Where the Oakland Raiders Stand: Defense

Thoughts from the Dark Side

March 25, 2008

23 Comments

Recommended (0) | Share

The other day I outlined the moves that have been made on the offensive side of the ball. today the focus shifts to the defense. The Raiders have made a lot of noise on that side of the ball franchising Nnamdi Asomugha, re-singing Tommy Kelly to a mammoth contract, and adding Gibril Wilson and DeAngelo Hall.�� The only departures thus far are are Tyler Brayton and Warren Sapp. This has been an area where the Oakland Raiders have spread money around like Pac Man at a strip club, but have they done enough?

Safety

On the Roster:�� Gibril Wilson, Micahel Huff, Stuart Schweigert, Hiram Eugene

Farewell: None yet

Outlook: Despite rumors that Huff is on the block, I expect to see Wilson and Huff as the Raiders starting tandem. Jarrod Cooper will likely be resigned for his special teams prowess. The much maligned Stuuuu will likely be retained for one more year as a reserve safety and special teams player, unless Eugene beats him out in camp.

Moves: Coop will be resigned. Other than that, the acquisition of Wilson is it.

Cornerback:

On the roster: Nnamdi Asomugha, DeAngelo Hall, Fabian Washington, Stanford Routt, John Bowie, and Chris Johnson

Farewell: Very likely Chris Carr

Outlook: This unit looks to be one of the best in the league. Asomugha and Hall are both elite corners. Likely either Washington or Routt will be gone, but that will leave one of them as a very quality nickleback.

Moves: Either Routt or Washington will likely be gone

Linebacker:

On the Roster: Kirk Morrison, Thomas Howard, Robert Thomas, Sam Williams, Ricky Brown, and John Alston

Farewell: None as of yet

Outlook: The Firm of Morrison and Howard are a dynamic young duo. Williams is often hurt and Thomas is decidedly average. The Raiders could stand to upgrade the third linebacker position, but that is not an immediate need. Ricky Brown, John Alston, and likely Isaiah Ekejuiba will be fighting for their special teams spots. Brown and Ekejuiba both excelled in coverage units last season, which gives them a leg up.

Moves: Don't see any acquisitions

Defensive End:

On the Roster: Jay Richardson and Derrick Burgess

Farewell: Sayanora, Tyler Brayton.

Outlook: Derrick Burgess was slowed by injuries last season, and he needs to regain his Pro Bowl form. Richardson was solid as a base end and will likely improve on his rookie season.�� After that, the Raiders have no one. This is an area of URGENT NEED. The hope is that Chris Long falls to four in the draft, but that does not look likely. There are questions on whether Vernon Gholston will be a pass rush specialist or an every down DE in the 43 alignment.

Moves: The Raiders NEED to bring in more bodies at this position, desperately. The game is won in the trenches, and the Raiders NEED help here.

Defensive Tackle:

On the Roster: Tommy Kelly, Terdell Sands, Gerard Warren, William Joseph, and Josh Shaw

Outlook: The key to the success of this unit will be whether or not Terdell Sands can regain his '06 form as a NT. Kelly will be taking over Sapp's UT spot, and will be the disruptor. Warren will come in for passing downs, and Joseph will have to prove he can be depth behind Sands. The Raiders need to add another space eating NT in the mold of a young Ted Washington. (stop me if you have read that in this space in the past.)

Moves: A name I keep hearing thrown out is Frank Okam in the fourth round.

Tags: NFL, Oakland Raiders, Raiders

Discussion

23 Comments on "Where the Oakland Raiders Stand: Defense"

Posted by MartinTheMerciless, March 25, 2008 12:56 AM

The reason Okam may be available in the 4th is he showed up at the combine fat and out of shape.

Frank Okam, Texas

Height: 6-4. Weight: 347.

Projected 40 Time: 5.00.

Combine 40 Time: 5.32.

Pro Day 40 Time: 5.27.

Benchx225: 32. Vertical 27.5.

Projected Round: 4-5.

Forget bulldozers; they should just have Frank Okam run a couple of 40s when they want to knock down the RCA Dome. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Okam ate a cheeseburger or two after the end of the regular season.

Maybe Okam and Sands can get into Cheeseburger eating contests.

one guy I'd like to find out more about is:

#25

Jason Shirley, Fresno State

Height: 6-5. Weight: 330.

40 Time: 4.98.

Projected Round: 7.

A monstrous nose tackle who runs a sub-five 40? Are we recording this? Is this thing on?

I haven't heard much buzz about this guy. He maybe there in round 6-7. Any Fresno State fans out there who know about him?

Posted by Where the Oakland Raiders Stand: Defense - Oakland Raiders Forum, March 25, 2008 12:58 AM

[...] the Oakland Raiders Stand: Defense Thoughts from the Dark Side | MVN - Most Valuable Network � Blog Archive � Where the Oakland Raiders... __________________ Check out my Raider Blog at http://mvn.com/nfl-raiders/ My Raiderfans.org [...]

