Am I crazy to think that the Raiders could be good in 2007? (1 Viewer)

[TheDirtyWord]

The Ugly In 2006

Art Shell - The man hadn't been on a football sideline in years. Was overmatched by the press conference announcing his hire. Bill Simmons rejoices.

Tom Walsh - In an attempt to camoflauge his lack of recent coaching experience, Shell hires Walsh who had been away from the sport for close to 10 years to run his offense.

Aaron Brooks - In a situation where the coaching staff was going to have difficulty earning the respect of the team and the right to lead them, the front office determined that to complete the lack of leadership trifecta, they'd bring in perhaps the most uninspiring person in North America to be the QB.

Randy Moss - The man was disinterested even by his own standards by the draft. Showed up to training camp practically smoking a joint.

Jerry Porter - While certainly not a chior boy, the saga that dragged on all year starting during the min-camps crippled whatever remainder of a passing game the Raiders could muster.

The Bad in 2006

Offensive Line - Oakland QB's were sacked 72 times in 2006. At one point in the season, the Raiders simply had to remove the deep passing game from their playbook reducing it to the size of an index card. They make the Bad list only because they seemed to making an effort and showed emotions more resembling disappointment rather than disinterest.

The Good in 2006

That Defense! - They were 3rd in the NFL in overall defense. This was despite having to be on the field an average of 31:46/game. Of the top 13 ranked defensive teams in overall yards, The Raiders were the only one operating from a Time of Possession disadvantage.

Bottomline: In players like Howard, Huff, Asomugha, Routt, Washington, Morrison, Burgess - the Raiders have an extremely solid nucleus of young players to build around.

Hope for 2007

1) Aaron Brooks is long gone. I know Andrew Walter actually wound up playing more QB for the Raiders in 2006 - but you simply hoped he survived. The Raiders can't help but be better at this position.

2) Lane Kiffin was obviously a bit of a stretch as an HC hire, but he can at least claim to have been part of a football organization in recent times. Plus, he won't be viewed as a tired coaching retread type hire. Shell was an uninspriing choice out of that lot.

3) While as a Falcon fan, I'm not the biggest proponent of Greg Knapp - he's an NFL Coordinator and should be able to bring the Raiders offense out of the dark ages. HIs dependence on the run game should make better use of Lamont Jordan & Dominic Rhodes.

4) The cancers that are Jerry Porter and Randy Moss should be either a) no longer with the organization or b) neutralized to a large extent.

5) They have the #1 pick. They could potentially pick the best WR prospect to ever come along (more on that below).

6) Of the 9 teams picking at the top of the draft, the Raiders will be playing 5 of them (Lions, Browns, Dolphins, Vikings, Texans). Unfortunately they don't get to play themselves, but that means 5 of the top 8 as far as their concerned.

The #1 Pick

Alot of folks have the Raiders picking Russell. But I think by the end of this draft process - they'll have settled on Calvin Johnson. What I think the post season workouts have done is spotlighted just hnow elite a prospect Johnson is. Russell certainly is a fine prospect, but Johnson is emerging potentially as the best prospect the position has ever produced. I know it's just a drill/test, but when Gil Brandt says "I don't know if I've ever seen someone eclipse 11 feet" and Johnson broad jumped 11'7...you are talking about rare athletic ability. But that's a small component. Johnson simply is a LB with CB speed and small forward hops playing WR.

But that leaves a hole at QB. Again, this is completely speculative but why not re-unite Schaub/Knapp. Give up a 2nd rounder (and a Day 1 pick in 2008). Knapp/Schaub already have a working relationship. You can probably get Schaub for relatively cheap by QB payscale standards. I know recent rumors have Moss to Green Bay for Rodgers and this wouldn't be a bad move either. But there is no doubt, the Raiders should have a much better direction at the QB position by September than they did in 2006.

Summary

I'm not predicting play-offs here. But I'd be surprised if they Raiders were a joke in 2007. I could even foresee them putting together a 7-8 win season. So am I crazy...? Am I seeing things I shouldn't be...?

 

[BigTex]

I think they can be very good.

They have a new choach but the same owner .

8-8

 

[Loan Sharks]

Yes you are crazy

 

[cscmtp]

you are nuttier than Chinese chicken.

 

[Biabreakable]

The defense played very well all things considered. That in itself is really amazing.

In 2007 I expect the Raiders to learn to run the ball and give thier defense a lot more rest. That in itself could lead to 4 wins.

Who will be the Qb and will the Oline improve are the biggest questions that need to be answered with this team. There may still be some growing pains ahead. I think most of this hinges on the Oline. Better play calling can help but the Oline still needs to execute. Will the Raiders be using a zone blocking scheme this year? Asking the question I don't know. What they do with the Oline is going to be the biggest factor in how much they improve imo.

I also think the Raiders will take Calvin Johnson. He is the best player in the draft period. And Al has shown great love for fast players for decades. The bonus here is this guy is actualy a football player not just a athlete.

I think trading pick 33 for Shuab is asking too much. I do not see the Raiders doing that. They need Oline help and if they are changing blocking schemes that could mean adding as many as 4 new linemen. If nothing else I could see them giving Walter another shot with a smarter coaching staff and improved blocking and see what happens. Or they could be looking at a later round Qb.

Trading for Shuab might be a good idea for them if they want him however I don't think they will pay that high a price for him. Maybe thier 3rd round pick? Or perhaps a different Qb.

 

[greenroom]

The Ugly In 2006

Randy Moss - The man was disinterested even by his own standards by the draft. Showed up to training camp practically smoking a joint.

Jerry Porter - While certainly not a chior boy, the saga that dragged on all year starting during the min-camps crippled whatever remainder of a passing game the Raiders could muster.

The Bad in 2006

4) The cancers that are Jerry Porter and Randy Moss should be either a) no longer with the organization or b) neutralized to a large extent.

