What I meant was they had the physical talent to produce rushing yards, I wasn't at all implying that the horrible coaching staff had any intention of letting it happen, my point is now they CAN'T run the ball, which is a far cry from FAILING to run the ball.
PING72
offline
offline
Originally posted by EatDaBeaver
What I meant was they had the physical talent to produce rushing yards, I wasn't at all implying that the horrible coaching staff had any intention of letting it happen, my point is now they CAN'T run the ball, which is a far cry from FAILING to run the ball.
First, I think they didn't run the ball last year b/c they couldn't run the ball, especially early in the season when most of our OL was injured.
I actually think we could easily be better at running the ball this year. First, a healthy and matured OL will help (we had some young guys out there). Second, we still have Sproles, and in LT we really only need to replace 730 yards and 3.3 yards/carry. Even a rookie is capable of that.
Finally, I think the dropoff w/o LT is less in the rushing category (he looked pretty good a few games, but in several others he just looked old), but the pass blocking category. If Matthews can't get it done as well, we might actually run even more.
What I meant was they had the physical talent to produce rushing yards, I wasn't at all implying that the horrible coaching staff had any intention of letting it happen, my point is now they CAN'T run the ball, which is a far cry from FAILING to run the ball.
First, I think they didn't run the ball last year b/c they couldn't run the ball, especially early in the season when most of our OL was injured.
I actually think we could easily be better at running the ball this year. First, a healthy and matured OL will help (we had some young guys out there). Second, we still have Sproles, and in LT we really only need to replace 730 yards and 3.3 yards/carry. Even a rookie is capable of that.
Finally, I think the dropoff w/o LT is less in the rushing category (he looked pretty good a few games, but in several others he just looked old), but the pass blocking category. If Matthews can't get it done as well, we might actually run even more.
PING72
offline
offline
Originally posted by EatDaBeaver
All good points, just not how I see it.
LOL, fair enough.
All good points, just not how I see it.
LOL, fair enough.
#1, it ain't Art Shell that's the problem with the Raiders... it's Al Davis. Don't get me wrong... the guy did wonders for the team for years but now he's become inept at being a owner... can't keep himself from killing off coaches... has no patience to at least give things a chance to work... thinks he can spend/dratf next seasons' superbowl winner... lacks long term commitment and vision and has very archaic thoughts on "what" makes a good football team. I've followed the Raiders since George Blanda wore a silver and black helmet and I don't bash my boys lightly. I'd love to see Al let the team go... maybe not as an owner, but as someone that turns the opperations over to others and DOESN'T meddle in what they do. Give them 3 years to make it work. The great Bill Parcells took about 3 years with every team he led to the playoffs. And Sean Peyton sure didn't go superbowling his first season as a head coach.
#2, I agree with you about the talent of the Raiders. But I also agree with the assessment of the entire division. There's nothing good here folks... move on. The Chiefs, Chargers, Broncos, and Raiders will not be serious contenders even IF one of them manages to stumble into the playoffs. At least the Cheaps...er, Chiefs are looking like they're moving in the right direction. (God... I hate to say that.)
#3, For the sake of DTD, I'm gonna bet here he suffered for many years as the "Ain't's" wallowed in the cellar of every season (A place Detroit is getting comfy with) and now can have something to cheer about. Teams DO find a way... mostly... sometimes... eventually... and the Raiders WILL find their way someday. Just not this year. But I'll still root for them no matter what.
#2, I agree with you about the talent of the Raiders. But I also agree with the assessment of the entire division. There's nothing good here folks... move on. The Chiefs, Chargers, Broncos, and Raiders will not be serious contenders even IF one of them manages to stumble into the playoffs. At least the Cheaps...er, Chiefs are looking like they're moving in the right direction. (God... I hate to say that.)
#3, For the sake of DTD, I'm gonna bet here he suffered for many years as the "Ain't's" wallowed in the cellar of every season (A place Detroit is getting comfy with) and now can have something to cheer about. Teams DO find a way... mostly... sometimes... eventually... and the Raiders WILL find their way someday. Just not this year. But I'll still root for them no matter what.