Posted by Where the Raiders Stand; Defense - Oakland Raiders Forum | Message Board - Where the Raider Nation l, March 25, 2008 12:58 AM

[...] the Raiders Stand; Defense Thoughts from the Dark Side | MVN - Most Valuable Network � Blog Archive � Where the Oakland Raiders... __________________ "While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a [...]

Posted by Thoughts from the Dark Side: Where the Oakland Raiders Stand: Defense | The RaiderCast, March 25, 2008 4:35 AM

[...] Read more. Posted in Blog, Oakland Raiders | [...]

Posted by LDizzle, March 25, 2008 9:44 AM

You forgot DE Chris Clemons left too. Not just Brayton and Sapp.

Posted by LDizzle, March 25, 2008 9:59 AM

Nnamdi and DeAngelo give the Raiders THE BEST CB duo in the league hands down. Routt will be a great nickle back who could start on many teams. Fabian will be traded because he costs more and has been passed up by Routt on the depth chart. I can't believe Chris Johnson is still on this team. He was so terrible last year in preseason, I was calling for his head. But it was his special teams play that saved him. I hope Carr stays but it wouldn't kill me if he left.

If someone would have told me that this team would sign and re-sign TEN players this offseason, I would have said there is NO WAY that at least one of those signings would not be at DE. But low and behold we not only didn't sign anyone but we lost a serviceable one in Clemons. I will keep praying that C Long falls to #4. I watched the complete history of the Raiders DVD as I said I would and seeing Howie rush the passer gives me goosebumps. Getting Chris would be the triumphant return of Long to the DE spot for years to come with the Raiders.

Posted by Juice, March 25, 2008 4:01 PM

Frank Okam? The future of the defensive line is being pinned on Frank Okam? You must be kidding. There is only one reason a defensive tackle with that size and potential and played his college ball at an elite program is projected as a late rounder. Everybody say it with me now, deep breath.....underachiever! I've read a report where teams are thinking about converting him into an offensive lineman. Then again, Oakland needs help at both spots, so what hell, Al will probably roll the dice on him anyway. Even if he has Terdell Sands written all over him.

Posted by nilbymouth, March 25, 2008 4:07 PM

From what I have read about Jason Shirley is that he has spent a decent amount of time suspended which could be why he isn't getting alot of attention. Seems to have "character issues"

Posted by Juice, March 25, 2008 6:21 PM

I'd also like to point out something that I believe even you have failed to mention Patrick. Yes we all know that the Raiders run defense was clearly thier achilles heel, but a better offense that could put the ball in the endzone and keep the defense a little fresher would go a long way into improving the team's run defense. Think about it, Oakland only scored an average of 17.7 points per game. While it was a marked improvement over the previous season's disaster, they were from anything resembling a potent offensive attack. Scoring points puts the pressure on the other team to attack and take chances, not just mercilessly run the ball down the defense's throat to sit on a lead. I mean seriously, the only games they won last year were when they were able to establish a lead and control the clock with thier own potent ground game. It also didn't hurt that two of those wins were against two offenses even less explosive than our's (I.E. Miami and Kansas City).Let's take the Colts for example. For years they've been maligned because of thier porous run defense. True that is due in part to the scheme they deploy and mandate on smaller defenders, but they were always able to compensate for that because of thier own explosive offense. Teams could rarely run the ball 40-50 times against them because Manning and Co. always kept the pressure on you to keep up. This has to be taken into account with the amount of close games that the Raiders lost last year. Had the offense averaged at least 20 points per game, they probably would have been a 7-9 team last year. So just think about that before everyone has an outrage that they haven't added top tier talent to thier defensive line. If Al does decide to draft Darren McFadden, then I believe he is thinking along the same lines that I am; improvement to the offense will have an overall effecton the defense. Offense effects defense and vise versa, anybody who watches the game out to know that by now.

#10

Posted by LDizzle, March 25, 2008 9:06 PM

Juice

You talk about simple things as if you think they are complex. That doesn't speak highly for you. So you think that simply having a great offense will save the Dline is that right? Well in that case, why have good Dlineman at all? Why do these stupid teams spend so much money and high picks on such worthless players? So a good running game will cure our run defense ills? Then how do you explain that we had the #6 rushing attack in the NFL and STILL couldn't defend the run? So Mcfadden will cure all of our ills then? You think he will move us up what three or four spots in rushing? Let's say he moves us to the #1 rushing attack in the NFL. Which team led the NFL in rushing last year? I will answer this one for ya: Minnesota. And where were they come playoff time? I will answer that one too: They were getting ready for next year. So take your elementary "a good offense is the best defense" argument and try it out on someone else. Because a good offense will only take a team as far as their defense. And games are won in the trenches where the DTs are.

