May 3, 2008
Holes remain for the Oakland Raiders to fill
The flashy part of free agency saw the Oakland Raiders go buck wild in spending, adding a fresh infusion of talent to the Raider team. Javon Walker and Drew Carter filled a glaring need at wide receiver, and Gibril Wilson upgraded the safety position. Al Davis added the luxury item of DeAngelo Hall to pair with Nnamdi Asomugha. Along came the draft and the Raiders added a potential game breaking running back in Darren McFadden. The team looks to have upgraded in several positions, but there are still holes that remain to be filled before the start of the 2008 season.
Quarterback: JaMarcus Russell is slated to be the starter. Andrew Walter is the only other quarterback on the roster with any significant NFL playing time. The Raiders really need a veteran to mentor Russell. Walter is only in his fourth year, and does not seem to have the confidence of coach Lane Kiffin. This is a position more likely to be filled after the June first cuts when vets at the end of the line tend to come available.
Offensive Tackle: The Raiders have several bodies at the tackle position in Paul McQuistan, Cornell Green, Mario Henderson, and Kwame Harris. The sixty-million dollar question is- Can any of these guys protect Russell's blind side? McQusitan played well at right tackle, but Henderson hasn't had any NFL playing time and Harris was a bust-o-rama in San Francisco. In Tom Cable we trust.
Defensive End: Derrick Burgess will continue to be a force on one side. Besides Burgess, a rotation of Kalimba Edwards, Jay Richardson, and the seventh round pick Trevor Scott will keep opposing offensive coordinators up at night trying to figure out new blocking schemes. With the Raiders not blitzing often, the front four has to get to the quarterback. Not to mention, the Raiders were atrocious in stopping the run last year, and their best run stopping end, Tommy Kelly is now a starting defensive tackle. Could Al Davis strike again and make a play for Miami's Jason Taylor?
Defensive Tackle: The Raiders' defense was PATHETIC against the run last season. Stopping the run starts with the defensive tackle position. Tommy Kelly will be starting at the UT position, where he will be able to penetrate through the line and create havoc in the backfield. The question is the NT position. The Raiders need a wide-body in that position on most downs who will fill the role of taking on two or three blockers to free the linebackers to do their job. Terdell Sands is the on tackle on the roster who seems suited for that position. The problem is that he did not play that position close to well last season. Gerard Warren, if he sticks, will be a rotational player who will spell Kelly or come in on passing downs. William Joseph never showed much of anything in New York and will have to step it up to make the team. The Raiders missed an opportunity in the fourth to get that wide body. The Raiders NEED a space eating defensive tackle, unless they want to bet that sands found the magic potion to turn it around.
Those positions need to be reinforced, or the optimism that is beginning to take hold this spring will turn into another disheartening fall, leading to a new winter of our discontent.
Discussion
51 Comments on "Holes remain for the Oakland Raiders to fill"
#1
Posted by RaiderKen, May 3, 2008 12:33 AM
I said it before the draft now I'll say it again. The defense has 6 POTENTIAL probowlers. NA, Hall, Gibril, Howard, Morrison, and Burgess. The offense has 1 Miller. That's why we drafted DMC that's why we passed on Dorsey. Everyone was asking for a trade down, never was gonna happen Al doesn't do it. I wanted Chris Long, but I knew who we were gonna take. Our defense will be fine because our offense will now control the clock. If we get a lead the other teams will have to throw the ball. Our secondary if GRRREEEAAAT!
#2
Posted by SeattleRaider, May 3, 2008 12:46 AM
I concur Ken,
Just say no to Culpepper. If you want to bring in a better mentor with suspect skills, what about Byron Leftwich.
Dilfer does have a ring, but I'd rater see Tui' back first.
#3
Posted by Holes remain for the Raiders to fill - Oakland Raiders Forum | Message Board - Where the Raider Nati, May 3, 2008 1:48 AM
[...] remain for the Raiders to fill Thoughts from the Dark Side | MVN - an Oakland Raiders blog Blog Archive Holes remain for the Oaklan... __________________ "While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a [...]
