Quick turn to NBC

[IllinoisFalcon]

I can second this ... for an Aints fan you're a stand up poster.

He may talk some sense about some football related posts but it all boils down to him being a fan of a rival on our message board , it will never add up to anything but that. Their is no reason for him to be here but to only stir the pot and talk about taints stuff. I'm not a member of a saints message board , because I am not a fan of the saints.

[CaliSaint4Life]

Like my brethren said; your team is playing, live; in CALI for peeks sake and you're on a Falcons Message Board. Where are your priorities ?

Maybe the Raider fans suck and the game is blacked out on the West Coast.

[Rtflyer]

That would explain it.

[Falkonator]

No its not.Cali? It's on in my area in Cali lol

[CaliSaint4Life]

He may talk some sense about some football related posts but it all boils down to him being a fan of a rival on our message board , it will never add up to anything but that. Their is no reason for him to be here but to only stir the pot and talk about taints stuff. I'm not a member of a saints message board , because I am not a fan of the saints.

So you refuse to have football discussion with me because I'm the fan of another team, even though I make reasonable post? I didn't agree with the OP not once and I haven't stirred anything up. I simply corrected a nonfactual statement. Regardless, I respect how you feel and we are done talking. There are plenty of poster on this board that love to talk about football. I'll chop it up with them.

[bradael]

yeah, because the Raiders are known for their amazing defense.

Better pass defense than the Steelers each of the last two years. Pittsburgh is nothing special against the pass... just check what Brady, Brees, and Rodgers did to them last year... 320 yards per game 8 TDs 1 INT 7.6 YPA 69.8% completion

Edited August 29, 2011 by bradael

[IonSen88]

Maybe the Raider fans suck and the game is blacked out on the West Coast.

Sounds like you should be here then.

[DonDaLuvMaker]

Better pass defense than the Steelers each of the last two years. Pittsburgh is nothing special against the pass... just check what Brady, Brees, and Rodgers did to them last year... 320 yards per game 8 TDs 1 INT 7.6 YPA 69.8% completion

I doubt that the Raiders will have a better pass defense then the Steelers this season due to the loss of Nnamdi. Especially since they have to see Rivers twice without him as well.

[DonDaLuvMaker]

Heil no don't insult pu$$y like that.

More like.....

Lol! +1

[dmite]

Lol, just shaking the rust off. Ingram got his third though.

6 attempts for 7 yards.

[CaliSaint4Life]

Sounds like you should be here then.

Obviously you've never been to a Raiders game. I'd prefer not to get shot at or end up in a fight over a preseason game. That place is evil.

[PeytonMannings Forehead]

So you refuse to have football discussion with me because I'm the fan of another team, even though I make reasonable post? I didn't agree with the OP not once and I haven't stirred anything up. I simply corrected a nonfactual statement. Regardless, I respect how you feel and we are done talking. There are plenty of poster on this board that love to talk about football. I'll chop it up with them.

I'll have a football discussion with you. The Raiders were nowhere as good as their #11 ranking because while they finished #2 in passing, they finished #29 against the run. In essence, they were so terrible against the run -- keep in mind they are noted around the league for not having run gap responsibilities -- that team didn't have to pass against them.

Couple one of the 2 best corners in the NFL with a front that generated 47 sacks (#2 in the league), and you'll get a lopsided pass/run defensive ranking that'll total out around #11.

The strength of that defense is in Philly, so this version isn't the 2010 defense. The first drive of the game, Brees moved the team 80 yards by throwing 5 straight times at a rookie cornerback. Boom, boom, boom. And without Nnamdi, Brees doesn't have to hold the ball. So the up front pressure is negated without a guy like Seymour mashing the middle.

[DonDaLuvMaker]

6 attempts for 7 yards.

I was just going to post that but you beat me to it.

[UptownHardHitta]

Explosive kneel downs

[UptownHardHitta]

6 attempts for 7 yards.

[UptownHardHitta]

6 attempts for 7 yards.

And a touchdown

[DrewBreeess]

Saints game ended 5 minutes ago and they are still trying to stop an RB. Better tell somebody. Saints will score on everybody, but can they score enough. GB is coming.

[UptownHardHitta]

I'm just having some fun irritating the sensitive pansies around here. You guys have a good team, but you're not elite until you're e elite. Mark my words, Brees will be 10-2 versus you bums after this season.

Edited August 29, 2011 by UptownHardHitta

[dmite]

And a touchdown

Give him 10 chances, he might get a first down.

[CaliSaint4Life]

I'll have a football discussion with you. The Raiders were nowhere as good as their #11 ranking because while they finished #2 in passing, they finished #29 against the run. In essence, they were so terrible against the run -- keep in mind they are noted around the league for not having run gap responsibilities -- that team didn't have to pass against them.

Couple one of the 2 best corners in the NFL with a front that generated 47 sacks (#2 in the league), and you'll get a lopsided pass/run defensive ranking that'll total out around #11.

The strength of that defense is in Philly, so this version isn't the 2010 defense. The first drive of the game, Brees moved the team 80 yards by throwing 5 straight times at a rookie cornerback. Boom, boom, boom. And without Nnamdi, Brees doesn't have to hold the ball. So the up front pressure is negated without a guy like Seymour mashing the middle.

Actually, you make a very good point. They were one of the best pass defense in the NFL and one of the worst run D's. The stats say this and I saw it from looking at quite a bit of their games last season.

