Countdown to...Screw it

So I only got one week out of my Countdown to History thing with the Raiders. Ah well.

I missed posting on last week's game because of work, but I'm glad my next post follows two straight wins. As much as my postings may make it seem like I want them to lose, more than anything I just want the team to wake up and realize that what its doing isn't going to consistently win in the modern NFL, as has been stated ad nausem in many other outlets. It seemed a historically disastrous season might be the only way to do that.

But what the victories over the Cardinals and Steelers have shown the rest of the world is that the Raiders defense is for real, or at least as not as terrible as the offense. The first few weeks a lot of people had been lumping the two together into this mess of a team, when really it was the offense that wasn't doing its part and making things much worse on the defense.

I found this interesting. At one point he compares the Raiders to an exaggerated version of the early '00s Ravens teams, though somewhat tongue in check. The D is obviously not that good, but that was sort of the script for the Steelers game. I mean good god, 17 yards passing?

Still, the big number was three, as in, the Raiders won the turnover battle by three. That has been the biggest problem all season outside of the terrible offensive line. A better line would help, but not all of the turnovers have been because of pressure. Even with the Ravens 2002 defense, I'm not sure this offense could not lose enough games to get in the playoffs. It may be a work in progress with Andrew Walter behind center so I'm willing to be patient. This year is sort of an experiment from here on out, to see if Walter can at least take that first step and learn how to not lose a game.

I'm looking forward to the Seattle Monday night game. The two teams are both at a lose, with injuries and ineffectiveness plaguing both offenses. It seems like Seattle still has more weapons and a better gameplan and coach, which should give them the edge. Maurice Morris hasn't gotten anything going - possibly because he's on my fantasy team - and Seneca Wallace is only going to be in his second start. If the Raiders can get enough going on defense they might be able to force some turnovers and give the offense a short field. A low scoring game may be their only hope, because they can't win a shoot out.

17 yards, Christ.

And it ends...

The Giants hired Bruce Bochy today.

This move sums up everything that is wrong with the way this franchise has been going since 2002. OK, hugely oversimplified statement out of the way, now I can move on to rational conversation.

Of the four candidates - Bochy, Ron Wotus, Manny Acta and Bud Black - Bochy was the safest pick but also the least likely to to make the Giants significantly better. Maybe it's just the lure of the unknown (the other three candidates are undefeated as major league managers), but it seems like hiring Bochy is Sabean's way of saying he'd rather be mediocre than good. Bochy's .494 winning percentage kind of says it all.

But he has had success. His teams have been to a World Series and won the NL West four times. He also finished with a losing record 50 percent of the time.

Compared to Felipe, Bochy seems to go to the bullpen and sacrifice less, but steal more, according to Bill James. But those numbers also show he has switched his style around season to season (241 steals in 1999, 77 in 2004). Hopefully he's someone who will adjust his style to the team and not just blindly follow some script in his head, though I haven't talked to enough Padre fans to know for sure.

I said before I didn't want the selection to be determined by who the fans thought was most exciting and this definitely fits. Bochy wasn't the sexiest candidate. I understand the logic of getting someone with experience in the division and experience in general, but I would have preferred any of the other candidates. With so little expected of next year this feels like a time to take chances and Bochy seems like he's here to watch the ship until the real manager shows up soon.

And the winner is...

This article in my hometown paper (or one of them at least) breaks down the Giants managerial candidates, looking at Ron Wotus, Bud Black, Manny Acta and Bruce Bochy.

Going simply by what Andrew Baggarly writes, I'm throwing my hat in the Wotus camp. I like the experience with the minor league system and younger players. He knows the Giants' players better than anyone else we can bring in and he has won, even if in the minor leagues.

And really, if he's going to get his shot anywhere it should be in San Francisco. Yes, sentimentality shouldn't override the cold hard logic needed to find a new manager, but I can find more faults with the other candidates than I can with Wotus.

Baggarly writes that Wotus' main disadvantages are that he doesn't have a lot of major league playing experience and wouldn't be the most media friendly coach.

How a manger's personality plays to us outside the organization shouldn't make any difference in whether or not to hire the guy. If the team wins no one will remember he seemed in the media those first few months. If he loses he will be deemed distant and not emotional enough, if he wins then he'll poses a quiet cool and be unflapable.

I originally was a big Bud Black backer, but it had more to do with him being on the first Giants teams I ever remember really following. The fact that no one has ever considered him for a job before scares me if it comments on his standing in the league at all.

I don't think I would be upset with Manny Acta, though. He seems like one of those young coaches who could just explode when they get a shot.

I do have to say I'm disappointed the list doesn't include Joe Girardi. He succeeded in a situation that will be very similar to the Giants next year, sans the talented young players.

Countdown to History: 11 games to go

No NFL team has ever gone 0-16. Seven teams have lost 15, the last time by the Carolina Panthers in 2001. That team also holds the record for most consecutive games lost in season.

Now the Raiders have come close before, losing 19 straight from 1961-62. Unfortunately they didn’t play 16 games back then, but we're getting closer and closer to history every week.

Today they moved one step nearer with a 13-3 loss to the Denver Broncos.

This was a classic Raiders loss, filled with turnovers, penalties and unnecessary late hits at just the right times.