Well I disagree with you on the Porter issue. To me Porter issue was more on Shells part. He came in and made him the example of how he was going "to change" things in Oakland. Porter from what I have heard has been nothing but solid since Shell has left. So he is not going any where. IF the Raiders trade Moss then yes I think that Calvin is the pick, but if Moss is still in Oakland then it has to be Russell. But I do think the Raiders will be better. They cannot be any worse than they were last year

 

[Traders2001]

They have no running game, that is why their passing aint working.

And it s not the addition of Rhodes combined with the totally worthless Jordan that will make this change.

I see a 6 - 10 season not bad considering the lack of talent with the Raiders.

I would still pick Peterson at 1.

 

[Sabertooth]

Well, I came in here a hater and you converted me with that well-reasoned post TDW. They will certainly be on my radar as the offseason progresses. QB is obviously the big question mark.

 

[Jiggyonthehut]

And with the 1st pick of the Second Round of the NFL Draft, the Oakland Raiders select.....

Drew Stanton, Quarterback, Michigan State University.



(This would be the start of a great season, assuming they grabbed CJ with overall pick #1)

 

[dlptown]

I am local and think they may be the turnaround team of the coming season- equivalent of the 49ers this year. I think it is a toss-up on who they draft, but it is understood that they were very impressed with Russell's arm. Walter is horrible but I actually don't mind Brooks provided they allow him to scramble. Porter is a Pro-Bowl caliber player when he wants to be and they still have speed on the outside. Newberry will help a lot if he can stay on the field and Kiffin is certain to keep the offense on the field which will only make their D better. The problem remains that Denver seems to be getting better and SD still has Tomlinson.

I guess I can only hope that when I go to the games next year that they can actually score a touchdown. And Knapp is pretty good and should help a lot, regardless of the criticism he gets.

 

[Raiders37]

The Ugly In 2006

Randy Moss - The man was disinterested even by his own standards by the draft. Showed up to training camp practically smoking a joint.

Jerry Porter - While certainly not a chior boy, the saga that dragged on all year starting during the min-camps crippled whatever remainder of a passing game the Raiders could muster.

The Bad in 2006

4) The cancers that are Jerry Porter and Randy Moss should be either a) no longer with the organization or b) neutralized to a large extent.

Well I disagree with you on the Porter issue. To me Porter issue was more on Shells part. He came in and made him the example of how he was going "to change" things in Oakland. Porter from what I have heard has been nothing but solid since Shell has left. So he is not going any where. IF the Raiders trade Moss then yes I think that Calvin is the pick, but if Moss is still in Oakland then it has to be Russell. But I do think the Raiders will be better. They cannot be any worse than they were last year

I also disagree with the Porter part. Mostly because of the interview he did with Fox that was on Sirius earlier this month. I didn't hear it, but read massraider's post in another thread as well as the Link at Foxsports.In the interview, he really sounds like he is back on track and very optimistic about this year. I was impressed. What a turn around after the mess last year.

JMO...

 

[Iron Mike Tomczak]

If you believe the Raiders will be good next year, I believe its time to replace that bucket around your neck which captures your drool. Its ok everyone is special.

 

[slayer666]

You made a lot of legitimate excuses for the Oakland Raiders poor performance in 2006, but what about the three previous seasons? It's not like they just started sucking. The team is 15-49 overall and 2-22 in the AFC West over the past four seasons.

 

[cstu]

And with the 1st pick of the Second Round of the NFL Draft, the Oakland Raiders select.....Drew Stanton, Quarterback, Michigan State University. (This would be the start of a great season, assuming they grabbed CJ with overall pick #1)

CJ and Stanton would be great picks. I think it would be tempting to trade their 2nd for Schaub, but the contract he'd want would probably be a deal-breaker.

 

[Chaz]

If you believe the Raiders will be good next year, I believe its time to replace that bucket around your neck which captures your drool. Its ok everyone is special.

This could have been said about any 49er or Jets supporter last season. Now, I'm not a Raider believer by any means...however, we have seen what can happen in the NFL. The only surprise will be when there are no surprises.

 

[Byron_nyc]

Anne Heche crazy. Martin Lawrence crazy. Michael Jackson crazy.

Al Davis will still be there.

 

[msommer]

They'll probably win four or five games. Maybe even one in the division...

 

[Iron Mike Tomczak]

If you believe the Raiders will be good next year, I believe its time to replace that bucket around your neck which captures your drool. Its ok everyone is special.

This could have been said about any 49er or Jets supporter last season. Now, I'm not a Raider believer by any means...however, we have seen what can happen in the NFL. The only surprise will be when there are no surprises.

First off, the Jets ARE NOT the Raiders. Much better team, youre comparing Apples and Oranges here. SanFran is I guess more comparable, but to call them good last year is a stupid statement, how about less bad. ( though 7-9 in the NFC I guess is good). The bottom line is neither of those teams are being run by an aging althiemers(sp?) owner who is one foot in the grave. I agree that in the NFL unpredictable events occur, but there isn't much hope in Oakland. Many teams have been making strides, such as AZ and SF, but the NFL isnt a league where you all of a sudden become excellent. Will the Raiders be less bad in 2007, arguable. Will they be good....Nope. Edit: 7-9 record, which would be amazing for Oak. to achieve in 2007 will not cut it in the AFC, so 7-9 can't even be considered Good in AFC standards. I think OAK will be less bad, since they couldn't possibly be worse than 2-14 in 2006.

 

[The Duff Man]

They will be better, but saying they will be good is a stretch. How much better they will be will come down to the Oline. When your Oline is as bad as theirs was you will have no offense, regardless of the other players on the field. They actually lost Walker too....whoever their QB is this year could be in big trouble.

After Johnson their next two picks should be to boost the line. The Jets spent two picks on the Oline last year and it made a big difference, probably more so this year with a year under their belt.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

I hope they are. I like when the Raiders are in the mix, and they've absolutely sucked since they won the AFC Championship Game.

