SB Nation User Blog: RLangford

What's your opinion of the Raider Defense

RLangford — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:06:54 -0000

I've had a very tough time reading them. They put up strong games against the Chargers and Eagles, a good game against the Chiefs, a slightly below average game against the Texans (all big plays), and were poor against the Broncos, Giants, and Jets.

My sense is that they really were overmatched by the Broncos and Giants. But that in other games, their bad play is eventually a result of just being so demoralized by the play of the offense. I especially thought that was true against the Jets yesterday.

I'm not really sure about the defense and may not be the whole year, given that we won't have an offense that leads to competitive games in which we can really measure them.

Most Amazing (and revealing) Stat Ever

RLangford — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:42:08 -0000

Raider fans still out there, I want to ask you a question:

In the 17 losses JaMarcus has been quarterback in the last two-plus years (2 in '07; 10 in '08; 5 this year), how many times has he led us on touchdown drives?

Again, in all his losses how many times has JaMarcus led us on touchdown drives?

Here are some conditions:

1) The drive can't include a 50+ yard touchdown. It has to be a drive of multiple plays with some time off the clock.

2) The drive can't be a short field of less than 30 yards.

3) The drive can't be when the other team has the game on ice (20+ point lead).

All right, given those conditions, how many touchdowns has JaMarcus led us to in our losses? Have an answer yet?

For comparisons sake, Alex Smith led the Niners on 3 such drives today. And in '07 before JaMarcus took over, McCown and Culpepper led us on 9 such drives in ten losses.

How many TD drives has JaMarcus led us on in his 17 losses that weren't short fields or quick strikes or garbage time?

I'll tell you how many:

That's right, in those 17 losses JaMarcus has led us on one touchdown drive that wasn't a short field or a quick strike or in garbage time when we were down by 20+ points. He did it in the second drive of the opener against San Diego this year. Every other touchdown drive has been a long pass, like the ball to Louis Murphy against San Diego; or a short field, like the one-yard drive against K.C. at home last year after a pick; or in garbage time, like the meaningless points we put up against the Broncos in the 4th quarter when they went up 27-0 in last year's opener.

That's probably why when the Raiders got down by 14 today, everybody knew the game was over. He can't lead us on touchdown drives. It's a remarkable statistic. It means that in losses the Raiders are never, ever controlling the ball. They either get lucky or they don't score. That's it.

More than anything, this for me is a reason to bench the guy permanently this year. He's completely incapable of leading a touchdown drive. Give him too many plays and he'll screw it up. Like on the pick in the end zone today.

We need a quarterback who can manage the ball and lead us down the field. JaMarcus so far appears incapable of doing that.

JaMarcus Defense

RLangford — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:22:52 -0000

He's been awful. I know that. He doesn't inspire confidence with anything he says. I realize that, too. He's regressing. I get that, too.

But what I want to ask is this: Haven't fans seen anything (last year or at times in pre-season) that gives you any confidence? Versus Miami, Denver, Houston, and Tampa Bay, Russell was very good last year. That's four of the final seven games. And against New England he also had a strong statistical game, but that was a blowout, so let's ignore it. I'm asking why those games seem to mean nothing. Why do the previous three games (which included two potentially late game-winning drives and one TD stolen by the refs/rules) weigh so heavily against him?

This overwhelming disgust with the guy has to go beyond just his in-game performance because, as I pointed out, he had some real success last year. So what is it that makes fans so certain that this guy is such a complete bust?

I'm asking this honestly of the hardcore fans--of which I'm one--who read and respond here.

Tired of the JaMarcus bashing

RLangford — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:32:13 -0000

This from SI.Com:
"He is possibly the worst overall first pick in league history."
For the record, through his first 16 games he had the third highest passer rating for any QB taken first overall--and it wasn't like he was in a great situation.
For the record, Alex Smith was also drafted first. As was Tim Couch. As was David Carr. As was Ki-Jana Carter. As was Jeff George. As was Aundray Bruce. Of those players, he will certainly be better than all but Jeff George, and he will very likely be better than him.
For the record Jim Plunkett was drafted 1st by the New England Patriots in 1971. After playing there and for the 49ers, he came to the Raiders when no one else wanted him in the late '70s. When an injury forced Plunkett into the starting line-up for a 2-3 Raider team going nowhere in 1980, he led them to the Super Bowl, where he was the MVP. He won the Super Bowl again in 1983, and his Raider-led teams were consistently in the playoffs.
Nine years after being taken first overall, Plunkett flourished. But after one season and two games of starting the jury is already in on the broadly perceived to be dumb, lazy, fat, physically gifted, fur-wearing black guy from the South who the Raiders drafted.
JaMarcus's passer rating for his last 7 games of 2008:
88.4 149.1 51.5 42.0 85.7 128.1 98.9
Average Rating: 91. 9
It's ridiculous to say that he's the worst pick ever. The guy has had two shitty games to open this season. He's playing with two rookie receivers and his favorite receiver is out. He's led two touchdown drives in the final three minutes to put his team ahead. But the perception is that in every game he has ever played he has been absolutely awful.
Why is that?
Look, I'm not sure how JaMarcus Russell will turn out. I hope he returns to end-of-last-season form today against the Broncos.
But the excessive criticism of the guy has gone so far off the rails on a national level that it's become completely unbelievable. It's hard not to think it has a little to do with race and a little to do with an "anything the Raiders do has to be a disaster" mentality.