#5
Posted by Spencer Mills, May 3, 2008 2:23 AM
OK,
So on the QB issue, I read this morning that the Raiders are still talking to Dilfer. I looked around for it, and For the life of me, I cannot find the article or the blog where I saw that. Still, Dilfer has proven himself as a backup in this league, and while not a great option at the back up QB spot, he is certainly serviceable at the position.
As far as the OT position goes, I'm with Patrick. In Cable we trust. He was the MVP last season, and I cant imagine the O-Line regressing in year two under the best O-Line coach in football.
At DE, I think we all need to cross our fingers, click our heels, and hope that Kalimba, Richardson, and Scott can hold down the RE spot. I would love to have JT, but I dont see how that would be possible given the cap constraints. However, the Raiders are looking to bring in a new capologist/negotiator, so maybe Al has another money wad tucked up his sleeve.
I don;t know what the Raiders are going to do at DT. I guess the plan is to throw Sands in there and hope he plays well. However, Grady Jackson is still a FA, so it would not be a surprise if Al tried to get him back to Oakland.
Unleash Cerberus!!
OakFoSho
#6
Posted by Rob Calonge, May 3, 2008 6:33 AM
Grady is most likely not coming back unless the Raiders get desperate. Jackson has never been a good worker, nor has he been a player who can stay in shape. His locker room presence has been called into question also. These are all things that have lead to his release in Oakland, Green Bay, and Atlanta.
#7
Posted by Raider Blues, May 3, 2008 6:40 AM
http://www.silverandblackpride.com/
The Dilfer Deal...
Why didn't we hold onto McCown? It appears he may not be the starter in Miami after all.
#8
Posted by Chuck Dailey, May 3, 2008 7:14 AM
QB-Culpepper is still availabel as well. I don' think Atlanta ever came to a contract negotiation with him, and he had good moments for us last year!
I think Al D. has finally fell out of his game. Why in the world would he select another trophy in the #4 position of the draft??? Michael Bush was suppose to be our RB of the future and a steal in the fourth round. Dorsey would have been the best choice for us because we were # 31 at stopping the run last year! Let's just hope it doesn't come back to haunt us when we play Kansas City twice a year!
#9
Posted by Raider Blues, May 3, 2008 8:06 AM
Based on recent history the match up with KC will be to our advantage. DMC went for like 400 yds against Dorsey with Arkansas (they sucked) against LSwhooville. Michael Bush is "The Back" of the Raiders future and DMC is the "The Matchup" from 2 back sets and the slot that only Coach Kiffin knows too well how to incorporate!!!
Al Davis is The Man! Only why did you let McCown go? Why did we waste time with him to let him go unless he was supposed to be the starter in Miami knowing full well he wouldn't be in Oakland.
Just Run Up The Score Baby!
#10
Posted by Diamond Jim, May 3, 2008 8:39 AM
We have the same front seven as last year. That is disturbing. Why should we think next year will bring a different result. If we got a new line coach and or coordinator, I could be somewhat optimistic but everything still remains the same. Kelly needs to be the base DE and move inside on passing downs. Burgess will be more effective as a pass rusher if he is spelled on run downs. Will Richardson take the next step? He couldn't get off his blocks last year. Joseph will bring nothing. Edwards hopefully will give us some pass rush. Warren could be the best we have if he can stay healthy and play at a consistent level. What can I say about Sands that has not been said. We want a refund. In summary, we need a two gap DT who can play the run and a veteran OLB who can take on a block and play the run. Right now it is wishfull thinking if you think this unit will be better with the same players and the same coaches.
#11
Posted by raidz, May 3, 2008 8:58 AM
Ted Washington or Grady Jackson sound like the fit for me. Al Davis is a retard.
#12
Posted by raidz, May 3, 2008 9:00 AM
Ted Washington or Grady Jackson sound like the kind of space eating tackles we need. Al Davis should've done this earlier in the draft/free agency.
#14
Posted by Bill, May 3, 2008 9:01 AM
I agree with Jim. And Ed Hartwell is not the answer. And who cares about Grady's problems. He is unemployed, so sign him to a peanuts deal and rotate him in now and then. He is not going to be a full time starter. I don't see one DL men thats a full time 4down starter. I do see Grady and Kelly in the middle as being our best option to stop the run.