Their defense is top notch.

Their O-line are a bunch of underachievers.

Their WRs all have mega-attitude problems.

Their owner needs his Depends changed. They're starting to stain his white vinyl pants.

 

[Silver & Black]

I like the moves that Oakland has made this offseason and am cautiously optimistic that they can be a competeitive, if not good team in 2007.

The biggest problem is the O-Line. I watched Oakland's first 6 games last year since that was all I could stomach. And I don't care if we had LT and Manning, Oakland still would have sucked. The O-line was like a revolving door and neither Brooks nor Jordan really ever had a chance to do anything early on.

I don't know what is going on with Gallery, but I hope he come out and plays with a chip on his shoulder this year. Oakland has to go out and get help on the line if they have any chance to succeed this year. Regardless of who they draft at the #1 spot.

I have to assume that even the ancient Al Davis knows this and has some semblance of a plan to address the needs on the line.

That being said, I freaking love the Raider's defense. They are young and fast and are going to be a force to be reckoned with, again, in 2007.

If Oakland can get the line to respectability, Oakland can surprise in 2007. If not, its going to be more of the same, IMO.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The Ugly In 2006

Art Shell - The man hadn't been on a football sideline in years. Was overmatched by the press conference announcing his hire. Bill Simmons rejoices.

Tom Walsh - In an attempt to camoflauge his lack of recent coaching experience, Shell hires Walsh who had been away from the sport for close to 10 years to run his offense.

Aaron Brooks - In a situation where the coaching staff was going to have difficulty earning the respect of the team and the right to lead them, the front office determined that to complete the lack of leadership trifecta, they'd bring in perhaps the most uninspiring person in North America to be the QB.

Randy Moss - The man was disinterested even by his own standards by the draft. Showed up to training camp practically smoking a joint.

Jerry Porter - While certainly not a chior boy, the saga that dragged on all year starting during the min-camps crippled whatever remainder of a passing game the Raiders could muster.

The Bad in 2006

Offensive Line - Oakland QB's were sacked 72 times in 2006. At one point in the season, the Raiders simply had to remove the deep passing game from their playbook reducing it to the size of an index card. They make the Bad list only because they seemed to making an effort and showed emotions more resembling disappointment rather than disinterest.

The Good in 2006

That Defense! - They were 3rd in the NFL in overall defense. This was despite having to be on the field an average of 31:46/game. Of the top 13 ranked defensive teams in overall yards, The Raiders were the only one operating from a Time of Possession disadvantage.

Bottomline: In players like Howard, Huff, Asomugha, Routt, Washington, Morrison, Burgess - the Raiders have an extremely solid nucleus of young players to build around.

Hope for 2007

1) Aaron Brooks is long gone. I know Andrew Walter actually wound up playing more QB for the Raiders in 2006 - but you simply hoped he survived. The Raiders can't help but be better at this position.

2) Lane Kiffin was obviously a bit of a stretch as an HC hire, but he can at least claim to have been part of a football organization in recent times. Plus, he won't be viewed as a tired coaching retread type hire. Shell was an uninspriing choice out of that lot.

3) While as a Falcon fan, I'm not the biggest proponent of Greg Knapp - he's an NFL Coordinator and should be able to bring the Raiders offense out of the dark ages. HIs dependence on the run game should make better use of Lamont Jordan & Dominic Rhodes.

4) The cancers that are Jerry Porter and Randy Moss should be either a) no longer with the organization or b) neutralized to a large extent.

5) They have the #1 pick. They could potentially pick the best WR prospect to ever come along (more on that below).

6) Of the 9 teams picking at the top of the draft, the Raiders will be playing 5 of them (Lions, Browns, Dolphins, Vikings, Texans). Unfortunately they don't get to play themselves, but that means 5 of the top 8 as far as their concerned.

The #1 Pick

Alot of folks have the Raiders picking Russell. But I think by the end of this draft process - they'll have settled on Calvin Johnson. What I think the post season workouts have done is spotlighted just hnow elite a prospect Johnson is. Russell certainly is a fine prospect, but Johnson is emerging potentially as the best prospect the position has ever produced. I know it's just a drill/test, but when Gil Brandt says "I don't know if I've ever seen someone eclipse 11 feet" and Johnson broad jumped 11'7...you are talking about rare athletic ability. But that's a small component. Johnson simply is a LB with CB speed and small forward hops playing WR.

But that leaves a hole at QB. Again, this is completely speculative but why not re-unite Schaub/Knapp. Give up a 2nd rounder (and a Day 1 pick in 2008). Knapp/Schaub already have a working relationship. You can probably get Schaub for relatively cheap by QB payscale standards. I know recent rumors have Moss to Green Bay for Rodgers and this wouldn't be a bad move either. But there is no doubt, the Raiders should have a much better direction at the QB position by September than they did in 2006.

Summary

I'm not predicting play-offs here. But I'd be surprised if they Raiders were a joke in 2007. I could even foresee them putting together a 7-8 win season. So am I crazy...? Am I seeing things I shouldn't be...?

Teams can flip a lot from year to year so no it is not crazy. If Moss is still on the team, I would draft Thomas and start getting that line in order

 

[BAT1man]

Improved?

Yes.

Very good?

No Way!

They probably won't even win one game in division. (0-6)

 

[renesauz]

I came in to this thread ready to post lots of , but the first post was well thought out, and well laid out. At the end, he suggested that it wasn't a huge stretch to think the Raiders could get back to being a .500 ballclub.

I disagree, but for only one reason. Most of his arguments were pretty sound.

That one reason is the defense. While all the attention is focused on the offense, and how to improve it, I don't think that defense is anywhere close to what the numbers would lead one to believe. When an offense is as pathetic as the Raiders were last year, opposing offenses can go vanilla, and very conservative. When 14 points is almost certain to be enough to win as long as you make no significant mistakes on offense, then you play a little bit different.