#11

Posted by OakFoSho, March 25, 2008 9:07 PM

Al is makin it rain like Pac Man! Aha, that's a beautiful analogy, and the hope is Al gets more than a lap dance for his money. Always remember, and maybe someone should have told Al, there is no sex in the champaign room! Hopefully Al has a good hotel in mind.....

As for the defense, I have to agree with Patrick, yet again. D-Line is the need area here. SLB can be addressed in the late rounds, or by signing a FA before or after the draft. However, unless C. Long is there, I just can't see Al going D-line in the first round. Sure Gholston is good, but we need run stoppers, and Patrick's worries that he might be a tweener tell me Gholston might not be the DE we need.

At DT, it seems that Dorsey, with his hairline fracture issue, and Ellis, with his size and speed issues, are both overvalued at #4. Also, with Kelly and Warren, the Raiders are stacked at the 3 tech DT position, and neither Dorsey or Ellis project as the NT space eater we need. Add to all this the large amount of Cap space already committed to the position, and I can't see Al adding a DT at #4.

Therefor, in my opinion, the first round comes down to two scenarios for the Raiders......

Legends of the LONG Fall!

Al's Mandate is McFadden!

OakFoSho

#12

Posted by Seth, March 26, 2008 4:21 AM

It's been painful to be a Raider fan the last few years. We never

score! Now we've got a quarterback with incredible upside

potential, and there's a lot of concern about getting a quality

left tackle to protect him. You want to protect Russell? Put

McFadden in the backfield behind him. Nothing kills a hard-charging pass rush like a delayed handoff or a pass

out into the flat to a talented running back. Let teams fear our

offense again. That sounds pretty good doesn't it?

#13

Posted by junior, March 26, 2008 5:26 AM

I think that Dizzle and Juice make good points. Defense does indeed win championships and beefing up our run defense is a major priority. However, I don't think Juice claimed that having the #1 rushing attack will solve our problems. I think he was saying that by scoring more points per game or getting the lead, opponents may be forced to throw the ball more in order to keep the score close. If opponents have to throw the ball more in 2008 I like our chances with Aso and Hall. Two ways to accomplish this, stop the run or get the lead.

Play nice Dizzle, he made a decent point.

#14

Posted by Dan, March 26, 2008 6:43 AM

The defensive backfield looks really good on paper, the DT looks serviceable, but the DE's are a place that needs to be addressed as well as OLB. Everyone is saying Al has set this draft up to pick Mcfadden with the #4 pick and if that is what he has done so be it. We need more help but if he is what people think how could you turn him down. The idea of trading CB Washington is a good idea, and a few others and try to find the Diamond in the rough at OLB and DE. The Raiders have two good LB's, but a third would make it easier for those two to run around and make takles. It's hard for two backers to patrol the whole field especially when the OL can get into their face. A top 5 rushing attack helps as it has been said(just ask John Elway) but you have to have a complementary passing game and a defense that gets 3 and outs and the ball back on turnovers. With all the problems that have come out this year with Al's spending spree it has given me hope that this year may change the perception of the league that the Raiders have become the hated losers. Whatever Al and hopefully Lane do with the #4 pick we are still better than last year. Hopefully our defense can show signs of the '06 club and our offense can continue to improve.

#15

Posted by Juice, March 26, 2008 9:40 AM

LDizzle, I think you misinterpretated what I was saying. Having a strong running game like the Raiders had last year doesn't solve a bad run defense. I'm referring to scoring points, which is something we just didn't do enough of last year. Yes we were ranked sixth overall in rushing offense, but we still failed to score points. Nobody respected the passing game because it simply wasn't explosive. If we can score touchdowns, not just field goals, than teams will have to take chances against our defense instead of running the ball 40 times a game because that is indeed what happened to us. Just look at how many close games we lost last season. Many of those games could've been won had it not been for our inability to attack a defense through the air. So sure, we have a great running game, but what good is it when we can't get a lead and utilize it? It's like Ron Jaworski says, "Points come out of the passing game.".

#16

Posted by raidz, March 26, 2008 8:17 PM

WE NEED MORE RUN STOPPING D-LINEMEN! that's basically all there is to improve upon this defense. It's time for LT to have an under 100yd game

#17

Posted by Jim C NJ Raider, March 27, 2008 8:36 AM

Gents,

Can Al afford McFadden? He will demand big bucks at #4 - probably $20M guaranteed. I wouldn't be surprised if Gholston is the pick or even a trade down for a few picks

Jim

#18

Posted by LDizzle, March 27, 2008 9:10 AM

I see what you are saying Juice. And of course it makes sense, it is what many have said (ie Jaws). But Patrick didn't miss that point, it was one the need not be made when speaking of our defense. Sure scoring more points puts more pressure on the other team to match it but that should never put less value on a teams defense and especially not the absolute necessity of a team to stop the run.