#15
Posted by jeff knows, May 3, 2008 9:11 AM
Its great that Al will never see a winning season before he dies.
#16
Posted by Raider Blues, May 3, 2008 9:56 AM
Never? He will see a winning season this year!
Just Run Up the Score Baby is essentially all of our point!
If you can't beat em, join em.
If you can't stop em, outscore em.
#18
Posted by Diamond Jim, May 3, 2008 10:27 AM
Even if Hartwell regains is old form and stays healthy, he is a MLB and I don't think we are going to move Morrison back to the outside. At least we are looking at the position. Think of Ulracher and why is he good? He is good because he can run and has good DT's in front of him who keep the OL off of him so he can run. He is not great at taking on blocks. This is our senario. We need DT's who can tie up blockers so our LB's can run. Two Washington type's at DT sounds good to me. What good is a three technique DT if he is in the backfield, disrupts the play but then there is nobody else there to make a tackle. Richardson is being locked up by the LT, Burgess is charging upfield outside the RT and Sands is standing up rendering himself useless. Our LB's can't take on blocks or are out of position. Maybe they are just trying to do too much to make a play. Needless to say, this unit as it stands has alot to prove.
#19
Posted by RaiderKC, May 3, 2008 11:30 AM
You all are looking at current F/A list. Come 06/01 that will all change and there will be a few decent candidates at all positions available. Al just needs to cut some dead weight to shore up the cap room to take a few of these guys on. Also, maybe Kiffin and Cable have groomed Henderson to be ready this year. Clevelands RT started very well as a rookie and Miami's will this year too, so maybe he's ready...
#20
Posted by Raider Till Death!, May 3, 2008 1:09 PM
Definately! We still need some help even after this draft and free agency period. By the way, we also need a presence at strong side LB unless Sam Williams can prove himself in camp.
At QB, I have no doubt that Russell will live upto the potential he showed in college. I was hearing a contract negotiation with Trent Dilfer and I find him as a very capable veteran backup QB who can mentor Rusell and maybe even Walter.
On to the O-line. We found considerable sucess last year in the line last year that helped Fargas reach a 1000 yard peak and pushed our running game to 6th best in the league. The question that remains is of the pass protection. We all know that Harris never found his niche in the 49ers' O line, so all we can hope for is that he will find his spot under Cable. Truly, In Tom Cable, Raider Nation (... and Russell!) trust!
Defensive End seems like a position that has some considerable depth and from the Rookie abiltity shown by Richardson, the threat seen in Edwards as a pass rusher in Detroit and the possibility of Trevor Scott, Oakland may fianlly emerge from training camp with a legitimate menace opposite of Burgess.
The DTs! The soldiers within the trenches in the battle of Football where all the muck and mayhem lies! If there is one thing that is known, it is that we still need some help on the worst aspect of our team last year. We cannot hold to strong of a belief in Kelly who is coming off a season ending knee injury but nonetheless has shown himself to be a great run stopper. Warren, Sands and Joseph fall short of the phrase "RB Killas" and so what now Mr. Davis?
#21
Posted by RAIDERKC, May 3, 2008 1:30 PM
Disagree with bringing in Leftwich, he's a slug! Dilfer is ok and cap casualties will be there too. Again, we had a last place schedule and Fargas didn't run great against quality def's, so hopefully Kiffin throws the best RB out there and doesn't make McFadden take "baby steps." If there is any truth to getting that #'s cruncher from STL hopefully Al can pick up a couple more decent F/A's. He's all about the retreds and hopefully they'll work out to get us some good success in '08. '09 draft can look more to linemen, LB's and WR's.
#22
Posted by SeattleRaider, May 3, 2008 1:55 PM
Just throwing it out there KC.
I haven't followed his career too closely, wasn't sure why he fell so far from grace.
Dilfer looks like the best fit right now, let's see what falls after June 1st.
