DC Patrick Graham understands The Standard

It pisses people off because these people likely are likely comparing the talent of the Steelers vs the scheme of the Raiders as far as defense goes. As a result, the subjective arguments erupt. By the virtue of the comparison though, that is a category error for that is two different things.


In short?! Subjective arguments will always fail for the arguments themselves can never get an "ought from an is". In layman's terms?! Feelings have no basis of truth in comparison to the facts that can be proven.

 

It also pisses SOME here off because they take every honest assessment as a dig a Tomlin. Look, I grew to despise Tomlin and his mediocrity, but he did SOME things reasonably well. The total package was below average, a big part was the coaches he hired around him were not NFL qualityl. As a flawed DC/HC that Tomlin was, he needed guru's at both OC and DC, not yes-men retreads or never-were's.

For the most part, outside of glaring weakness here or there (one or two positions a year), we have had an above-average roster, compared to the NFL average roster. We just have had below-average coaching for so long, SOME believed it was a dumpster-fire roster than Tomlin somehow made lemonade out of lemons. The part that fogged everything the most was, we did lack an NFL quality starting QB for most of the past 5 seasons. We were obviously in the bottom 1/3 of the league in QB play. So with that, I will thow Tomlin a bone that only the BEST HCs in the league would have been able to make a playoff run with our Trent Dilfer or whomever. The fact Tomlin accomplished so little with such talented teams AFTER that last SB win is telling. Opportunity lost.

I am hopeful again, but there is no getting around QB is still a giant crap-shoot and though we NOW seem to have quality coaching for the first time in 8+ seasons, it's not a given they're above average.

 

So the whole thing I'll say again was a argument of the Raiders having a better D than us, not what you went off on. You keep bringing up that argument that ,not I , or anyone I know is against.
Anyway anyone that believes that the Raiders had a better D than we did doesn't have a leg to stand on, and that's what this was all about.
You don't give up more points, have less sacks, have less turnovers, and have less wins, are worse in the red zone, and have a better D.....period.

 

A few others are because I don't want to bring names into the argument. I'm not one who believes just because a thing is a popular belief that it's a true belief, and so I don't try bringing name in to my arguments trying to prove I'm correct. Therefore.....others.
Again for the 5th time what pray tell were they ranked overall higher than us.
Not Red Zone D.
Not Turnovers.
Not Points.
Not Sacks.
So my friend outside of yards what were they better on D at?? It's a simple question

 

LoL

 

Maybe because it wasn't true.
Again what were they better at??
Not at Red Zone D.
Not at Points allowed.
Not at Sacks.
Not at Turnovers.
Not at Wins.
So outside of yards given up tell me what they were better at?
Cooler tattoos??

 

Looks like You are the one making it about Tomlin.
It was about the Raiders having a better D than the Steelers.
Since the guy that said that won't answer, I ask you.
What were the the Raiders better at, besides yards, that makes them the better D?
Not Red Zone D.
Not Points allowed.
Not Sacks.
Not Turnovers.
Not Wins.
So someone explain how they were the better D.

 

I agree that the Raiders were bad.

I don't think that's a very interesting conversation personally.

 

LoL. Winner.
You must understand my friend that I'm not ever saying what You bring up about 3rd, and 4th down is wrong, but that's not what we were discussing.

 

Soooooooo your answer is the Raiders weren't actually a better Defense than the Steelers???
Is this your roundabout way of saying it??
You do know You can give up 1000 yards in a game, and not give up any points, so why would You measure a D by yards. Hell you can get 99 yards on one play, and not score. Be easier just to admit the Raiders D wasn't as good as the Steelers except in yards.

 

Ok then You , and the NFL take the yards, and I will stick with the things that actually win games. You know those silly things called points.

 

Sorry, lost track. Did I already post this? If you are a believer in advanced stats like EPA (measures every play) it's pretty clear Raiders were not anywhere near the Steelers last season, offense nor defense.

 

under stand

 

Im truly arguing that yard don't matter as much as points, turnovers, and sacks.
You know this, but you can't bring yourself to say it, You're dug in too deep now to admit you are wrong. A child knows that points are more important than yards. It's called a scoreboard, not a yard board.
At the end of the game they say the final score is, not the final yards.

 

Really, I seem to remember a Patriots team that won a SB that many said was a great Defense, and they were middle of the pack on yards given up, but were tops in points given up.
I don't know why this is hard to understand. You can actually give up 1000 yards in a game, and not give up any points, it's possible. Nobody in the history of the league has won a game on yards, but every single team has won , or lost on points.

 

We had twice the talent of the Raiders. So since our defenses appeared to be about equal, that tells you ALL you need to know about our HC/DC then and theirs. I'd rather have their DC (though I'd rather have Vic Fangio or Wade Phillips over both). I don't want the Raiders coach from last years, almost as bad as Tomlin.

 

Hmmm, good points. Did I pull the wrong data? We need a fact check!

 

Funny how we know points are more important, and yet you say the Raiders were a better D. LoL.
My gosh how hard it is to just say You are incorrect.
The Steelers D in the red zone was 4th, the Raiders 17 th. Yeah they were better. LoL.
LoL. I decided. That is funny. I decided that points are more important than yards. LoL. I thought the whole football rules decided this. LoL.