The reality is that the Raiders had a good pass-rushing D-line and extremely good CBs. Put those together and you end up with one of the best pass defenses in the NFL. But to say that Nnmandi was the only reason, I disagree with, and here's why: Go and get NFL Rewind and watch all of their games last year; Houston, Shaughnessy, Scott, Henderson, Kelly, Seymour, and Byrant all would end up with positive pass-rushing grades if you performed some type of analysis on them. Maybe not top in the league but all of them performed, of course some better than others. To make it worse, they have depth so they could rotate guys in and keep the pass rush up.

Nnmandi is great, but the Raiders run a strictly man coverage D. No CB can cover forever so the rush has to get there eventually. They complimented each other nicely and it led to a good passing defense.

That's why I don't think the Raiders D went to Philly.

[Saintdogg]

yeah, because the Raiders are known for their amazing defense.

Ranked 11th last year. Not a bad D.

[iceage02]

Ranked 11th last year. Not a bad D.

11 which puts them right about average. So there not really "amazing". Now that Steeler Defense #2 now thats amazing.

Edited August 29, 2011 by iceage02

[birdz4i]

Yeah, with a majority of a backup secondary in the game. bahahaha.

hmmm funny you mention that since the steelers starting cbs didn t play.

[PeytonMannings Forehead]

That's why I don't think the Raiders D went to Philly.

No doubt there is a palpable amount of skill on that defensive line. Man for man, I'm very impressed with the players they've had come through there the past few years, Wimbley chief among them, but you would agree that coverage and pass rush work hand in hand? You can't have one without the other and wind up #2 in pass defense, correct?

I would agree wholeheartedly that Nnamdi wasn't the whole defense, but taking what the Saints' first team offense did in isolation and I would say definitively that the 2010 Oakland defense wasn't on the field tonight. First off, there was little to no push up the middle in the first quarter and a half, because there was no Seymour. And the reason it looked like Brees was out there playing a video game tonight was because he picked on a rookie the first two drives. He threw left the entire drive. The kid looked completely lost.

That is a fairly solid defense in Oakland, but the insinuation of this thread was "look at what NOLA is doing against the #11 defense in their 3rd preseason game vs. what Atlanta did", and I'm just saying there is no comparison. Oakland was down two of their best weapons. Pitt was pretty much fully loaded with Polomalu, Clarke, Woodley, and Harrison.

Edited August 29, 2011 by PeytonMannings Forehead

[CaliSaint4Life]

No doubt there is a palpable amount of skill on that defensive line. Man for man, I'm very impressed with the players they've had come through there the past few years, Wimbley chief among them, but you would agree that coverage and pass rush work hand in hand? You can't have one without the other and wind up #2 in pass defense, correct?

I would agree wholeheartedly that Nnamdi wasn't the whole defense, but taking what the Saints' first team offense did in isolation and I would say definitively that the 2010 Oakland defense wasn't on the field tonight. First off, there was little to no push up the middle in the first quarter and a half, because there was no Seymour. And the reason it looked like Brees was out there playing a video game tonight was because he picked on a rookie the first two drives. He threw left the entire drive. The kid looked completely lost.

That is a fairly solid defense in Oakland, but the insinuation of this thread was "look at what NOLA is doing against the #11 defense in their 3rd preseason game vs. what Atlanta did", and I'm just saying there is no comparison. Oakland was down two of their best weapons. Pitt was pretty much fully loaded with Polomalu, Clarke, Woodley, and Harrison.

We agree that they run hand-in-hand. That was my point to the previous poster. You can't say their entire D was one player when they have such a solid D-line.

As for tonight, Drew Brees did to them what he does to every team. He attacks their weakness. Sometimes it's good, sometime it's great. Any smart QB would do the same. He usually does it to safeites but tonight it just happened to be a CB. Also, don't ignore what Jimmy Graham did. He pretty much abused everyone that was on him, do it wasn't one player that got picked on during every play. This is vintage Sean Payton/Drew Brees and it's what got us to the SB a couple years ago. Our O is built around matchups.

As for them not having Seymour, I'll go back to my previous point, that they have a very good and a very deep O-line. The thing is..we have 2 of the best 3 guards in the NFL and Drew gets the ball out quickly, so it almost nullifies the inside rush. I'm not convinced Seymour would have made much difference, at least not anymore. He is no longer better at what he does than Carl Nicks and Jahri Evans. You'll see what I mean when you realize how big of a loss Dahl was for you guys.

As for Pitt, they have a great D, but you have to look a bit deeper. I watch the Pitt/Atl game twice and I have a pretty good take on what happened. Their D pretty much kept everything basic (blitzes and all). Pitt's D is built to beat the team they play twice a year, which is how it's suppose to be. They are a heavy run division/conference and thats how they built their team. Polamalu is an absolute GREAT safety but he's not a CB. The Steelers by the 2nd quarter had their 4th, 5th, and 6th string CB in the game. Taylor, McFadden, and Lewis were all out of the game. That's who Ryan was throwing against. I actually saw a CB playing off-coverage on Jones and gave him a 6-7 yard cushion about 7 yards into the route and it happened a couple times if I recall correctly. That should only happen in a prevent D, not base.

As good as Pitt's D is, it's vulnerable against heavy pass teams (due to the point I made above, their built to stop run heavy teams). They lost 5 games last year, 3 of them were against heavy pass teams (NE, NO, GB). If you can spread them out, you have a chance for success against them.

I guess my point is...the Steelers were for more short-handed (missing their top 3 CBs) then the Raiders were tonight (only missing Seymour). Now don't get it confused, the Steelers have a FAR BETTER D then the Raiders, but when you are down your top 3 CBs, its hard to stop the pass. Trust me, the Saints know this better than anyone.