft.
BTW, I've never claimed this theory is ingenious or that it is my own, but thanks for the compliment.
3 months ago
To look at this theory applied to other sports:
If the Warriors are bad at defense, get more offense and the defense will be better...
Warriors: Top scoring team in the league and the WORST defense in the league.
If the Giants are having some pitching trouble, why not get more offense to make the pitching better...
If the Sharks are having trouble getting goals, then trade for a high scoring Center...
(but they didn't do that, they traded for Brian Campbell (D), and they went on a huge win streak)
Starting to sound a little silly, isn't it...
from 3 months ago
Well yeah, that does sound silly. But I think it stands up in bass fishing, track and field and Presidential politics. Seems to me Tonya Harding tried to apply it to Nancy Kerrigan but it kind of backfired on her.
3 months ago
ingenious is sarcasm.... genius
3 months ago
Thanks again, but really I'm only gifted, 3 IQ points below genius. I've never liked Mensas, they're mostly Redskins fans. Besides, sarcasm doesn't really transmit well over the internet and its passive-aggressive. You should try name-calling, cupcake.
3 months ago
you said:
Donks: I took a sample of the ten worst scoring offenses. Those 10 extra TDs put the Donks two above us, 12th worst. The trend still applies, Donks don't score, get run on. Just like us and 9 other teams in the worst ten.
SO MCFADDEN WILL GIVE US MORE THAN 10 MORE TDS EVEN THOUGH WE ALREADY HAVE A GOOD RUNNING GAME? not likely; PEOPLE WILL STILL RUN ON US
Colts: The exception proves the rule. I'd take the 12 wins (15 including the Superbowl) along with the 2nd ranked passing D (we were 1st). Who says you have to run and stop the run to have a chance to win in this league? Scoring wins and winning cures everything. I wish we had it so bad.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR POINT, YOU SAID GETTING MCFADDEN WILL HELP STOP THE RUN, STAY ON TRACK GREG;
Pats: The stats are game avgs for attempts and yards right? Obviously in 2007 they were #1 scoring offense, 2006 #7. They pretty much embody the converse trend, if you can score you don't get run on.
SORRY, POINT WAS THEY ADDED AND RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF PLAYMAKERS AND THE OTHERS TEAMS RAN ON THEM ABOUT THE SAME, THATS ALL
Dude use your IQ to stay on track, I'm only attacking the fact that Mcfadden will help stop the run.
Really I am surprised someone with a high IQ would even continue to push for it.
remember, i am not arguing about a trend, (or correlation in general)
Just that you are falsely applying it to the raiders.
-the first Anonymous
from 3 months ago
If you're the first Anonymous, are you still anonymous? That's like a Daily Show moment of Zen.
I am sorry no longer anonymous first Anonymous, I submit. I'm tapping out. I can't tell if I'm dazzled by your detail or baffled by your BS.
Take that iron reasoning of yours out into the world and prosper. Make the old folks proud. Beat the odds. Godspeed. Aloha.
3 months ago
We are 6th in the league in rushing, how is being 1st going to take us into the promise land in scoring.
Last years points:
OAK: 283
New England: 583
Pittsburgh: 393
Minn: 365
Dallas: 455
So, if we add this big time offensive (unproven and rookie) weapon (at a position where have little to no weakness), then all of sudden we will score 16 more touchdowns per year???? And, then all of a sudden we will stop the run???
We need to bolster the line to stop the run. Again look at those teams' D-lines:
Wilfork
Hampton
Haynesworth
Williams
We don't have the talent at the D-line, and the teams will continue to run until we get some (no matter what our offensive weapons are)...
My analysis is "don't quit your day job".
from 3 months ago
We were 6th in the league in yards rushing and 23rd in scoring and we won 4 games. If that's good enough for you then by all means I can understand why you wouldn't want to improve our offense in light of the fact you're in a complete panic about the run D.
Our run defense is hideous. We lack talent on the line. We lack talent on O. Little to no weakness? I disagree. The reason I'm not panicked about the D is that we lost 6 games by 7 points or less. The way I see it, even if we don't improve the run D one bit and we score one more TD per game we are at LEAST 4 games better. Do you think if we draft McFadden we'll give up MORE long gains and TDs than last year?
Not for nothin' but how many of those excellent DTs are making as much money as Tommy Kelly? You're not going to give our own TK the benefit of the doubt since he was hurt all last year, but started all 16 games in 2006 for the 3rd ranked D? Al Davis thinks TK belongs on that list so much he put his money down, why don't you? Because he was hurt? Wasn't Dorsey hurt?
And while you're analyzing, analyze the Hall deal. We were ranked 8th in passing, so why did we give up the 2nd pick in the 2nd round for a corner? What's Hall going to do for our run D?
If we score more we may not stop the run, but we'll stand a hell of a lot more chance of winning. I'd rather win than be right. Wouldn't you, Raider fan?
3 months ago
"It worked for Gus the Mule, I mean, your momma!": Sounds like a Mensa member, sophistication at its finest...lol! And showing your age a bit, eh greybeard with the gus/Don Knotts reference???
from 3 months ago
I'm a Raider fan. Seek sophistication over in 3comMonsterCandlestick Park with the white wine sippers, Son of Gus Mule spawn.
3 months ago
this article is toast-
write a new comment