Oakland Raiders: Have Things Really Significantly Changed?

There is a simple model to identify areas for improvement. I agree I am using limited indicators but here is what I see:

1. In 2011, the performance of the Oakland Raiders did not change when you look at the performance of the team after Bye week. For several years now, the team has lost the game immediately after Bye week.

2. The performance of the Oakland Raiders did not change significantly, so we still see what I call a "yo-yo" pattern in the win-loss data. This, to me, is an indication of inconsistency. It is also an indication, I believe, of poor play-calling in the defense.

3. The win-loss record in 2011 is identical to the win-loss record in 2010. It is 8-8. There is no significant change in the overall performance of the Oakland Raiders. In other words, the changes that were made did not significantly impact the overall performance of the team.

4. There are strong indicators showing the Oakland Raiders do not have a "Just win, baby" attitude. Look at the data for Week 17, from 2000 to 2010. It looks like the team crumbles when times get tight and tough. Even when the team is on its last leg or about to take its last breath, it still fails to have that type of energy that some say people get just before the "end" comes.

5. Here is a simple model to identify if there are significant changes in the pattern of win-loss data, comparing 2010 and 2011.

	Week	Win-Loss Record  2010 - 2011
	1	L	W	REVERSE	POS	1
1	2	W	L	REVERSE	NEG	-1	1
1	3	L	W	REVERSE	POS	1	1
0	4	L	L	SAME	0	0	1
1	5	W	W	SAME	0	0	1
1	6	L	W	REVERSE	POS	1	0
1	7	W	L	REVERSE	NEG	-1	1
0	8	W	L	REVERSE	NEG	-1	0
0	9	W	W	SAME	0	0	1
1	10	L	W	REVERSE	POS	1	0
0	11	L	W	REVERSE	POS	1	0
1	12	W	L	REVERSE	NEG	-1	1
1	13	L	L	SAME	0	0	0
1	14	W	L	REVERSE	NEG	-1	0
1	15	L	W	REVERSE	POS	1	1
1	16	W	L	REVERSE	NEG	-1	1
change						0	change
11							9

Pos stands for positive change. Neg stands for negative change. 0 indicates no change.

Observations

There does not appear to be a significant difference in the performance of the Oakland Raiders when you compare 2010 and 2011 using global data. There is slightly less oscillation in the 2011 data, but it is insignificant because both seasons have an overall 8-8 win-loss record.

Since the head coach changed and the data has a relatively constant pattern, to me, the problem points to those positions in the coaching staff that did not change. Some of my colleagues believe the problem lies in the area of defense. I tend to agree.

Therefore, if we want to witness "true" change in 2012, there needs to be a change in the defense coach position. Since the same or similar strategies were employed by the same coach in 2010 and 2011, I am suggesting that having the same defense coach yielded the same pattern in the data.

Another reason there is an indication of trouble with the defense is that the point difference is negative again, just as it was from 2003 to 2009. As strange as it may seem, the point difference was positive in 2010, which indicates the defense did not allow the opponents to score as much.

In 2011, the defense allowed the opponents to score more, which had given the Oakland Raiders a negative-74 in the point difference category.

The problem: The defense.