I'm not saying the Raiders defense is bad, mind you, just not as good as suggested.

I would suggest that the Raiders offense will indeed become more competitive, the defense will appear to regress a little (although really just staying the same), and the Raiders will end up being a more competitive, but still losing team. 5-6 wins seems about right to me right now. (It's a bit early for a strong opinion.) 7 max, unless something unusual changes.

 

[Raiders37]

I came in to this thread ready to post lots of , but the first post was well thought out, and well laid out. At the end, he suggested that it wasn't a huge stretch to think the Raiders could get back to being a .500 ballclub.

I disagree, but for only one reason. Most of his arguments were pretty sound.

That one reason is the defense. While all the attention is focused on the offense, and how to improve it, I don't think that defense is anywhere close to what the numbers would lead one to believe. When an offense is as pathetic as the Raiders were last year, opposing offenses can go vanilla, and very conservative. When 14 points is almost certain to be enough to win as long as you make no significant mistakes on offense, then you play a little bit different.

I'm not saying the Raiders defense is bad, mind you, just not as good as suggested.

I would suggest that the Raiders offense will indeed become more competitive, the defense will appear to regress a little (although really just staying the same), and the Raiders will end up being a more competitive, but still losing team. 5-6 wins seems about right to me right now. (It's a bit early for a strong opinion.) 7 max, unless something unusual changes.

This is something I hadn't really thought about too much: the way an opposing offense might lay off when the other team's offense really (really!) sucks.

I do still believe that the Raiders D was (and still will be) pretty darn good. IMO, tho, the AFC West has always been one of the toughest divisions in the NFL. 6 of our games are played in it (use to be 8 when Seattle was still here!). We have always played these teams hard (well, most always ), and with those teams, I don't think that any of them would take the Raiders too lightly, even their crappy offense.

While I don't expect them to make playoffs this year, I don't think a .500 season is unrealistic either. They might not be great this year, but, IMO, they will be better. Good God, they surely couldn't be much worse!

JMO......

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I came in to this thread ready to post lots of , but the first post was well thought out, and well laid out. At the end, he suggested that it wasn't a huge stretch to think the Raiders could get back to being a .500 ballclub.

I disagree, but for only one reason. Most of his arguments were pretty sound.

That one reason is the defense. While all the attention is focused on the offense, and how to improve it, I don't think that defense is anywhere close to what the numbers would lead one to believe. When an offense is as pathetic as the Raiders were last year, opposing offenses can go vanilla, and very conservative. When 14 points is almost certain to be enough to win as long as you make no significant mistakes on offense, then you play a little bit different.

I'm not saying the Raiders defense is bad, mind you, just not as good as suggested.

I would suggest that the Raiders offense will indeed become more competitive, the defense will appear to regress a little (although really just staying the same), and the Raiders will end up being a more competitive, but still losing team. 5-6 wins seems about right to me right now. (It's a bit early for a strong opinion.) 7 max, unless something unusual changes.

This is an interesting argument. When you uncover the numbers, you see that teams ran against the Raiders an astronomical 542 times. But even then, they only surrendered a 4.0 YPC. Teams that get run on that much usually are ones that have difficulty stopping the run. But the Raiders held up well and I don't think it was simply because they sold out to stop the run.Another thing that forced that type of startegy was that the Raiders only recoved 4 fumbles against their opponents runs game all season. While in 410 pass attempts they intercepted 18 passes which was 3rd in the NFL in terms of INT percentage. When you consider how much teams ran against them, you would think that they would have beem stacked to stop the run...but they were very opportunistic in the passing game even though teams threw against them less that any other. So in sticking with your 'cautious approach' theme, running was simply safer.

The thing to me is this. The Raiders offense can't hep but be better than it was last year. Which is going to force teams to have to balance their attack better. The manner in which they are going to have to balance their attack works to their defenses strength.

As to the original post - I still think the Raiders have a lot of work to do this off season. But whatever you believe about their defense, at worst I think they are in the top half of the NFL. As I mentioned, there is a lot of young talent on that side of the ball for them that can only get better with continuity. Their offense was awful from a scheme and QB perspective. Making schrewd decisions on those two areas could see a surprising level of improvement on that side of the ball - and if they wind up with Calvin Johnson...?

They are a team on my watch list.

 

[Imedos]

somebody made a post like this about the jets last year and I chuckled at it.

seems like any team can be good if everything falls into place. And pretty much any team can be bad if they get enough bad breaks. Very few legit contenders though.

 

[The Duff Man]

I came in to this thread ready to post lots of , but the first post was well thought out, and well laid out. At the end, he suggested that it wasn't a huge stretch to think the Raiders could get back to being a .500 ballclub.

I disagree, but for only one reason. Most of his arguments were pretty sound.

That one reason is the defense. While all the attention is focused on the offense, and how to improve it, I don't think that defense is anywhere close to what the numbers would lead one to believe. When an offense is as pathetic as the Raiders were last year, opposing offenses can go vanilla, and very conservative. When 14 points is almost certain to be enough to win as long as you make no significant mistakes on offense, then you play a little bit different.

I'm not saying the Raiders defense is bad, mind you, just not as good as suggested.

I would suggest that the Raiders offense will indeed become more competitive, the defense will appear to regress a little (although really just staying the same), and the Raiders will end up being a more competitive, but still losing team. 5-6 wins seems about right to me right now. (It's a bit early for a strong opinion.) 7 max, unless something unusual changes.

This is an interesting argument. When you uncover the numbers, you see that teams ran against the Raiders an astronomical 542 times. But even then, they only surrendered a 4.0 YPC. Teams that get run on that much usually are ones that have difficulty stopping the run. But the Raiders held up well and I don't think it was simply because they sold out to stop the run.Another thing that forced that type of startegy was that the Raiders only recoved 4 fumbles against their opponents runs game all season. While in 410 pass attempts they intercepted 18 passes which was 3rd in the NFL in terms of INT percentage. When you consider how much teams ran against them, you would think that they would have beem stacked to stop the run...but they were very opportunistic in the passing game even though teams threw against them less that any other. So in sticking with your 'cautious approach' theme, running was simply safer.