Why this is a good season

RLangford — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:48:35 -0000

I'm not writing with blinders or rose-colored glasses on when I say this: The season has been a big success so far. And here's why:

If I had told you the Angels were going to have the pitching staff they do and 5-6 guys hitting over .300, I don't expect you would think that we would contend with them. And, of course, how they perform is out of Beane's and the A's control, right?

Now let's look at us. Could you possibly argue that the A's were really going to win 90-95 games this year? They lost Zito and Thomas, and then had to depend on healthy years from typically unhealthy players (Bradley, Harden) plus hope for improvement and health from just about everyone else (Chavez, Crosby, Johnson, Swisher, Kendall, Ellis, and the pitchers.) That wasn't a realistic expectation. And, obviously, it hasn't happened. And we shouldn't go into a season thinking it will happen. Crosby is who he is, not who people thought he would be. Chavy will never be a big star. Swisher is great, but not MVP caliber yet. It would be easy to go on.

So why, then, is this a good season so far?

Well, my hopes for this year were that the A's would be competitive—they have been—and, more importantly, that they'd see reason to have hope for the years that follow. And that's exactly what's happened. Look at the positives from this year (the ones that we can carry into next season):

Dan Haren as a #1 starter. Even if Haren regresses a bit, could anyone have expected this performance? (Actually, I think Nico was touting Haren as progressing to be a clear and dominant #1 last year.)

Joe Blanton as a frontline starter. Blanton has been the biggest pitching surprise of the season to me. For those of us who have watched his games, we know that he has pitched better than his very fine ERA. The improvement in Blanton's key peripherals has been huge. None of us who were hoping for the trade to the Mets are any longer wanting that deal.

Chad Gaudin's emergence as a starter. We might have hoped for this. Some of us may have been promoting it. But we didn't have any reason to expect it. Injuries led to it, and the result has been a pitcher who solidifies our rotation for the future.

Travis Buck. The injuries worry me a little; after all, I'm an A's fan. But Buck's performance this year projects to a very bright future and a second young outfielder to go with Swisher. That's very good news. Did we really expect a viable rookie of the year candidate this year?

Jack Cust. This is beyond good. If Cust is the next Matt Stairs or better, that is an incredibly fortunate development for the A's. A cost-controlled slugging DH means the A's can shift resources once dedicated to the next Thomas or Piazza to a different area of need. Over and above all that, Cust is just incredibly fun to watch hit—and, because of his career path, to root for.

Casilla, Suzuki, and Barton. Three players we feel better about now than before the season. I'm aware of small sample size. But I'd rather that Casilla pitch like he has and Suzuki hit like he has than the opposite. Both have done very well so far, and obviously Casilla's been invaluable since he's been up. As for Barton, his June put to rest some burgeoning fears on this site, it seems.

In sum, then, because of the above I feel much better about the future than I felt before this season. So regardless of how this season ends, if it simply continues as it has so far, for me it will have been a good year.

Bye Bye, Kotsay

RLangford — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 03:55:25 -0000

Back surgery and likely three months missed.

Milton Bradley should be the A's centerfielder--this is just me talking--with Swisher and some combination of other bodies filling the remaining two spots. Of all the A's likely injured--Harden, Chavez, Crosby, Bradley--Kotsay is, for me, easily the most acceptable. But the key is that Bradley remain healthy.

Worst Contract in Baseball History

RLangford — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 01:11:50 -0000

Juan Pierre's. 5 years, $44 million.

And don't even bring up anybody else. Like Mike Hampton. Or Denny Naegle. At least they'd done something, albeit minimal. At least there was some reasoning, albeit idiotic, for the Rockies throwing all that ridiculous money at them.

But this. This defies any logic at all. You just gave $44 million to a guy whose limited skill set will likely decline. You just gave $44 million to a guy who, throughout the life of his contract, you will almost always have some better option than. You just gave $44 million to a player who will normally be a net minus.

Unbelievable.

In other news: You all know that Gary Matthews Jr. is 32 with only one very good season to his credit, right? Angels and Giants went for him. Man, that was a bidding war a hardcore A's fan couldn't lose.

Macha--A sort of defense

RLangford — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:30:48 -0000

(The following assumes you know the quotes from Kendall, Kotsay, Zito, and Haren.)

I liked Macha as a manager--much more than many of you.