#23
Posted by LUNATIK RAIDER, May 3, 2008 4:12 PM
You got to remember that now we can rely on our corners to go man to man and not need help, also we moved Huff to FS and brought Wilson in at SS. Now what this does is allow the linebackers to do a few blitzes rather than dropping back into coverage to help out the side of the field where we were looking for the right fit at corner (Routt/Washington). Now for the DT spot I like Kelly very athletic for a big man and you have a number of others to fight for the other spot and I know out of 4 to 5 options for that spot one of them has to step up and be the starter. Now the thing to help the defense is an offense to light up the scoreboard. When other teams have to play us from behind then that means their running game goes away and passing becomes their only way of catching up which falls into our strength as pass defense. Al Davis knows what he's doing after all why would you call the Patriots a great franchise and not mention the Raiders in the same breath? Their both 3-2 in the Superbowl!!
#25
Posted by RAIDERKC, May 3, 2008 4:19 PM
Anyone heard anything else about SD having interest in Jordan? Maybe he could get Al back '09's 5th round spot. Rhodes' restructure screwed Oak more than help it. By having that release clause it prevented trading him with Washington for a 2nd rounder.
#26
Posted by Twocents, May 3, 2008 4:28 PM
If I'm not mistaken, at the end of last season we signed J. Palmer off of the Steelers practice squad, brought up Wilson off our squad and signed Seth Wand. It just makes me wonder if they are that high on Henderson.
#27
Posted by Spencer Mills, May 3, 2008 4:59 PM
First off,
If you can play MLB, then you can play OLB. The question is which OLB spot bests suits your skills. Hartwell is a run stopping MLB, so I would not put it past him to play, and play well at SLB.
While Rob makes some good points about Grady, I am too desperate for a run stopping NT to care, and would be happy with either Grady or Ted.
OakFoSho
#28
Posted by cujo, May 3, 2008 5:09 PM
Al is not a retard, that being said he has made some dumbass moves, but without this man the NFL would not be anything close to what it is today, He does not completely ignore his position coaches and I'm sure if Cable thought he had something in the kitchen Al would not have abandoned the O line like he did in the draft, Our issue this year is the same as it was last year, the D line they have brought in some backups that I think they believe they may need if warren and Kelly cant hold up all year again, the one I cant figure out is the LB corps, I think it's painfully obvious that Williams cant stay healthy for even a full month and they need to get someone to just take that position outright, I think if we can keep out d line healthy all year we have a legit shot at the playoffs THIS year, but it is something that needs to be addressed fully in next years free agency and draft.
With that said Tom Cable is a godsend to this team and Kiffin (if given a fair chance) will end up being better than Gruden was and who knows maybe our next Madden.
#29
Posted by cujo, May 3, 2008 5:14 PM
Spencer that statement is Idiotic, OLB and ILB are two completely different positions, first off ILB's are a lot bigger to fend of blockers and take out gaps while OLB's are built for speed and to blitz and shoot gaps to get into the backfield. They are two completely different built players and are NOT interchangeable.
#31
Posted by pat. T, May 3, 2008 8:13 PM
I agree we get a veteran like Grady Jackson he can play a solid 10 to 15 plays a game!
GO RAIDERS!!!
#32
Posted by Spencer Mills, May 3, 2008 9:18 PM
Cujo,
The size of the LB makes no difference. Actually, its is often system specific. Take the Raiders for instance. Kirk is a sideline to sideline MLB that uses his speed to dominate in the outside run game and the drop coverage game. Where he sometimes struggles is in between the tackles due to the fact that the Raiders have failed to find the space eating NT to take up blockers and allow Kirk to run that they have been looking for. Hopefully Sands will work out.
In the Raiders scheme, Howard plays WLB and also plays a speed game in coverage or coming off the edge, and in the flat. Where the Raiders are in need is the SLB position, and this is a run oriented LB position in the Raider scheme. This is where Hartwell comes into play. He is big and solid against the run, and thus a perfect fit.
However, it can sometimes work out in the opposite fashion, where a team plays all their speed on the edges with a solid MLB in the Hartwell mold. I will remind you the Kirk played OLB in his first season with the Raiders.
So actually, what I said was totally applicable and completely relevant to the FA pickup of Hartwell.