Edited by Theo Wizzago on May 4, 2010 21:38:28
vrecksler
offline
offline
Originally posted by droopy5069
People have been saying the raiders have been on the rise since they drafted Jamarcus Russell...now they have Jason Campbell, an equally as shitty QB.
I don't know what planet you live on, but no way is Campbell comparable to Russell. Russell is THE worst QB by far...maybe ever. As far as QB busts go he will eventually suplant Ryan Leaf at the top of the list, and to ignore what Campbell has done is just plain stupid.
I am not saying Campbell is great, I am only pointing out that if you classify him as a shitty QB -- this is a career 82.3 QB rating and 61.2% completion keep in mind -- then you have to come up with a much worse derogatory name for the level that Russell, and his career 65.2 rating and 52.1% completion would be at...because those stats are beyond shitty.
People have been saying the raiders have been on the rise since they drafted Jamarcus Russell...now they have Jason Campbell, an equally as shitty QB.
I don't know what planet you live on, but no way is Campbell comparable to Russell. Russell is THE worst QB by far...maybe ever. As far as QB busts go he will eventually suplant Ryan Leaf at the top of the list, and to ignore what Campbell has done is just plain stupid.
I am not saying Campbell is great, I am only pointing out that if you classify him as a shitty QB -- this is a career 82.3 QB rating and 61.2% completion keep in mind -- then you have to come up with a much worse derogatory name for the level that Russell, and his career 65.2 rating and 52.1% completion would be at...because those stats are beyond shitty.
Edited by vrecksler on May 5, 2010 00:08:44
droopy5069
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
#1, it ain't Art Shell that's the problem with the Raiders... it's Al Davis.
LOL, I can't believe I said Art Shell! I meant Al Davis. I really need to stop drinking and posting in forums
#1, it ain't Art Shell that's the problem with the Raiders... it's Al Davis.
LOL, I can't believe I said Art Shell! I meant Al Davis. I really need to stop drinking and posting in forums
droopy5069
offline
offline
Originally posted by vrecksler
I don't know what planet you live on, but no way is Campbell comparable to Russell. Russell is THE worst QB by far...maybe ever. As far as QB busts go he will eventually suplant Ryan Leaf at the top of the list, and to ignore what Campbell has done is just plain stupid.
I am not saying Campbell is great, I am only pointing out that if you classify him as a shitty QB -- this is a career 82.3 QB rating and 61.2% completion keep in mind -- then you have to come up with a much worse derogatory name for the level that Russell, and his career 65.2 rating and 52.1% completion would be at...because those stats are beyond shitty.
Keep in mind Campbell had Clinton Portis at RB, a decent O-line, plus decent WRs and one of the best TEs in the league... of course his stats are better than Russell. 6 months from now, you will be saying I was right
I don't know what planet you live on, but no way is Campbell comparable to Russell. Russell is THE worst QB by far...maybe ever. As far as QB busts go he will eventually suplant Ryan Leaf at the top of the list, and to ignore what Campbell has done is just plain stupid.
I am not saying Campbell is great, I am only pointing out that if you classify him as a shitty QB -- this is a career 82.3 QB rating and 61.2% completion keep in mind -- then you have to come up with a much worse derogatory name for the level that Russell, and his career 65.2 rating and 52.1% completion would be at...because those stats are beyond shitty.
Keep in mind Campbell had Clinton Portis at RB, a decent O-line, plus decent WRs and one of the best TEs in the league... of course his stats are better than Russell. 6 months from now, you will be saying I was right
PING72
offline
offline
Ryan Leaf had a 48.1% and a 50.0 QB Rating. He was MUCH worse! In the 25 games he started, he had more TD's than INT's only THREE of them. As a starter he was 4-17.
JaMarcus actually had a few decent moments.
JaMarcus actually had a few decent moments.
EatDaBeaver
offline
offline
Yes, he had an aged and injured RB...
Crappy WRs, Santana Moss and Randel El wouldn't even start on most teams.
and I'll agree his stats are better because of Cooley, but hes a far cry from the best TE.