The thing to me is this. The Raiders offense can't hep but be better than it was last year. Which is going to force teams to have to balance their attack better. The manner in which they are going to have to balance their attack works to their defenses strength.

As to the original post - I still think the Raiders have a lot of work to do this off season. But whatever you believe about their defense, at worst I think they are in the top half of the NFL. As I mentioned, there is a lot of young talent on that side of the ball for them that can only get better with continuity. Their offense was awful from a scheme and QB perspective. Making schrewd decisions on those two areas could see a surprising level of improvement on that side of the ball - and if they wind up with Calvin Johnson...?

They are a team on my watch list.

Very good points. When you look at the numbers they scored 14 points or less in all of the last 9 games of the year. There were 7 games under 10 points, and 5 games with 3 or fewer points!! When you are held to 3 or fewer points in 31% of your games your defensive stats are going to be misleading.

Edit: On the other hand, you can say their defense played very well considering how putrid the offense was, and just because they weren't forced to make plays last year doesn't mean they won't this year if the games are closer.

 

[T Man]

IMHO you are crazy to say that the Raiders could be "good". Better yes! Good, NO.

Of course good to me implies an above .500 season.

Looking at the schedule, and seeing that they have 5 games against bottom tier opponents, I think they will definitely improve. Another season with the same defense intact and it should only get better.

As for the offense, they still have too many holes. I agree that CJ should be the pick IF they don't trade down and IF they trade Moss.

IF they keep Moss, then I think a trade down (if there is a partner) would be best since they may be able to drop back and pick up additional OL help. THe Raiders may be better served dropping back and trying to pick up OT Brown and OC Kalil late in round one or early round two (ala the Jets). IF they drop down they would also have another 1 or early 2 to draft for another need (i.e., WR - Bowe, GInn, etc. or TE - Olsen or Zach Miller (??))

For those who think they draft CJ then Stanton, if that occurs, then they won't improve much. As a rookie Stanton will not be an improvement over Walters. Over time, who knows; but not next year.

IF the Raiders are looking to be more competitive faster, then I think CJ is the pick followed by OL picks. A fourth round QB would be OK with the idea that they can develop him -- and pick up a QB in free agency next year.

 

[BoltBacker]

So last year they were a train-wreck because going into the season there were question marks with regard to QB, HC, OC, and OL. They all performed badly.

This year they changed the QB, HC and OC(haven't done much with the OL but the draft is still upcoming) but all still have big question marks in those areas. Of course they changed all those last season too.

What it boils down to is the raiders will go from a train-wreck to "good" because of an easier schedule and the rookies drafted?

 

[Chaz]

If you believe the Raiders will be good next year, I believe its time to replace that bucket around your neck which captures your drool. Its ok everyone is special.

This could have been said about any 49er or Jets supporter last season. Now, I'm not a Raider believer by any means...however, we have seen what can happen in the NFL. The only surprise will be when there are no surprises.

First off, the Jets ARE NOT the Raiders. Much better team, youre comparing Apples and Oranges here. SanFran is I guess more comparable, but to call them good last year is a stupid statement, how about less bad. ( though 7-9 in the NFC I guess is good). The bottom line is neither of those teams are being run by an aging althiemers(sp?) owner who is one foot in the grave. I agree that in the NFL unpredictable events occur, but there isn't much hope in Oakland. Many teams have been making strides, such as AZ and SF, but the NFL isnt a league where you all of a sudden become excellent. Will the Raiders be less bad in 2007, arguable. Will they be good....Nope. Edit: 7-9 record, which would be amazing for Oak. to achieve in 2007 will not cut it in the AFC, so 7-9 can't even be considered Good in AFC standards. I think OAK will be less bad, since they couldn't possibly be worse than 2-14 in 2006.

The Jets were predicted to win a handful of games by most. Doesn't seem like a "much better" team to me. That was at the time, of course. In retrospect, the pieces were in place given a few breaks. As for SF, they were in the playoff hunt with a few weeks to go. Any SF fan would have taken that.As for the Raiders, if they were to go 7-9, as mentioned in the edit, that may not cut it in the AFC, but it would depend on how they got there as to how they are viewed. If they started out 7-6, then dropped their last three, then at some point in the last month of the season they were a part of the playoff picture.I realize that teams don't suddenly become excellent, but major strides can be made in one year. Look at NO last season. Sure, the stars have to allign, but part of that may include having an abnormally bad season the year prior.FYI...I don't see the Raiders doing anything next season, for many of the reason stated (including poor leadership at the top). However, I didn't foresee any of the other anomolies, either.

 

[ThePittbully]

more then 7 wins would downright shock me

 

[DA RAIDERS]

And with the 1st pick of the Second Round of the NFL Draft, the Oakland Raiders select.....Drew Stanton, Quarterback, Michigan State University. (This would be the start of a great season, assuming they grabbed CJ with overall pick #1)

i would love to see this. & if they can get a 2nd for moss, grab an O lineman. we shall see. i don't think they will crack the 'good' category for a few more years though.

 

[red_stapler]

I can't imagine the Raiders being "very good" for at least a couple of years.

 

[redman]

I think they can certainly be respectable. A "good" team to me is at least 10-6, and I think that that's a stretch for them, especially with San Diego and Denver in their division.

 

[Loopdog]

the saints were 3-13 two years ago. Anything CAN happen.

 

[The Jacket]

They'll be 0-6 against the AFC West alone.

 

[comfortably numb]

I don't get all the Al Davis comments.

Was Al Davis not there when they were a tuck rule from possibly playing in a championship game?