OakFoSho
#33
Posted by Dark Forces, May 3, 2008 9:32 PM
We're not the same front 7. We're missing Sapp, who was the best player on that line, even though he was nothing to write home about. this group is going to get steamrolled. If I was an offensive coordinator I would just run on these guys all day long until they prove they can stop somebody. Last year they proved they couldn't anyone and this year they'll be missing their best player.
#34
Posted by Spencer Mills, May 3, 2008 10:14 PM
Dark Forces,
I agree with one point you make. If I were an opposing o-coordinator I would run run run the football against the Raiders until they prove they can stop it.
However, I disagree with the Remainder of your comment. Sapp was not the Raiders best player, as he was not even the best player on the D-Line. That title belongs to Burgess. Even though he was injured for most of the season, he still drew double teams and freed up Clemons for his 8 sacks.
Also, the Raiders should be getting a healthy Kelly to replace Sapp, and he should be better than the older version of Sapp that we were treated to last season. He should also get continuously better as his knee gets stronger and stronger.
OakFoSho
#35
Posted by darren, May 4, 2008 5:23 AM
did anybody notice Rhodes was traded to Dallas for a 4th round pick and 7th round pick it says it next to his name on raiders.com under transactions I hope its true
#36
Posted by Twocents, May 4, 2008 9:20 AM
Spencer,
No doubt a healthy Kelly is an improvement over Sapp.
My question is what role does Warren play? Does he play some nose tackle or does he just spell Kelly?
Hopefully they'll keep a sharp eye on the waiver wire when cut downs begin.
#37
Posted by Mad Road Dog, May 4, 2008 10:11 AM
When you need a couple of bulldozers you do not go buy a Ferrari (DMc). We needed a LT and a run stopper to replace Sands but did not get them. This is why the Raiders have been a joke the last several years and will remain so until AD gets a clue. The war is won in the trenches first not at the skill positions. Kiffen and the rest of the football world outside the Raider organization know it.
The ZBS does wonders for the run game but is lacking when it comes to pass blocking if you do not have linemen who are athletic enough. I have watched Turnstile Harris for years and he is going to get JR hurt period.
#38
Posted by Tonio, May 4, 2008 10:37 AM
darren... that was the draft day trade...not a trade for Rhodes... he was simply released... we got nothing (but cap relief) for him:
4/27/2008 Draft Picks 4th round (104th overall) and 7th round (213th overall) picks in the 2008 Draft Traded to Dallas for a 4th round (100th overall) pick in the 2008 Draft
#39
Posted by Dark Forces, May 4, 2008 1:14 PM
Spin it any way you want. The Raiders have the weakest offensive and defensive lines in football. That #6 rushing ranking is more misleading than the #3 defense ranking the year before. It will all be clear once the season starts
#40
Posted by FLA Raider, May 4, 2008 1:48 PM
The O-line in Cable's second year will prove to be very forgiving in a lot of fronts. Especially a well rested defense as a whole. I see Kiff alreading drawing up the plays using D-Mac and Miller staying back to pass block for a second or two when a screen or a draw will become the bread and butter of our passing attack. This will set up the long game Al has been wanting back since Callahan failed to take Chuckies monster WC offence to the promised land.
#41
Posted by holloway0411, May 4, 2008 1:58 PM
the raiders did terrible in the draft.
we were already sixth in rushing. we dont need help in that department. and we just resigned fargas for the next three years...
we cant stop the run at 31st worst in the league. so heres a thought. lets draft a running back! another bush who cant run up the middle. sorry guys hes not barry sanders. watch the clips barry can break tackles...mcfadden cant break arm tackles.
then we traded a 4th (104th pick) and a 7th (213th pick) for the 100th pick (from dallas, sorry darren you got it mixed up we traded a 4th and the 7th for their pick and just released rhodes without getting anything for it). and with that pick...we get a CB only to trade one of our own (washington) for the ravens 4th pick. and then we draft a WR.
think about it guys. Washington has been with the team for 3 years. understands our defence we dont have a problem in the backfield on defence. so we trade our picks to get a CB (who doesnt know our defence and we dont really know what hes going to do) then trade our CB to get a WR later. had we kept washington a CB (we know what he can do and he knows our defence) we wouldnt have needed to trade our picks at all. then we would have been able to get the WR we wanted 15 picks earlier without giving up anything for it.