I think things could have been much worse (also better, of course). What I liked about Macha was how he handled the pitching and the fact that he didn't make dumbass in-game decisions like so many managers do. Joe Torre ever letting Derek Jeter bunt--that's one dumbass in-game decision. He didn't do idiotic things like that, so I've been grateful.

But once you hear he's lost the team in the way he had; well, he's pretty much doomed.

Macha isn't a bad guy or a stupid guy. He just is generally pessimistic and uncommunicative, and that worked against him. He's too much Eyore to be a leader of men.

Because apparently it does matter that somebody comes out and bitches about a call. It does matter that now and then the skip buoys you up. It does matter that he makes you feel like a part of the team. It does matter that he has energy and confidence that you can draw energy and confidence from when times get tough. Macha fell short in these areas.

So I don't mind Kendall's comments about him not having fire so much. He's just identifying one of Macha's flaws, and one that, whether we fans want to believe it or not, harms the team.

Zito and Kotsay--they sound like pretty typical ballplayers who can't see beyond their own martyrdom (Zito) or inflated sense of self (Kotsay).

Kotsay, in particular, just seems like at times he isn't a very nice guy. He handled a post-game interview at the Coliseum like an absolute prick one time, and his quotes just scream out that he's self-centered, petty, and thus divisive. Remember when he bitched about being pulled from first late in one game in Baltimore?

That was the game after which Urban wrote about Bradley. Bottom line: If Kotsay were black he wouldn't be an ultra-competitive gamer, he'd be a problem. But Milton Bradley gets that role. And really, what a dick Michael Urban seems like in all of this for calling out Bradley repeatedly this year. Yeah, Bradley was the problem in the clubhouse. No, Michael, you tool, Kotsay and Kendall--two likely sources for your bullshit--are the problems, if anybody is.

Kotsay should have sat in Games 1 and 3 vs. Detroit. But he's too clueless to know that. I'm sure Macha would have sat him if he could go back now.

And Danny Haren. He just comes off like the stupid young guy who's following the lead of people it would be better not to follow. Danny doesn't get that Kotsay shouldn't be playing. Glad he saves you occasional runs, dude, but Kielty fricking mashes and gets you runs. So let's just ignore Danny saying that Kots should never have a day off vs. lefties.

Taken together, then: Macha--who again, I liked--needed to go. And in the process of his leaving, we learned some things about some of our players.

Mocking the Yankees

RLangford — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:21:21 -0000

Let us pause a moment to consider the pathetic Yankees.

Look what $220,000,000 buys: Jack shit.
Fastest change from "Best offense ever" to "Most overrated offense ever." Joe Morgan: Wrong again (said this was greatest offense ever).
Regardless of who we want the A's to play, it's great to see these 25 Grade A assholes and their management lose. After Game 1, everybody thought it was over and Cashman was on ESPN sounding smug as hell.
Congratulations to Jason Giambi, who took the money to go to a team that benched him in an elimination game. Enjoy the view from the bench. I'm sure it's miserable.
Congratulations to A-Rod on becoming the most miserable and maligned player in major league baseball. Life is so much better for Marco Scutaro than you right now. No, wait, life is so much better for Antonio Perez right now.
Is there anything funnier than Wright-LIDLE-Bruney-Proctor with the season on the line. And your payroll is $80 million higher than the next closest team? So great to see this pathetic collection of mercenaries humiliated.
Barry Zito is making, like, 10 million more dollars than he already would have because of this series. Steinbrenner is going to drive the price of pitching insanely high. Hope Zito doesn't go to them, though. He'll be miserable--too.
Yankees record in post-season since 2000 is awful. No World Series wins and plenty of embarrassment.
Blowing a lead to Arizona in the 9th inning of Game 7.
Having their ass kicked by the Angels.
The choke job against the underdog Marlins--in six.
The biggest ever choke job against the Red Sox. The only team ever to blow a 3-0 lead.
Another loss to the Angels--who even remembers a play from that series, and it was all in prime time.
And now this: losing in four game to a team that bumbled into the playoffs, having just been swept by the Royals, their pitching in shambles.

What a horrible run of playoff failure.

So, really, fuck the Yankees. They're worthless, pathetic, overpaid losers.

Eric Byrnes and ESPN

RLangford — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 00:48:42 -0000

Shouldn't we have a diary chronicling or at least commenting on our erstwhile leftfielder? Anybody who saw his debut performance before and after Game 2 of A's-Twins had to be just blown away by the ironies and, sorry Eric, the lame analysis.

Two standout moments:

Eric picking against the A's. Dude, isn't this the team that raised you?
Eric saying something like, "You know, I say just go for it" about Torii Hunter's suicidal play. Uh, Eric, that was the most costly defensive decision in baseball so far this year. In hindsight we know the options and the consequences. We have the benefit of reflection. Torii shouldn't have gone for it.