Was he not there when they made the Superbowl?

He may be :wacko: but to imply they will not be "good" because he is still there is, not accurate.

"Good" I don't think so.

Competetive?

Maybe.

As mentioned above.

6 games against

SD

KC

DEN

That very well could be 2-4 (being generous there)

4-6?? for the rest of their schedule?

6-10 for the year, very possible, if not probable.

Question about their D to those who watched their games.

Was their D as good as their #'s?

Or simply were they down by 21 so quick that teams just ran the ball for the next 7 out of 9 plays?

 

[redman]

I don't get all the Al Davis comments.Was Al Davis not there when they were a tuck rule from possibly playing in a championship game?Was he not there when they made the Superbowl?He may be :wacko: but to imply they will not be "good" because he is still there is, not accurate."Good" I don't think so.Competetive?Maybe.As mentioned above.6 games against SDKCDENThat very well could be 2-4 (being generous there)4-6?? for the rest of their schedule?6-10 for the year, very possible, if not probable.Question about their D to those who watched their games.Was their D as good as their #'s?Or simply were they down by 21 so quick that teams just ran the ball for the next 7 out of 9 plays?

I think the reason why they got to that Super Bowl was because Gruden had a strong enough personality (and also was hired when the desperation level was high enough in Raiderville) that he could exert influence on personnel enough to elevate that team. That same thing was what eventually brought him to loggerheads with the regime such that he was ushered out, but I do believe that that's why they were successful 5-7 years ago. If you'll notice, every time they've had a "weak" coach in the last 20 years (Bugel, Callahan, White, Shell) they've been miserable; when they've had a guy with a spine (Gruden, Shanahan*) they've been successful.*Note: I attribute Shell I's trip to the 1990 AFC Championship Game to changes instituted by Shanahan while he was there. It was all downhill after that.

 

[Raiders37]

I found this interesting. Like the author, I'm not sure that I buy it, but it is it something to consider.

Link

Giving Moss a Mulligan

Posted by Jerry McDonald - NFL Writer on Monday at 1:19 pm

Ran into my son's youth basketball coach over the weekend, and like most Raider fans, he wanted to know what was going on with Randy Moss.

I said I didn't know. Told him the Raiders were surely open to offers, but that Al Davis isn't one to simply unload what he perceives as a major talent without adequate compensation.

Now this coach is what I'd call old school. Stresses defense, teamwork and playing with the proper attitude. A guy I figured who would want Moss off the roster.

How else do you deal with someone who quit on his team? And make no mistake, Moss dogged it for much of 2006. Quit on patterns, quit on plays. He admitted to dropping catchable passes because he was unhappy.

Except this coach surprised me. He thinks the Raiders would be crazy to trade Moss now, especially if they're going to bring in JaMarcus Russell to play quarterback. Things went so poorly on offense for the Raiders, he said he could understand that Moss would, in frustration, give up after turning around countless times seeing his quarterback already on the ground.

This coach is not alone. There's a case to be made for giving Moss a do-over. I'm not sure I buy it, but it's a fascinating argument, nonetheless.

When Moss came to the Raiders, amid the fanfare of a police escort, he did so reluctantly and said as much at the press conference. He wasn't sure if the Raiders would be winners and he was looking for a championship.

It was his former agent, Dante DiTrapano, who sold him on coming to the West Coast, and the Raiders did their part to make him feel welcome by sending Raiders gear to his family _ a simple gesture that Moss seemed to genuinely appreciate.

Moss' track record identified him as a high-maintenance star. The Raiders knew that going in.

The truth about Moss' first year with the Raiders is that he did everything asked of him. His first training camp seemingly had one jaw-dropping miracle a day. Moss was an explosive, dominating receiver averaging more than 24.9 yards per catch before coming down in a heap against the San Diego Chargers in the fifth game of the season.

And that was the last time anything resembling the old Randy Moss has ever been spotted in a Raider uniform.

Moss, to his credit, did not miss a game. He had rib, groin and pelvis injuries that robbed him of the leaping ability and athleticism that is the biggest part of his game. He averaged 13.1 yards per catch the rest of the season, with no reception over 30 yards until catching a 44-yard pass in the season finale.

Art Shell came aboard, and although Moss was healed, training camp included none of the spectacular plays that came so frequently the year before. The regular season hadn't even begun when Moss was talking about how things were "fishy" in Oakland.

You could make the argument that once the Raiders decided to bring Moss aboard, it was up to them to create an environment in which he would thrive. Otherwise, they should have known it would be trouble.

I've long been hesitant to say or write that a player or team has quit. I'm not a mind-reader. Sometimes a team can be so disorganized it can appear to quit when it is really just confused.

Moss, I'm fairly certain, gave up. I watched him plenty of times when he just coasted and made no effort to get to a ball. Shell's worst moment as head coach may have come when I asked him about it at a press conference and he said he saw no evidence on film of a lack of effort.

I talked to a handful of scouts and a few coaches at the NFL scouting combine who said what Moss put on film in 2006 was unconscionable.

Yet there are those who believe the situation can be salvaged.

Assuming Moss can get on board with Lane Kiffin _ a big assumption at this point, since the two apparently have not met face-to-face _ shouldn't the receiver get the same mulligan afforded Jerry Porter?

True, Porter's issues were different, but he essentially removed himself from the Raiders for a year rather than get on board with the new regime. He just did it in a different way than Moss.

Another factor regarding Moss is he is genuinely liked by his teammates. They recognized Moss played hurt in 2005. As for 2006, well, the offense was such a complete disaster that perhaps everyone involved ought to simply forget about it and start over.

Ronald Curry, one of the most honest, forthright guys you'll ever meet, said in a recent interview on ESPN's "Cold Pizza" that he thought Moss was getting a bad rap.

Still, I'm not sure bringing Moss back is the best thing for Kiffin and Oakland's new start.