Dan makes a good point by simply saying that we lost a lot of close games and despite what happens in the draft, we are going to be improved from last year. We have a starting QB who can make up for his inexperience with his physical abilities. If our defense can be dominant, this team could look like the Steelers did when Roethlesberger was a rookie. They didn't ask Big Ben to win games for them, they just asked him to play within himself and not make any huge mistakes. Our running game is improved as well. First and foremost because Michael Bush will be teaming with Fargas in the backfield. But also because this team has one more year with the Zone Blocking Scheme. The only offensive pieces we should look at drafting are an OT and WR in the middle or late rounds. Otherwise it should be all about the defense. Not because I believe that "Defense wins championships" but because that is what this team needs. And remember:

Michael Bush is better than McFadden

LDizzle

#19

Posted by Dan, March 27, 2008 2:14 PM

I agree we need to strengthen our defense. I look at the Ravens and yes they only made one SuperBowl but were in the hunt every year and nobody ever asked if their offense was any good. The Raiders offense has potential and you may be right about Bush being better than Mcfadden on every down, but you can't argue Mcfadden can go everytime he touches the ball. SPEED is the reason not elusiveness or vision. Defense is the reason you win championships, but the offense has to help get you there.

#20

Posted by OakFoSho, March 28, 2008 12:33 AM

LDizzle,

What statistics are you looking at?

Michael Bush

2004--132/734/5.6 rush -- 11/155/14.1 receiving

2005 -- 205/1143/5.6 rush -- 21/253/12.0 receiving

Darren McFadden

2005 -- 176/1113/6.3 rush, 14/52/3.7 receiving

2006 -- 284/1647/5.8 rush, 11/149/13.5 receiving

2007 -- 325/1830/5.6 rush, 21/164/7.8 receiving

I'll leave the QB stats out for your sake. Darren McFadden's rush average crushes Bush's! Only one season did McFadden slump to 5.6. McFadden was the whole show in college, and defenses could solely concentrate on stopping McFadden. On the other hand, Bush had a great QB in Brohm that ripped secondaries apart in college, and freed up the lanes for Bush. McFadden, he WAS the QB, as he was EVERYTHING for the Hogs! Bush has had a major leg injury, McFadden has not. On top of all this, McFadden played in the SEC, while Bush played in the Big East! Nuff said! Your argument holds no weight, sorry buddy. Try Try Again!

NEXT!!

Al's Mandate is McFadden!

OakFoSho

#21

Posted by ZACK, March 28, 2008 6:06 AM

I say we get rid of robert gallery that was a waste of a draft pick but this defense is definetly the best in the league, fuck those other gay teams the raiders are # 1 for life

#22

Posted by Zack, March 28, 2008 6:07 AM

Mcfadden is the way to go

#23

Posted by Juice, March 28, 2008 8:49 AM

LDizzle, you are 100% right when you say that "Great defense wins championships". But when your offense is inept of putting the ball in endzone, it renders your defense into a sieve. I used to live in Baltimore, so I'll use the Ravens as an example. Year in and year out they were able to field a top 5 calibre defense, but they only made the playoffs 4 times in Brian Billicks run there. It was rediculous. There defense would hold teams to 12 points and thier own offense could only come up with 9. The defense would play so well but were on the field for so long because of thier own offensive ineptitude, that they would begin to tire and lose the game. They usually had a strong running game, but not until Steve McNair came in a few years ago were they able to put together a complete team. It was an aberation in 2000 when they won the Super Bowl with a dominant defense and a very average offense. If you go back through the last 20 years of Super Bowl Champions, you will see that yes those teams had good to great defenses, but they also fielded good to great offenses as well. I think the cliche' needs to be changed from "defense wins championships" to "complete teams win championships". Right now the Raiders are simply unbalanced or incomplete. The offense needs to continue to improve or else the defense will suffer. I like the peices that they've put around JaMarcus Russell, and I remain optimistic about the prospects of an improved team next season, but they must continue to improve. As for the Michael Bush-Darren McFadden comparison. Bush was just as good as McFadden in college. The difference however is that Bush has suffered two major leg injuries in the last three years and McFadden has not. Bush if healthy has the potential to be a solid running back, but may never play at the level he did when he was in college. Michael Bush is considered damaged goods, McFadden is on the opposite end of the spectrum. I agree with you that they do not need to pick McFadden, but if he gets drafted and turns out to be a force comparable to Adrian Peterson, than I don't think any of his will be mad at all. Good point with the Steelers comparison though, even if they had a far superior run defense. I doubt we go 15-1 next year like they did in Roethlisberger's rookie campaign, but things could definately be looking up for Silver & Black.