Calling out help from Sharks (2 Viewers)

[jurb26]

still shaking my head over the "Jordan is now Top 10" arguements.

Well keep shaking your head all you want. As David's stats show, ANY RB who has had the feature role under him and his system has been just that. Unless you think he will not be a featured runner, I can't see why you would be shaking your head., the stats are right there. We are talking about a 14/15 success rate here. With the only 1 exception being a 12th place finish.

Don't want to hijack the thread but since a number of people think he will bring the rushing offense from worst to top 10 and since he is such a rushing guru, does that mean that Moss's/Collins receiving related numbers are being overstated?

I don't know about most people, but no I don't personally think so. I have already stated in other threads that I see this O to be more in line with the Minn O of 98 than of the Oak O of last year. If I'm right (and I very well could be wrong), there should be plenty of FF points to go around in that case.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Everyone keeps on saying that if Brown remains healthy he is a lock to be top 10 or even top 5.  This could be true but I think the Titans offence could suck this year and have a direct influence on Brown maybe not finishing top 10 even if he is healthy.

The Titans were a top 10 offense last year with their #2 QB, and their young RB injured for a good portion of the season. What is leading you to believe that they will suck this year? So going into the season right now, they have their #1 QB and their #1 RB healthy and have lost their older #1 WR, and there is even a good possibility that they draft a young stud WR. Can you indicate to me why you think the offense will all of a sudden "suck" this year? I fail to see how the addition of a healthy McNair and Brown with the loss of Mason will mean they suck?

Ok maybe suck was a little bit of an overstatement but how do you expect them to be good or what you seem to think as better? Reasons why I can't see them being that good this year:

-They have lost their #1 reciever.

-McNair is a year older and missed half of last season due to a sternum injury that had him contemplating retirement, along with the slew of other injuries he has endured in his career.

-They have a starting RB that has not proven to remain healthy yet in his career

-Their WR core at this time is ???? Can D. Bennet be the number one guy? We know he can with Volek but will he have the same chemistry with McNair? Is Calico healthy and can he produce or will he be hurt again this year??? Who is their 3rd Wr??? And even if they do draft one can he fill in right away???

-Who is their back up RB??? and whoever it is will he be able to perform????

Tenn was the 11th best offense in the league last season. I can't see this team finishing even close to the top 10 for offense this year. There defense last year was the 27th ranked defense and therefore Tenn ran the third most plays on offense in the whole league with only KC and Den ranking ahead of them. I mean factor in all those question marks and how can anyone assume that this offense will be good next year????

 

[Marc Levin]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10.  This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there.  But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

 

[David Yudkin]

I don't know about most people, but no I don't personally think so. I have already stated in other threads that I see this O to be more in line with the Minn O of 98 than of the Oak O of last year. If I'm right (and I very well could be wrong), there should be plenty of FF points to go around in that case.

The 98 Vikings had 6428 yards and 556 points.The 04 Raiders had 5314 yards and 320 points.Oakland would need another 1114 yards and 236 points to catch up.That's 70 yards and more than 2 TD per game ABOVE last year.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I don't know about most people, but no I don't personally think so. I have already stated in other threads that I see this O to be more in line with the Minn O of 98 than of the Oak O of last year. If I'm right (and I very well could be wrong), there should be plenty of FF points to go around in that case.

The 98 Vikings had 6428 yards and 556 points.The 04 Raiders had 5314 yards and 320 points.

Oakland would need another 1114 yards and 236 points to catch up.

That's 70 yards and more than 2 TD per game ABOVE last year.

I don't think the Raiders will produce what the Vikings did in 98 but to think they are not much improved and will not put up good to great FF points is upsurd. I know Yuds you were just posting the stats so that is not directed towards you. If you look at NFL rosters one is hard pressed to find a team on paper that matches up as well offensively as the Raiders. This does not mean they will be the best but I think it is safe to say they will finish somewhere in the top 10 for sure and possibly the top 5.

