The Raider fans comments on that crack me up.Halvo said:
NFL Network is reporting the starting quarterback will be a game time decision. McCown said he expects to play.The Raider fans comments on that crack me up.
If money were really the issue, I would think that Culpepper would have opened the season as the starter. $3.2 million isn't chump change, but probably not enough to sway the decision. The team benched Porter for the entire season last year despite his big contract.Russell may be a different story if/when he's ready, but for now, outside of injuries, one would have to think that the better QB of McNown or Culpepper will play.Daunte Culpepper will start on Sunday. Josh McCown is listed as doubtful.McCown has practiced the past two days, but Culpepper is more healthy and upper management may have been pushing for Daunte to start considering all the money he's already been guaranteed. We'd still avoid using Raiders quarterbacks whenever possible, especially against Denver's secondary. Sep. 14 - 5:27 pm etSource: Oakland Tribune
Poorly.How did McCown play the whole game?
HAHA. I think my question wasn't very clear. Obviously he played bad... I am assuming the injury may have had something to do with that and I'm wondering why the Raiders let him play the whole game and I'm also wondering how badly those 3 int's cost them?Poorly.How did McCown play the whole game?
You know what cost them? He missed on a pass to Porter that would have ended the game.I hope we see Culpepper sooner rather than later, but I am kind of wondering who people will be calling for if he starts in with the fumbles? Russell? Cripes, we'll be down to Andrew Walter by Thanskgiving.HAHA. I think my question wasn't very clear. Obviously he played bad... I am assuming the injury may have had something to do with that and I'm wondering why the Raiders let him play the whole game and I'm also wondering how badly those 3 int's cost them?Poorly.How did McCown play the whole game?
I think McCown is serviceable but why start him with the injury and more than that why leave him in there when he struggled so badly... but I didn't see the game. I still can't imagine anyone even looking remotely effective with 76 yds and 3 ints though.You know what cost them? He missed on a pass to Porter that would have ended the game.I hope we see Culpepper sooner rather than later, but I am kind of wondering who people will be calling for if he starts in with the fumbles? Russell? Cripes, we'll be down to Andrew Walter by Thanskgiving.HAHA. I think my question wasn't very clear. Obviously he played bad... I am assuming the injury may have had something to do with that and I'm wondering why the Raiders let him play the whole game and I'm also wondering how badly those 3 int's cost them?Poorly.How did McCown play the whole game?
And 46 of the 76 was on 1 play. McCown missed a wide open Porter for a long TD in overtime - that one might've hurt more than any of the INTs. Culpepper might get his chance next week. Had the Raiders won the game, it would've been tough to sit McCown after beating the Broncos no matter how he performed... the unfortunate loss might give Cpepp his chance.I still can't imagine anyone even looking remotely effective with 76 yds and 3 ints though.
Perhaps the fact that he got the team into OT in a tough road venue, all while banged up, will count for something in Kiffin's eyes. We'll see.I didn't see the game, but I'm more baffled as to how they got the game into OT with those kind of passing stats. Looks like yeoman's work by Jordan, and that the DEF is for real.And 46 of the 76 was on 1 play. McCown missed a wide open Porter for a long TD in overtime - that one might've hurt more than any of the INTs. Culpepper might get his chance next week. Had the Raiders won the game, it would've been tough to sit McCown after beating the Broncos no matter how he performed... the unfortunate loss might give Cpepp his chance.I still can't imagine anyone even looking remotely effective with 76 yds and 3 ints though.
Raiders couldn't have been any worse off with Culpepper in there. Most QBs int he league would've connected with Porter on the bomb in OT.Raiders scored on long pass play, a 44 yd INT return, a saftey and a FG. Not many drives to produce these points. Jordan at least helped keep Denver's offense off the field a bit. Oddly enough (if you didn't know), Raiders kicked a 52 yd FG in OT that was called back cause Broncos called a timeout last second. All the players on the field thought the game was over. The re-kick hit the upright (I think it had the length to hit from 70 - was 1 foot away from clearing the top of the uprights). Could've been a big boost for the Raiders had they won.zamboni said:Perhaps the fact that he got the team into OT in a tough road venue, all while banged up, will count for something in Kiffin's eyes. We'll see.I didn't see the game, but I'm more baffled as to how they got the game into OT with those kind of passing stats. Looks like yeoman's work by Jordan, and that the DEF is for real.murzman said:And 46 of the 76 was on 1 play. McCown missed a wide open Porter for a long TD in overtime - that one might've hurt more than any of the INTs. Culpepper might get his chance next week. Had the Raiders won the game, it would've been tough to sit McCown after beating the Broncos no matter how he performed... the unfortunate loss might give Cpepp his chance.I still can't imagine anyone even looking remotely effective with 76 yds and 3 ints though.
Care to explain how 8/16 for 73yds, 1TD & 3 INTs qualifies for getting his team into OT? I never understood why QBs get credit for other players playing well, even when the QBs don't.zamboni said:Perhaps the fact that he got the team into OT in a tough road venue, all while banged up, will count for something in Kiffin's eyes. We'll see.I didn't see the game, but I'm more baffled as to how they got the game into OT with those kind of passing stats. Looks like yeoman's work by Jordan, and that the DEF is for real.murzman said:And 46 of the 76 was on 1 play. McCown missed a wide open Porter for a long TD in overtime - that one might've hurt more than any of the INTs. Culpepper might get his chance next week. Had the Raiders won the game, it would've been tough to sit McCown after beating the Broncos no matter how he performed... the unfortunate loss might give Cpepp his chance.I still can't imagine anyone even looking remotely effective with 76 yds and 3 ints though.
By not throwing a fourth INT?Care to explain how 8/16 for 73yds, 1TD & 3 INTs qualifies for getting his team into OT? I never understood why QBs get credit for other players playing well, even when the QBs don't.zamboni said:Perhaps the fact that he got the team into OT in a tough road venue, all while banged up, will count for something in Kiffin's eyes. We'll see.I didn't see the game, but I'm more baffled as to how they got the game into OT with those kind of passing stats. Looks like yeoman's work by Jordan, and that the DEF is for real.murzman said:And 46 of the 76 was on 1 play. McCown missed a wide open Porter for a long TD in overtime - that one might've hurt more than any of the INTs. Culpepper might get his chance next week. Had the Raiders won the game, it would've been tough to sit McCown after beating the Broncos no matter how he performed... the unfortunate loss might give Cpepp his chance.I still can't imagine anyone even looking remotely effective with 76 yds and 3 ints though.