then we address the running defence problem in the 6th round by drafting a DE. hopefully our russell does good things this year. i understand that we will have an improved defence with hall as a CB (really excited) but that DT by the name of Glenn Dorsey would have been a great way of complementing our defence for years to come.
we still have a hugh gap in the DT spot. hopefully no one gets hurt on the d line. OL cant snap their fingers and be able to protect the QB. we have a new WR who likes to get injured who does not know our play book yet. hopefully everything will come together. i just dont understand how Al who has done wonders for the NFL can leave such gapping holes like he has done, when the chance to put it all together is infront of his face. we could have traded down to the jets let them take mcfadden and we could have a pretty damn good DL right now with an extra pick. Faith in Al and our cast. But right now Al from this point of view...your making it real hard to find something to like.
1-15 or 15-1 we're behind you. GO RAIDERS!
#42
Posted by Spencer Mills, May 4, 2008 3:50 PM
Twocents,
I predict Warren backing up Kelly and coming in on passing downs at the NT. Who he will be replacing at NT is still up for debate, though Ryan believes in Sands and will give him every chance to succeed.
Again, I am still looking for that FA Space Eating NT (that Patrick has been asking for since, well, forever), maybe a Ted Washington or Grady Jackson could come in a push Sands. We will see if Al has any plans in due time.
OakFoSho
#43
Posted by Spencer Mills, May 4, 2008 3:55 PM
Dark Forces,
"The Raiders have the weakest offensive [...] lines in football. That #6 rushing ranking is more misleading."
This statement tells me you do not know what it takes to be successful in the ZB scheme. Its not the biggest, strongest guys that are successful, its the fast, agile, cerebral linemen that succeed in the ZB scheme.
With a weapon like Run DMC, who's skill set fits perfectly in the ZB scheme, and a second year QB with little experience, I expect the run rank to go up into the top 5 this season. J Money will not be asked to throw the ball more than 20 time a ballgame, and if he is then there is something wrong with the play calling.
OakFoSho
#44
Posted by LUNATIK RAIDER, May 5, 2008 4:53 PM
I noticed some people here don't have a clue?? How can you say the Raiders had a bad draft? With only 5 picks how can you fill every need? You take the best athlete in the draft, but yet "The Raiders should of took Dorsey" WHAT? You mean the same dorsey that McFadden ran through like he didn't exist? Not the 6' 1" Dorsey? The one who will get swallowed by these huge Centers and Guards? Not the Dorsey who isn't tall enough to knock down a 6' 6" Russell pass? And then who said that our offensive line is weak? And that the #6 ranking in rushing is misleading? How is it misleading when we ran over everyone? Every back that started for us all had 100 yard rushing games. And yes it does have to do with the Zone Blocking scheme, so if ok backs are getting 100 yards per game rushing then what is a back like McFadden going to get? 200? 300? We'll see and I can't wait for the 2 match ups against KC so you can see why we took McFadden!!! Stick wit' cha day jobs, cause your opinions jus' shows your lack of football IQ!!
#45
Posted by holloway0411, May 5, 2008 5:04 PM
we could already run remember the number 6 catagory? so what are we going to do about the run defence? why again did we trade picks for a new CB when we already had one who has speed and the understanding of our defence? yes only five picks...yes we could have done better with them. seen tapes of mcfadden? he can only run outside and he cant break arm tackles another bush who cant run up the middle. sorry luna, hes not barry. and we dont need a 6'1" to knock down a pass we just need him to stop the run. our secondary will worry about the pass ;) i hope the other teams like throwing it to their running backs...
#46
Posted by holloway0411, May 5, 2008 5:07 PM
remember the #6 catagory? we dont need help in the running department. the 31st area is where we need help. how are we going to stop the run? and why did we trade picks to get a new CB? we already had one who is fast and understands our defence. we dont need a 6'1" DT to knock down passes. we need him to stop the run. let our secondary worry about the passes ;) i hope the other teams like to throw to their backs!