Crappy WRs, Santana Moss and Randel El wouldn't even start on most teams.
and I'll agree his stats are better because of Cooley, but hes a far cry from the best TE.
droopy5069
offline
offline
Originally posted by EatDaBeaver
Yes, he had an aged and injured RB...
Crappy WRs, Santana Moss and Randel El wouldn't even start on most teams.
and I'll agree his stats are better because of Cooley, but hes a far cry from the best TE.
Even though Moss is an aging WR, he is still far better than anything the Raiders have.
Also, Cooley had the most receptions in the league among TEs this past season before he got placed on IR. I agree he is not THE best, but he is a pro-bowl caliber TE.
Yes, he had an aged and injured RB...
Crappy WRs, Santana Moss and Randel El wouldn't even start on most teams.
and I'll agree his stats are better because of Cooley, but hes a far cry from the best TE.
Even though Moss is an aging WR, he is still far better than anything the Raiders have.
Also, Cooley had the most receptions in the league among TEs this past season before he got placed on IR. I agree he is not THE best, but he is a pro-bowl caliber TE.
EatDaBeaver
offline
offline
Yah, maybe he'd make the pro-bowl because the NFC sucks... but as far as being the best I think not... he is very good though.
Wrong?
Moss is crap...
plus, he going to be playing in the worst division in football this season.... so his stats will likely be better
Remember Cambel went a very long time before throwing his first pick (then he played an AFC team and got owned, of course) and the raiders could really just use a QB who doesn't end the drive for them every time he touches the ball.
Cambel will be a good match for the raiders I think, his limited passing abilities should promote a rush heavy offense, which should prevail in their pathetic division.
Wrong?
Moss is crap...
plus, he going to be playing in the worst division in football this season.... so his stats will likely be better
Remember Cambel went a very long time before throwing his first pick (then he played an AFC team and got owned, of course) and the raiders could really just use a QB who doesn't end the drive for them every time he touches the ball.
Cambel will be a good match for the raiders I think, his limited passing abilities should promote a rush heavy offense, which should prevail in their pathetic division.
droopy5069
offline
offline
Originally posted by EatDaBeaver
Cambel will be a good match for the raiders I think, his limited passing abilities should promote a rush heavy offense, which should prevail in their pathetic division.
If I do recall, the raiders have been rush-heavy for the last 5 years or so...Raiders will be 3rd in their division at best, but probably still dead last
Cambel will be a good match for the raiders I think, his limited passing abilities should promote a rush heavy offense, which should prevail in their pathetic division.
If I do recall, the raiders have been rush-heavy for the last 5 years or so...Raiders will be 3rd in their division at best, but probably still dead last
EatDaBeaver
offline
offline
Originally posted by droopy5069
If I do recall, the raiders have been rush-heavy for the last 5 years or so...Raiders will be 3rd in their division at best, but probably still dead last
I said it should "promote" it, not that it wasn't already in that condition. Besides, its no a rush-heavy offense just because every other pass play you call ends up being a rush because the QB dribbles the snap and runs in circles in the backfield. LOLJROCK!
If I do recall, the raiders have been rush-heavy for the last 5 years or so...Raiders will be 3rd in their division at best, but probably still dead last
I said it should "promote" it, not that it wasn't already in that condition. Besides, its no a rush-heavy offense just because every other pass play you call ends up being a rush because the QB dribbles the snap and runs in circles in the backfield. LOLJROCK!
vrecksler
offline
offline
Originally posted by droopy5069
Keep in mind Campbell had Clinton Portis at RB, a decent O-line, plus decent WRs and one of the best TEs in the league... of course his stats are better than Russell. 6 months from now, you will be saying I was right
True, but how do you explain Bruce Gradkoswki's success with the same personnel group that Russell had? Bruce had over 80 QB rating with 54% completions. And Bruce was a 6th rounder.
Keep in mind Campbell had Clinton Portis at RB, a decent O-line, plus decent WRs and one of the best TEs in the league... of course his stats are better than Russell. 6 months from now, you will be saying I was right
True, but how do you explain Bruce Gradkoswki's success with the same personnel group that Russell had? Bruce had over 80 QB rating with 54% completions. And Bruce was a 6th rounder.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
