Raiders lack of pass rush was evident in loss to Rams

Getty Images

Rams quarterback Jared Goff was able to pick the Raiders apart last night, standing in clean pockets, and rarely under much pressure.

Clearly, it’s the kind of thing Jon Gruden is going to have to study more to see exactly how that happened.

“When you can run the ball like they ran in the second half, it’s very hard to rush the passer,” Gruden said, via James Ham of NBC Sports Bay Area. “Obviously, we didn’t get to Goff enough, and we didn’t get to Gurley enough. We’ll take a good look at the reasons why we didn’t.”

Hmmmmm. What could a reason be, that they weren’t exactly able to bear down on Goff?

Oh, that’s right, they traded one of the league’s best pass-rushers to the Bears.

The lack of pressure without former star Khalil Mack was obvious (especially after he filled up a stat sheet in his opener with Chicago). Goff was sacked once and only hit twice, with rookie Arden Key getting a pressure early.

Bruce Irvin did his part, with a sack and forcing a fumble in the second quarter. The Rams recovered that one, but the Raiders never touched Goff again, leading to lots of photos of him in his white uniform with no Raider in sight.

“We knew we had to rush Goff and we couldn’t give him too much time,” Irvin said. “I don’t think we did a good enough job of putting a lot of pressure on him.”

Somebody definitely didn’t do a good enough job preparing them for such situations, and it wasn’t Irvin or Key.

But hey, they have those future first-round picks and the salary cap room. So they’ve got that going for them.

23 responses to “Raiders lack of pass rush was evident in loss to Rams

  1. Oh, that’s right, they traded one of the league’s best pass-rushers to the Bears.


    So if they hadn’t traded him, they would’ve gotten more sacks? Oh, that’s right. He wasn’t showing up anyway, so they got what they could for him instead of just having a malcontent holding out all season.

  2. Gruden is like the girlfriend that you dumped and all your friends tell you years later that she looks so sexy. You get back with her and remember she is cray cray.

  3. Gruden said that the Raiders defense wasn’t very good with Khalil Mack. But it certainly wasn’t Mack’s fault that he had very little surrounding talent and a bad DC (Ken Norton Jr.).

    With Mack gone, the Raiders have next-to-no talent on the defense and this could very well result in this year’s D being one of the worst in franchise (if not league) history despite the fact that Guenther is an improvement over Norton. And Gruden owns this with the moronic Mack trade and other debilitating roster moves he’s made.

  4. Oakland paid the wrong guy. Derek Carr has evolved into his brother. Gruden better hope those buses are fueled at night when they scamper out of Raidernation.

  5. We’ll take a good look at the reasons why we didn’t.”

    DUH !!!
    Check the tape of Mack against the Packers for a clue………….

  6. The Raiders chose to be mediocre without paying Mack, rather than be mediocre while paying Mack. It was a shrewd decision. Get over it.

  7. What a punk you are, Gnat. Name one team in the NFL that has 2 players averaging $23M+ per year. The Raiders finished 6-10 last year. So, YOU think it’s a great idea to pay Mack $141M with $90M guaranteed, so they could (essentially) have the exact same 6-10 team?
    Your reporting reminds me of dim Don Lemon, the worst anchor on tv.

  8. I have no love for the Raiders, but this snark is unwarranted. It treats the Raiders as if they hinted that Mack is “overrated” or something. Last I checked, the Raiders didn’t criticize Mack’s ability in the least, and simply decided that it was better to let him go now, save money, and grab TWO first round picks than either lose Mack in a year or else have to pay him huge money. There isn’t a right or wrong answer there, because the team was amply compensated, but OF COURSE it would hurt in the short term, because right now they have nothing for what they gave up. FYI, that stat-sheet filling Mack wasn’t enough to beat the Packers, even with Rodgers missing a chunk of the game, so let’s not act as if he’s a singularly win producing player.

  9. LOL at the geniuses who say our defense has no talent yet we should have paid one guy $23 million.
    I would love o see your balance sheet.

    Mack went off Sunday and the Bears….wait for it…..LOST!!!!

    Decision confirmed for the Raiders.

  10. Are the Raiders really a Kahlil Mack away from the Super Bowl? No. Paying a non QB that much can affect the ability to piece together an entire roster. Mack was on the team last year and the defense still struggled – and a coach fired. I’m no Gruden fan, but lets see how this pans out.

    The Rams, on the other hand, are possibly a Donald away. And, paying him so much now while Goff is cheap is doable.

  11. With you until that last sentence. Taking pot shots is a bad look, even for a guy who writes about what other people do.
    If they had used both of the Mack picks in the most recent draft, and still got beat by 20, then we could make an apples to apples comparison.

  12. Yes the young Raiders defensive line didn’t have a breakout game but if you ask me the real story here is Rams and Raiders both only had 1 sack last night.

    So of the 2 defensive lines which one really under produced last night? We didn’t have Mack but they did have Darnold 0 impact paired w Suh who also has 0 impact.

    At least Darnold has the excuse of missing training camp and not in best shape yet. But what’s Suh’s excuse for not having his name called the entire game.

    The Rams gave the most expensive defensive line and the Raiders now have the cheapest. But the lead and only defensive line story is same story on the site for a week. Where is the criticism of the highest paid d-line in the history of football getting the same amount of pressure Oak did?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!