Well his job is to kick extra points.////

Yep and we only allowed 67 yds which is pretty good.

I don't expect much out of Jackson his first year. I was just glad to see Dorsey step it up.

I love how the narrative of what actually happened in the game changes after the game is over. Go back and read the first half of the game thread. This is what you'll see:

"Holy shit, I can't believe the Raiders are this ****ing stupid"
"Cable is the best D-coordinator we've ever had"
"The Raiders keep stopping themselves with bad play calling"

Were we better against the run today? Hell yes. But let's not start sucking each other's dicks. This is a bad run defense, and we "stopped" it about as well as the Patriots stopped Marshall Faulk in the Super Bowl. When your coaches don't come out to establish what you do well, it's not the other team that has stopped that part from working, it's those coaches.

The truly amazing thing is that Russell was so bad, and so inaccurate, that he wasn't even able to hit swing and flare passes. Had he even done that, you probably would have (but not definitely) seen a lot more running, as the lanes were wide open and it would have extended the drives.

ROFLROFLNow we are supposed to judge how well the Chiefs did based on what someone posted on a "game thread". JFC

It doesn't surprise me that you're too stupid to get the point. The point is that people will do anything to look for positives here, and today it's the fact that our D was stopping the run, when the reality is that Tom Cable stopped the run.

Damn, the Pats should have jettisoned that useless ass Richard Seymour years ago, cause he has only averaged about 2 tackles a game for his entire career.

What the hell were they thinking?

I didn't participate in the game thread, I usually don't, I haven't read it, and I don't give a crap what anybody says in them because they are usually full of instant in the moment overreaction. I agree, the Raiders tried to pass it too much on 1st and 2nd down in the first half. They obviously made a halftime adjustment and tried to start running it down their throat like they did to the Chargers last week... and they couldn't.

And they aren't going to unless Russell gets his head out, because teams are going to stack the box on them. In the 2nd half they had what? 10 or 11 rushes on 1st or 2nd down... and one pass. One. They were trying to run the ball down our throat and gash us for 8, 9, 10 yards a shot like they did against the Chargers. And they couldn't do it. We'd immediately put them in 3rd down situations and force them to make a decision. And they were usually make bad ones. That's playing well. But this isn't even worth a prolonged argument over because we lost the game, and our pass defense has been pretty rough.

With all the picks we could have had-they reached with Jackson JUST like Mecca said many times on here-and now it shows.

Go get your helmet and go play with the rest of the special kids billay.

The Chiefs did shut down the run. One play doesn't summarize a whole game. Not this one anyways. Yes the Raiders did run it in for the go ahead touchdown, that doesn't change the fact that the run was a moot point for their offense the rest of the game.

Their passing game was a moot point too, until the final drive. You can chalk that up to scheme and the LB's.

No one is comparing the Chiefs D to the 85 Bears or the great Steeler defenses. What we are saying is that all these dire predictions about the Raiders rushing for 300 yds were a little over done. Also as someone posted already the Raiders had almost the same pass to rush ratio as they did against the Chargers. We stopped the run we just couldn't stop Russell when it counted and that is all that really matters.

The reality is, in spite of the poor play calling by the Raiders, when the Raiders did try to run, they had little success.

The fact that we didn't get gashed consistently even after the Raiders didn't come out running the ball on the very first series is a positive.

Now, can we biuild on that going forward?

Probably not, because we still don't have the rihgt piseces for this defnse to succeeed.

he had 2 sacks just last week-no practice

and your point is?

he is an all pro and does not have a 57 million dollar contract

HE IS PLAYING 4-3 DE FOR THE RAIDERS. HE HAS DIFFERENT ASSIGNMENTS AND EXPECTATIONS IN THAT SYSTEM THAN HE HAD WITH THE PATRIOTS.

YOU ARE SERIOUSLY DENSE.

I said the same god damn thing, that picking a 34 DE is a bad pick, and poor positional value, you dumbass.

But that doesn't in any discount the fact that he is a ****ing rookie, learning a new position in a new scheme.

It also doesn't discount the fact that he actually did his job reasonably well, given those facts.

As a 34 DE, he is never, I repeat, so your dumbass has just the slightest chance to understand, he is never going to put up big tackle numbers as a 34 DE.

3 or 4 in a game will be a huge number for his poistion.

JFC, get a ****ing clue.