 

[Marc Levin]

I don't know about most people, but no I don't personally think so. I have already stated in other threads that I see this O to be more in line with the Minn O of 98 than of the Oak O of last year. If I'm right (and I very well could be wrong), there should be plenty of FF points to go around in that case.

The 98 Vikings had 6428 yards and 556 points.The 04 Raiders had 5314 yards and 320 points.

Oakland would need another 1114 yards and 236 points to catch up.

That's 70 yards and more than 2 TD per game ABOVE last year.

I don't think the Raiders will produce what the Vikings did in 98 but to think they are not much improved and will not put up good to great FF points is upsurd.

It's not absurd - it is tempered realism.They might put up "good" FF numbers, but to think they will put up Colt/Viking type fantasy numbers is just as absurd as saying there will be very little offensive improvement.

Regardless, I see much more hope in the Raiders' PASSING game - and a ton of their increased FF numbers coming there - than in the Raiders' RUNNING game - I think the run numbers will be realistically improved, but not overwhelmingly good. I also believe runners other than Jordan will be more involved in the passing game - namely Zereoue, who has proven himself very capable in the run game. I also don't see the Raiders drastically bumping their rushing TDs, nor do I believe it is automatically Jordan that will get all those rushing TDs.

 

[jurb26]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10.  This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there.  But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

 

[jurb26]

I don't know about most people, but no I don't personally think so. I have already stated in other threads that I see this O to be more in line with the Minn O of 98 than of the Oak O of last year. If I'm right (and I very well could be wrong), there should be plenty of FF points to go around in that case.

The 98 Vikings had 6428 yards and 556 points.The 04 Raiders had 5314 yards and 320 points.

Oakland would need another 1114 yards and 236 points to catch up.

That's 70 yards and more than 2 TD per game ABOVE last year.

I don't think the Raiders will produce what the Vikings did in 98 but to think they are not much improved and will not put up good to great FF points is upsurd.

It's not absurd - it is tempered realism.They might put up "good" FF numbers, but to think they will put up Colt/Viking type fantasy numbers is just as absurd as saying there will be very little offensive improvement.

Regardless, I see much more hope in the Raiders' PASSING game - and a ton of their increased FF numbers coming there - than in the Raiders' RUNNING game - I think the run numbers will be realistically improved, but not overwhelmingly good. I also believe runners other than Jordan will be more involved in the passing game - namely Zereoue, who has proven himself very capable in the run game. I also don't see the Raiders drastically bumping their rushing TDs, nor do I believe it is automatically Jordan that will get all those rushing TDs.

Here are the projections I currently have for Oakland's O from another thread:

Collins, 340 completions, 4340 yds, 35 TDs, 20 INTs

Jordan, 270 carries, 1160 yds, 10 TDs, 25 rec, 200 yds, 0 TD

Moss, 85 rec, 1445 yds, 16 TDs

Porter, 70 rec, 1040 yds, 9 TDs

Curry, 45 rec, 520 yds, 4 TDs

Gabriel, 30 rec, 400yds, 1 TDs

Jolley, 40 rec, 480 yds, 3 TDs

This leaves for another 45 rec, 255 yds, and 2 TD to come from whoever. It also assumes that Collins amasses all the passing atts and everyone stays healthy. On top of that, Jordan is not the only ball carrier, but primary one. I would assume there is another 60 carries split in some manor with in the O.

Oak O threadI admit they are high and will likely come down, but at this time of year it is hard to know just who to shortchange just yet. As the season comes nearer, they will drop. BTW, I don't exactly think that Jordan is a top 10 RB. Only taht Turner/David's numbers would seem to support that he VERY WELL could be.