Moss' track record and own words are evidence he plays when he wants to play.

He has been hurt for three consecutive years, ending last season on the bench with a sprained ankle. It's possible that at age 30, injuries are now part of the Moss profile.

Tim Brown told me in an interview last month the word on Moss among players in the league is he is simply not the receiver he used to be.

Since Moss has never been a receiver like Brown or Jerry Rice who depended on route-running and precision, he will get "older" faster than most.

Those are the factors that make me think it would be wise to take what you can get for Moss right now, with the understanding that even if he puts together a 70-catch, 1,200-yard season, that doesn't mean he was going to do the same thing in Oakland.

The Raiders, and Davis, may think differently, and demanding a first- or high second-round pick or multiple picks may only serve to keep Moss in Oakland.

Then we'll find out whether giving Moss a pass for 2006 was the right thing to do.

While Moss was great before he went to the Raiders, IMO, he will never be like that again if he stays with them, unfortunately. Maybe with another team he will be great again, who knows, I just know that it won't happen with the Raiders. He wants to be on a team that's good NOW, not in a few more years. Tim Brown's comments I agree with for the most part. He says that the word among players in the league is Moss "is simply not the receiver he used to be." He may not be, but I think he will do well for another team.JMO..... what do you all think?

Edit: Oops... I meant to post this in the Offseason thread.... guess I had too many windows open

 

[BoltBacker]

Question about their D to those who watched their games.Was their D as good as their #'s?Or simply were they down by 21 so quick that teams just ran the ball for the next 7 out of 9 plays?

I actually felt their defense was better than it performed and it performed very well considering the circumstances. Not many defenses could even play respectable given the amount of time they were on the field and the field position the raider offense was giving opponents. This isn't a smoke-and-mirrors defense patched together with veteran cast-offs likely to decline soon either, a lot of these solid defenders are young and still improving and there's every reason to believe it will only get better. IF the raider offense was average this year then the defense could triple the win-total from last year.... but I wouldn't put much $ on oak's offense being average next year.

 

[Beaumont]

I remember watching San Diego play the Raiders in Oakland and thinking to myself "good god, the Chargers hate the forward pass" ...

Then I realized that no team will pass when they can dominate the other team :guaranteed: without putting any risk into the play calling ...

I agree with renesouz ...

ETA:

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20060911_SD@OAK

 

[massraider]

That defense should improve as well.

They lined up with two rookie starters, Morrison was taking over a new position, and he was only in his second year. Sam Williams was coming off two years of injuries, and had virtually no game experience. Fabian Washington was only in his second year. I have concerns about DT, Sapp should be coming to the end soon, and Tommy Kelly didn't develop as I had hoped. Terdell Sands was a revelation though. If I had my way, he'd line up as a starter next year, and Kelly would rotate in on passing downs. RE is a major hole, at the least a designated pass rusher is needed, to rotate with Brayton, who does play the run decent. The Huntley kid actually looked like he might help in that area.

Here's the thing about their defense: Yes, the numbers were skewed. Teams were essentially killing the clock at halftime. But they were remarkably stout, considering how much time they spent on the field. It was brutal. 3 and out, 3 and out, one play--INT, 3 and out, INT. Sometimes these guys wouldn't even get their helmets off, and they'd be back out there. I started rooting for TV timeouts. And they would come out there, and force another punt. (By the way, it's the valiant performance of our defense that really burns me about Moss checking out last year. Randy, I'm real sorry your career hasn't gone the way you hoped, but every week I watched 11+ guys on that defense bleed every down, even when they knew their offense was just gonna give it up, maybe because of a dropped pass or lazy route from your punk a##.)

Anyway: So, yeah, the numbers were skewed, but their defense also played with no break. You know how your offense chews up the clock with a 10 play, 80 yard drive, and your defense is all rested and comes in like a pack of dogs, while the other defense is all beat up? Didn't happen in Oakland last year.

Eventually it all comes down to the offensive line and the coaching, with the Raiders. The offensive line will be better for three reasons this year:

1. An offense from the 21st century. No more 5 and 7 step drops every passsing down, and more than 4 runs. People have been yammering about JaMarcus fitting into the vertical offense that Al Davis wants, but if you look at the coaching staff, the 2007 Raiders will be more WCO than down-the-field.

2. Young guys getting better. By midseason, they had two rookie guards starting, one from Weber State, and one from Cornell. Also, whoever replaces Walker at RT, Sims or Gallery, will do a better job. JP Losman has my sympathy.

3. A legit OL coach. Tom Cable from the Falcons came over, and one thing I like about the Alex Gibbs system that he ran, is that they didn't need all-stars to run it. Jackie Slater and Irv Eatmen were good players, but more than one player has come out and said the O-linemen got no help from the coaches.

Now, that is 3 reasons, but how much will they improve? I dunno. They could improve a lot, and still not be good.

As for the coaching, we'll see. Baby Lane is an unknown, but is encouraging to see how much leeway he has been given. He wanted Knapp, Cable, and the rest of the youngsters on this staff. As someone else mentioned, the coaches have a better shot with a little bit of power.

I think their offseason has been great so far. No stupid over-spending, locked up Terdell and Robert Thomas to new deals, both role players that should contribute. Signed a blocking TE, got Justin Griffith for 1/3 of what Ovie Mughelli got. I wish they had extended Scrabble's deal before Clements signed in SF, but ah well, he'll get his next year.

Yeah, they'll improve next year, and I'll dream of a .500 season, but won't expect it.

 

[Whiplash Inc.]

I'll settle for getting back to respectability and being competitive and not a walk over, like in recent years.

Then, after a year or two, back into the post season.

 

[comfortably numb]

I don't get all the Al Davis comments.

Was Al Davis not there when they were a tuck rule from possibly playing in a championship game?

Was he not there when they made the Superbowl?

He may be :wacko: but to imply they will not be "good" because he is still there is, not accurate.