Like I’ve mentioned before, though, the defense kept up its end of the bargain. The Raiders lost average gain-per-play only by 0.5 yards, 4.1 to 4.6. The problem was that the Broncos got 4.6 yards per rush as well, out-running the Raiders 144 to 85.

The Broncos did play conservatively on offense the whole night, only throwing 18 times, but they also never got anything going outside the big plays by Javon Walker. Most of the night the defense kept them in check, not playing great but being by far the Raiders' best unit. If the offense steps up, the Raiders could be a four-win team someday.

But the offense didn’t step up. Andrew Walter doesn’t seem to be progressing much, though it may still be too early to make a final judgment. For right now he is making bad decisions – the corner interception – and taking way too much time to make decisions. For a quarterback with a line as bad as his, he needs to be taking a three or five step drop and getting rid of it, regardless who’s open.

I was happy with what I saw out of LaMont Jordan. Yes, that stat line looks terrible and he had the fumble at the end, but it’s almost as if Jordan’s cursed just wearing that silver helmet. He had some tough runs and a few stiff arms that gained some extra yards. I’ve liked him since I saw him play for Maryland and I see him as a victim of a really untalented and inexperienced offense line and quarterback.

It seems Jordan is really just pressing too hard to get something done all by himself without a lot around him. He and Shane Lechler really deserve better.

One sort-of optimistic thing: This was the first game a Raiders opponent never started a drive in Oakland territory. Denver came close three times, with drives starting at its own 43, 44 and 47.

Numbers you can never win with: 95 yards in penalties, 85 yards rushing

And below that?

OK, with baseball season out of the way (except for the gooey center that is the hot stove), there are going to be more Raiders posts. Which I expect to be interesting even for the Niner fans. Why?
My key interest this season is if the Raiders can be remembered as historically bad. I'm not talking about how Jeff George is talked about at Ricky's. I'm talking multiple ESPN classic episodes. The coveted "At least we're not the 'o6 Raiders" line whenever fans discuss a horrible team.

Right now I'm not sure this will even be the worst team in Raiders history, though that may be only from lack of evidence, an expectation of regression to the mean and Andrew Walter becoming comfortable with the fact that he is starting in the National Football League.

For now I'll just look at points per game. As the season gets a little older I'll pull out some better numbers but this is just for perspective.

The most recent competition would be the 2003 team. Outscored by an average of 16/23.7, ranked 27 and 26 in the NFL respectively. Rich Gannon lead the team in passing with 1274 yds., just seven more than Rick Mirer. Scary times. It was the end of Bill Callahan and all hope of competing for some time.

Right now the Raiders are getting beaten at a 11.8/29.2 clip. Much worse than '06.

Since 2002, a normal 32nd ranked offense scores around 14 and the 32nd ranked defense around 28. So even if the Raiders are just a run-of-the-mill worst team in football, they will probably be worse than in 2003 by these measures, but not by much.

What I'm going to be watching though are the yards-per-game the defense gives up. In 2003 the Raiders were 30th at 369.o. But this year the defense is 10th at 294.8. The reason is the -8 turnover ratio, second worse in the NFL to the Browns, a team that beat the Raiders already. In the Browns four scoring drives that game the average starting field position was the Raiders 46.

That is what may keep this team from being the worst in Raiders history. Not just a statistical fluke, but possibly the defense. The offense so far has been historically bad and that is causing people to overlook the rest of team. The defense didn't look horrible against San Diego. If the offense stops turning it over hopefully the defense can stop drives at the 30 instead of giving up points.

Right now Walter is averaging a turnover almost every ten plays he doesn't make a successful handoff (Rushing and throwing attempts added. Anyone know where there are stats for snaps taken?). That has to improve. Right? Well, if it does, and the defense holds, there would be a lot more 16-14 losses than 34-20.

Of course all this debate is thrown out if they go 0-16.

Word up

In the weeks since I last posted, it seems like I've been in a perpetual holding plan, not just with this blog, but with my life in general. Hopefully that changes now.

And I'm glad I haven't posted since Sept. 4. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to make my first post since then a link to this.

The office I work at was buzzing pretty heavy about the plane crash in New York the whole morning Tuesday. But the first time I heard it was Cory Lidle was on Yahoo sometime in the afternoon.

At that point I stopped going to sports Web sites and watching ESPN.

Everyone deserves a memorial. Almost everyone has a few people who will want to say something about them when they pass. When you're a professional athlete your best friends are often people the rest of the public would like to hear from.

Hearing quotes from Barry Zito and Eric Chavez, former teammates of Lidle in Oakland, make sense. They knew him, they are going through something right now and if they want to talk that's their right. I've had to talk to people who have lost a loved one and they are always the best people to let you know what this person was all about.

But using the end of one man's life as an excuse to pontificate on the state of sport is different (Now see, I'm using the media coverage of the event as an excuse to pontificate on the media. Different thing entirely).

Which brings me to the post over at Word Up Thome. I didn't expect anything on Lidle. I thought they just might skip it and make a joke about Jim Leyland and Tony LaRussa dissing Ken Macha. Who knows, those guys are crazy.

But the post was a great look at the situation. Often it's the funny ones, who don't hold themselves in the same light as the newsies, who can really explain a situation.

I can see how someone could look at parts and say it's it's bad taste. Whatever, that's your opinion. But they could have just let it pass by and they didn't, which is worthy of comment on its own.