Week 4 Raiders @ Chargers Game Day Thread / Post Game Discussion

[cmplxgal]

That was a catch. Two hands solidly on it in the air, two feet touching the ground. Then he fumbled. But it was first a catch, refs took a lot of yards away from us.

I thought the same thing, but the announcers didn't say anything.

[FoutsFan]

Love it! For Adderley to move ALL the way up from deep safety to lay the wood on Ruggs at the LOS...wow...just...wow...

adderley lays wood on ruggs.JPG

Naz is getting it and becoming the player we thought he would be right before our eyes. What an awesome compliment to James back there.

[Topcat]

So why was Merrill undrafted?

Most probably because he's only 6' tall...had he been 3-4 inches taller, I think he goes in mid rounds or so...

[equivocation]

Most probably because he's only 6' tall...had he been 3-4 inches taller, I think he goes in mid rounds or so...

His agility and conditioning were also really poor. They're improving. Also bad competition.

[equivocation]

It seemed as though the Raiders were working hard to take away Allen and Williams so Staley wanted to get as many "other" playmakers on the field. That is we saw so much of Anderson and Parham and Cook along with the RB's in the passing game. Anderson is a much better receiver than Nabers.

This is the difference from last year. Last year we would run into heavy boxes to try to eat clock in the second half. This year we take what the D is giving us. Against WFT we passed as they were stacking the box. LVR pulled off the line to protect their depleted secondary and we ran it.

[Boltjolt]

I wonder how much more a coach like Staley could have gotten out of Rivers.

With a better OL.

I know its been mentioned and i mentioned it during the game thread but a huge key factor was Staley challenging that first down. If he dont challenge that, i doubt the Raiders score and probably not but they at least run out the clock and we dont get that 3rd TD which was huge going into halftime.

[Hadl2Alworth]

So why was Merrill undrafted?

Good question. I guess his cone drills were slow or something (whoopee, right!). It sure doesn't seem to reflect his on the field performance.

[WindsorUK]

Anderson played a lot last night. I noticed that he was in as the upback in the I formation instead of Nabers.

Coaching staff had him there a great deal in pre season. With obvious success. That's why I questioned the team keeping Nabers- seems a bit redundant. Unless Gabe is a huge Teams contributor?

[Topcat]

He tends to get gassed but on limited snaps is more effective.

He's reacted well to NFL coaching too. Hands getting better.

Precisely why we need a solid DT in the rotation...to keep the others fresh...

[ghost]

Bosa on Carr: “Great dude, great player … but we know once you get pressure on him, he kind of shuts down."

[Boltjolt]

IMO, the offense is misusing Allen at times. I do not get the need to have Allen be the player that is running the intermediate crossing patterns. Here is a newsflash for Lombardi--Allen is not going to outrun anybody across the field (as we again clearly observed when Perryman was basically stride for stride with him). Earlier in the season, we got to watch a Diggs INT when he undercut Allen's route because he is much faster than Allen and easily stuck with him.

Allen gets open quickly with his great initial get off, but often does not stay open for long periods of time because he lacks top end foot speed. So, throwing late to Allen does not work at times. Allen is almost always open because of a move he put on someone. He is almost never open when he is asked to outrun someone to get open, even a slow LB.

Yet a slightly better pass and it is a completion. More times than not, Keenan is clutch.They arent asking him to do go routes so being misused i dont think applies.
MW only had 4 targets as the Raiders were trying to shut down our WRs. One pas Herbert totally missed him wide open for a TD. Another an off target out of bounds pass.
And Lombardi didnt take advantage of MWs 7" height advantage on Amik Robinson.

TEs was more in the plan and it all worked out....plus we ran the ball well last night.

[QSmokey]

I have never discussed where those defenses might be weeks from now. What I said was that those defense are not top 50% defenses in terms of passing yards allowed at this time. That is not a case of we will see. It is a matter of fact that that is where those defenses stack up after 4 weeks. It is true now and will always be true that that is where those defenses stacked up after 4 weeks of this season.

My comments are nowhere near calling someone a liar. My comments are 100% calling someone wrong, which is 100% objectively correct based upon the data. When I say that someone is presenting a false narrative or spouting fiction, that means nothing more than what they are saying is false, which I also said specifically. Anything else is your imagination and misinterpretation.

In instances in which I have felt that someone is deliberately providing misinformation, I have so stated with specificity. No such assertion was made in this instance.

In this case, my post is saying no more than, "Yeah, that's not true at all and here is the specific evidence that shows it to be wrong." Further, the false narrative offered did not originate with the poster in question. I have heard many people state that it is necessary to stop the run effectively to win. And while I am sure that stopping the run effectively is better than its opposite for a defense, a team does not necessarily need to do that to win in today's NFL as my numerous Super Bowl champion examples taken from the last 15 years or so clearly demonstrate.

Man, more and more it's looking like chaincrusher is that poster that was banned several years ago (whose name I forget) because he: 1) Was always correct (in his own mind, at least); 2) Posted long, overly wordy responses to "prove" his point; 3) Had to *always* have the last word. Too many similarities to just be coincidence, IMO.