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.