"Good" I don't think so.

Competetive?

Maybe.

As mentioned above.

6 games against

SD

KC

DEN

That very well could be 2-4 (being generous there)

4-6?? for the rest of their schedule?

6-10 for the year, very possible, if not probable.

Question about their D to those who watched their games.

Was their D as good as their #'s?

Or simply were they down by 21 so quick that teams just ran the ball for the next 7 out of 9 plays?

I think the reason why they got to that Super Bowl was because Gruden had a strong enough personality (and also was hired when the desperation level was high enough in Raiderville) that he could exert influence on personnel enough to elevate that team. That same thing was what eventually brought him to loggerheads with the regime such that he was ushered out, but I do believe that that's why they were successful 5-7 years ago. If you'll notice, every time they've had a "weak" coach in the last 20 years (Bugel, Callahan, White, Shell) they've been miserable; when they've had a guy with a spine (Gruden, Shanahan*) they've been successful.

*Note: I attribute Shell I's trip to the 1990 AFC Championship Game to changes instituted by Shanahan while he was there. It was all downhill after that.

I know it was "Grudens" team, but still, he did take them to the Superbowl.I understand you point, Al can be a obsticale for a HC to have to deal with, but not impossible.

 

[comfortably numb]

Question about their D to those who watched their games.Was their D as good as their #'s?Or simply were they down by 21 so quick that teams just ran the ball for the next 7 out of 9 plays?

I actually felt their defense was better than it performed and it performed very well considering the circumstances. Not many defenses could even play respectable given the amount of time they were on the field and the field position the raider offense was giving opponents. This isn't a smoke-and-mirrors defense patched together with veteran cast-offs likely to decline soon either, a lot of these solid defenders are young and still improving and there's every reason to believe it will only get better. IF the raider offense was average this year then the defense could triple the win-total from last year.... but I wouldn't put much $ on oak's offense being average next year.

Beaumont, covered what I suspected their D might have been exposed to.Conservative run calling plays, which eat up alot of clock, and don't pile up quick points, but, as I said, I didn't watch many of their games, just a theory I had in regards to their D

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I dragged this post out of the mothballs, but I can't help but think that my March hunches on the Raiders weren't on to something.

Defense = Very Good

Offense = Not pathetic and directionless

Schedule = Not too formidable outside division

If the O-Line can make strides, why is this an impossibility?

 

[Chaos Commish]

I'll get on this bandwagon as long as my seat is next to the emergency exit. My biggest concern is QB, which is a good thing because it's no longer the OL. I don't trust Culpepper. Russell won't be ready this year. McCown is what he is. The job will be CPep's and he was pathetic for a long time prior to the injury. Even in a nice performance last night, he seemed too willing to force the ball into coverage. Against preseason vanilla defenses that looks good. In the regular season it probably means picks.

The OL is improved. Jordan for all his critics yesterday ran with vision and power, showed good hands and could have a very nice season. Rhodes just makes them better, but the job will be Jordan's, Rhodes will help. Fargas, last season's leading rusher, is a waste of space.

The defense is nails. Period. It's better. They will be stout against the run. Moses will increase the pass rush pressure. Howard and Morrison will just be better. Huff will be better. They're going to make a lot of big plays. I don't use team Ds, but theirs will put up some nice numbers.

I don't think you can overestimate just how horrible the offense was last year. They were shut out three times, put up 3 points twice, and were held to ten or less in 50% of their games. That the defense ranked as well as it did is testimony to how good they are. #1 against the pass because they are a) solid and b) were always behind so teams ran. Still the in the middle against the run regardless, and improved this year. An improved offense makes the D very very good. The offense should be improved. The OL is cohesive. It's on Culpepper and that worries me more than anything.

 

[massraider]

So far so good this year. It is the preseason, however. Certainly a few games with decent blocking isn't going to sway any doubters, especially with no nationally televised games.

 

[strong]

I'll get on this bandwagon as long as my seat is next to the emergency exit. My biggest concern is QB, which is a good thing because it's no longer the OL. I don't trust Culpepper. Russell won't be ready this year. McCown is what he is. The job will be CPep's and he was pathetic for a long time prior to the injury. Even in a nice performance last night, he seemed too willing to force the ball into coverage. Against preseason vanilla defenses that looks good. In the regular season it probably means picks. The OL is improved. Jordan for all his critics yesterday ran with vision and power, showed good hands and could have a very nice season. Rhodes just makes them better, but the job will be Jordan's, Rhodes will help. Fargas, last season's leading rusher, is a waste of space. The defense is nails. Period. It's better. They will be stout against the run. Moses will increase the pass rush pressure. Howard and Morrison will just be better. Huff will be better. They're going to make a lot of big plays. I don't use team Ds, but theirs will put up some nice numbers. I don't think you can overestimate just how horrible the offense was last year. They were shut out three times, put up 3 points twice, and were held to ten or less in 50% of their games. That the defense ranked as well as it did is testimony to how good they are. #1 against the pass because they are a) solid and b) were always behind so teams ran. Still the in the middle against the run regardless, and improved this year. An improved offense makes the D very very good. The offense should be improved. The OL is cohesive. It's on Culpepper and that worries me more than anything.

I agree. The offense will struggle a bit again this year, but play calling alone should be enough to get them from 32nd in the league up to about the 20-24th range... And if the defense continues to excel, that should put them in many close games. Anywhere from 6-10 to 9-7 would not surprise me... And in light of all the ten loss teams that have made the playoffs the following year, I have to think they're as good a candidate as any of the other seven teams to play a road playoff game... Miami, Cleveland, Houston, Oakland, Washington, Detroit, Tampa, and Arizona. I know, it's a stretch, but at least one of these teams will probably make it...Who knows but I'm excited going into a football season as a Raider fan for the first time in a few years. (And I really hope Huff continues to grow because I loved the pick at the time...)