#48
Posted by LUNATIK RAIDER, May 5, 2008 7:14 PM
If you don't have an all pro type of DT what can you do to counter the other teams run game? You come out the gate with an offense that puts you ahead with points causing the other team to resort to their passing game to catch up. Look at the Oakland Offense, the thing you see is speed and skill across the field. You have Walker, Carter, higgins, McFoy, Shields, Schilens, & you might as well include McFadden cause YES he will be used as a receiver at times. The 2 things off hand that I see are recievers over 6' 0" with speed. What teams will do is put their best and fastest DB's on Walker & Curry (But most teams don't have two shut down DB's like ours) now outside of of there 2 corners where are they gonna get speed to cover our 3rd or 4th reciever? Because our speed doesn't just stop after Walker & Curry??? Then you have Zack Miller at TE (another big target) and a backfield that can be mixed and matched with backs that are above average. What can the opposing team do if the Raiders stuck Bush and Fargas in the backfield and put McFadden in the slot? Who will cover McFadden? Who is fast enough to cover McFadden? Can you picture reverses ran out of this or better yet Russell fake a hand off to Fargas and pitches it to Bush and Bush passes it to McFadden (Who will beat his man) Yes Michael Bush was a QB in high school and won the state title in that possition and also was the backup QB at Louiville. So what I'm getting to is this has the potential of being a very high powered offense that can take away a teams running threat.....
#49
Posted by holloway0411, May 5, 2008 7:28 PM
good point. if the other teams are behind then they have to play catch up...im just worried that we wont be able to get in front. sure we have the chance to score...so do they. but you sound like the saints did when they drafted bush. im not saying your wrong. i hope your right and we get it done. im just worried that we drafted in an area we dont need help in. and we ignored an area that we really do. one that truely effects our proformance. if we cant get the ball we cant score. teams will be able to control the clock. we can too...so we'll see how it goes. just like why did we draft a CB and trade a CB to get the pick to do so. i didnt know about bush. i thought he was a steal at 4th because if he didnt get hurt. he would have been drafted in the first round.
tell me...do you really think we needed to improve at the running back postion? just yes or no please. curry is not one of the best WR's in the NFL and walker isnt any good when hes hurt. and he has been for quite some time now. i hope he can stay healthly. Russell hasnt proven himself yet. he has everything to make it happen. hows his work eithic?
#50
Posted by LUNATIK RAIDER, May 6, 2008 11:22 PM
Yes, we needed to take McFadden. It kind of reminds me of the Trailblazers when they took Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan cause they already had Clyde Drexler at the 2 guard spot and their need was a Center, now what would of happened if they took Jordan and kept Drexler? They both met up in the NBA finals and I didn't see Bowie in the series? Now think about when Fargas' contract is up in three years? Instead of having to scramble to find another back to fill his spot you will have one there (McFadden) ready to step in and his contract won't be up for another 3 years after that, so that's 6 years with no worry of RB problems. Also you got to think about injuries, cause both Jordan (Back), Bush (Leg), and Fargas (Knee) had injuries and Fargas is getting to that age for a RB where careers start coming to an end. The average career life of a NFL RB is 6 years. How many has Fargas played? exactly.....
#51
Posted by holloway0411, May 7, 2008 11:52 AM
fargas is at his prime. a lot of RB's stay longer than six years. keep in mind fargas didnt have a lot of time on the field in the last six years. he still has fresh legs. your talking about an investment to help after fargas. i understand he will help now too but.. we dont know if hes another jordan. i like barry sanders...i dont know if hes like that. hes not proven. the tapes ive seen he cant breat arm tackles. i dont think he can run up the middle. and on top of all this...we already ranked 6th. so is the running back postion more of a concern then our run defense?
Top Destinations
Recent Posts
- TFDS Prayer of the Week: The Raider Nation on Thanksgiving
- Six NFL Hall of Fame Semi-finalists have Raider ties
- Oakland Raiders Week 12: Ballers and Busters
- Oakland Raiders finally offensive in big win over the Denver Broncos
- Raiders mile high over Broncos in win
- TFDS Live Game Blog - Raiders at Broncos
More raiders Posts
Division Rivals
Regional Teams
Leave a comment