Raiderstation

NoClapsPlease wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 6:47 am I’ve seen some awful attempts at comprehension, but this surely takes the cake.

I’m not going to answer a question for a statement that never happened. Read again, slowly, then delete your post.

Did you not say this or am I dreaming:

If every throw to the WR is a dangerous throw, then that means the WR isn’t good

CWood24 wrote: Wed Oct 15, 2025 9:10 pm So all of a sudden everyone is in on drafting Meyers replacement, i thought being proactive wasn’t a good thing

Nope, still not happy about NOT taking O line early in the 2nd, AND not happy about a possession receiver in the 2nd.

If every throw to the WR is a dangerous throw, then that means the WR isn’t good

I am trying to also wrap myself around this statement. I think the conclusion is wrong based on your condition. If every throw to a WR is a dangerous one, would that suggest the receiver is bad or that the passer is bad?

I think, rather, that if every throw to a receiver is dangerous, you have to look to the passer and not the receiver.

Talentless receivers exist, not because of the pass itself, but because of a lack of talent. Darrius Heyward-Bey exists as the example. He remained bad despite who was throwing the ball, but that did not mean the passes were dangerous. Some were as safe as you can get, hitting him in the chest. But safe none the less.

raider_kin wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 7:00 am Nope, still not happy about NOT taking O line early in the 2nd, AND not happy about a possession receiver in the 2nd.

Yeah, possession receivers are obviously important, but any WR is one of the final pieces of the puzzle. A good O-line and running game can help any NFL receiver get more catches and TDs, but a great WR doesn't help the O-line all that much. Of course, the caveat here is that both require a competent QB.

Attyla wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 7:32 am If every throw to the WR is a dangerous throw, then that means the WR isn’t good

I am trying to also wrap myself around this statement. I think the conclusion is wrong based on your condition. If every throw to a WR is a dangerous one, would that suggest the receiver is bad or that the passer is bad?

I think, rather, that if every throw to a receiver is dangerous, you have to look to the passer and not the receiver.

Talentless receivers exist, not because of the pass itself, but because of a lack of talent. Darrius Heyward-Bey exists as the example. He remained bad despite who was throwing the ball, but that did not mean the passes were dangerous. Some were as safe as you can get, hitting him in the chest. But safe none the less.

Good so I'm not the only one. I'm still waiting on the OP to tell us how our comprehension is a problem...

BoKnows81 wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 7:42 am Good so I'm not the only one. I'm still waiting on the OP to tell us how our comprehension is a problem...

I mean I get what he is trying to say, I think. Throwing passes to bad receivers has an inherent risk factor simply due to ineptness. But even bad receivers can make plays if they rose to the level of the NFL. I think a conclusion/condition statement needs to reflect a condition that actually conclusively make the statement correct. But the passer throwing a dangerous pass to the receiver each time does not make the receiver bad, but rather it is likely the passer is bad.

Maybe I am wrong, I will wait to see, but I don't think I am.

I think he is saying the dangerous throw is due to the receivers inability to separate or be open but may be the only option due to the QB being pressured. This is what I think I am seeing with a lot of the dangerous passes, although a lot are just braindead throws.

I don't see this with Meyers as he can and is getting open with his route running skills. I did see it with Crabtree especially in his last season. He couldn't get open without pushing off so the theory is somewhat correct in that instance, Crabtree was done and almost all passes in his direction were with a defender right there.

We do love us some dead cap.

RN4L75 wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:30 am I think he is saying the dangerous throw is due to the receivers inability to separate or be open but may be the only option due to the QB being pressured. This is what I think I am seeing with a lot of the dangerous passes, although a lot are just braindead throws.

I don't see this with Meyers as he can and is getting open with his route running skills. I did see it with Crabtree especially in his last season. He couldn't get open without pushing off so the theory is somewhat correct in that instance, Crabtree was done and almost all passes in his direction were with a defender right there.

This, and it was blatantly evident during the Chargers game. They completely took away intermediate and deep routs. I think this is why Geno forced so many passes.

The decision is still on the QB but as it was in the Chargers game I think he was just trying to make something happen.

This is where Chip Kelly comes in. Put Jeanty in space, let him make plays Working Tre into the running game has netted some decent gains. Throw in some screens and shuffle passes to slow down the pass rush. f[raiders_icon]ck it run the read option. We have demonstrated the ability to move the ball but burning seven minutes off of clock to net a FG or Geno turning the ball over red zone is f[raiders_icon]cking demoralization for the entire team.

It's up to the OC to game plan and make adjustments to exploit weaknesses. They are always there. Where is Marc Trestman? He was a pretty good OC.

Sometimes I think Al Davis is in the back Kelly's mind tell him the Raiders take what they want. We do not have the OL or WR corps to do that.

Trestman was garbage. He is currently working for the Chargers. He could not even cut it in the CFL

Attyla wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 7:32 am If every throw to the WR is a dangerous throw, then that means the WR isn’t good

I am trying to also wrap myself around this statement. I think the conclusion is wrong based on your condition. If every throw to a WR is a dangerous one, would that suggest the receiver is bad or that the passer is bad?

I think, rather, that if every throw to a receiver is dangerous, you have to look to the passer and not the receiver.

Talentless receivers exist, not because of the pass itself, but because of a lack of talent. Darrius Heyward-Bey exists as the example. He remained bad despite who was throwing the ball, but that did not mean the passes were dangerous. Some were as safe as you can get, hitting him in the chest. But safe none the less.

Context matters. Look at the person’s post I’m replying to.

The comment stated that meyers doesn’t get separation and requires a ‘tight window’ throw in order to involve him in the offense.

BoKnows81 wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 6:50 am Did you not say this or am I dreaming:

If every throw to the WR is a dangerous throw, then that means the WR isn’t good

No, you’re just quote-mining and presenting something out of context. Let’s see how far you try to keep going with this.

NoClapsPlease wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 1:14 pm No, you’re just quote-mining and presenting something out of context. Let’s see how far you try to keep going with this.

I'll go as far as I want until you actually explain what you mean since you told me to delete my post and told me i have comprehension problems. But yet you still make no sense.

So, if your post stating that dangerous throws mean that the WR is bad, is some sort of sarcasm, then maybe explain that. Clearly I'm not the only one confused.

NoClapsPlease wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 1:09 pm Context matters. Look at the person’s post I’m replying to.

The comment stated that meyers doesn’t get separation and requires a ‘tight window’ throw in order to involve him in the offense.

I was not bothering with context. You made a conditional conclusive statement and it does not pass on first inspection. Not trying to be argumentative, but the statement does not add the additional conditions you just mentioned. Even had it included the additions, the statement as written would be false.

DrDUne wrote: Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:32 am We do love us some dead cap.

So can our resident capologist* explain to me (I am totally ignorant on cap issues) why in h**l we would have dead cap in 2026 on a guy we trade THIS year?

*Think it's chucker