 

[Marc Levin]

Collins, 340 completions, 4340 yds, 35 TDs, 20 INTs

Jordan, 270 carries, 1160 yds, 10 TDs, 25 rec, 200 yds, 0 TD

Moss, 85 rec, 1445 yds, 16 TDs

Porter, 70 rec, 1040 yds, 9 TDs

Curry, 45 rec, 520 yds, 4 TDs

Gabriel, 30 rec, 400yds, 1 TDs

Jolley, 40 rec, 480 yds, 3 TDs

Wow - you will have to forgive me then - if you really see ALL that happening with Oakland this year, more power to you - and I now understand why you think Jordan will be such a star there.

 

[Marc Levin]

Just to clarify, this would mean 45 TDs between Collins and Jordan alone. That is one heck of a HUGE leap in the Oakland offense and, I wager, would rank them somewhere in the top-5 for TDs scored by a pair of players - and in the range of Green-Holmes, Culpepper-(insert RB), Manning-Edge

 

[jurb26]

Collins, 340 completions, 4340 yds, 35 TDs, 20 INTs

Jordan, 270 carries, 1160 yds, 10 TDs, 25 rec, 200 yds, 0 TD

Moss, 85 rec, 1445 yds, 16 TDs

Porter, 70 rec, 1040 yds, 9 TDs

Curry, 45 rec, 520 yds, 4 TDs

Gabriel, 30 rec, 400yds, 1 TDs

Jolley, 40 rec, 480 yds, 3 TDs

Wow - you will have to forgive me then - if you really see ALL that happening with Oakland this year, more power to you - and I now understand why you think Jordan will be such a star there.

Hey I never said it wasn't bold. What exaxtly did you think I ment when I said closer to the Min of 98 O though? That was an O that scored 58 TDs.

Oh this also assumes that Jordan scores all of the Rushing TDs, which we know is not likely. I howver am not sure who my factor into those other rushing TDs just yet. Again, why they are high at this point n the year. This minor details should iron out as the preseason approaches and after the draft. So that is the entire O scoring 45

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10.  This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there.  But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

 

[jurb26]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10.  This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there.  But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

That still doesn't answer the question of why just about all of these "great" RBs were able to have their BEST seasons under Turner. Oak also spent 2 high picks just last year on Oline their Oline and got what many considered the 2 best linemen in the draft. Certainly the best in Gallery. Both guys should improve this year, should they not? They also added the BEST WR in the game in Moss. Moss alone dictates that Ds can not focus on stoping the run even half as much as they did last year.

The pont still remains that even if you like Brown talent wise more than Jordan. I do at this point. You can't reasonable think IMO that his situation is nearly as good. That is the main point! It hasn't mattered who the RB is with Turner in years past. Yes he has been fortunate enough to land some good ones. Either way though, 14/15 featured backs have been top 10. I still in no way see how this is a negetive on Jordan's chances this year. I dont care if the fairy god mother sent him the other RBs or not. The bottom line is when they got there, they produced. Jordan is there now and IMO at a great time as the O has made nice advances.... lightyears further and better than what they were last year.

It really hadn't mattered one bit who the RB was that ended up there to me. I think any of the FA RBs out there would have had just as great an opp as Jordan has now to be a top RB. He just happens to be the lucky SOB that ended up there. Again, this is more about OPPORTUNITY than it is talent to me when comparing him to Brown.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Ok maybe suck was a little bit of an overstatement but how do you expect them to be good or what you seem to think as better?

Reasons why I can't see them being that good this year:

-They have lost their #1 reciever.

-McNair is a year older and missed half of last season due to a sternum injury that had him contemplating retirement, along with the slew of other injuries he has endured in his career.

-They have a starting RB that has not proven to remain healthy yet in his career

-Their WR core at this time is ???? Can D. Bennet be the number one guy? We know he can with Volek but will he have the same chemistry with McNair? Is Calico healthy and can he produce or will he be hurt again this year??? Who is their 3rd Wr??? And even if they do draft one can he fill in right away???

-Who is their back up RB??? and whoever it is will he be able to perform????

Tenn was the 11th best offense in the league last season. I can't see this team finishing even close to the top 10 for offense this year. There defense last year was the 27th ranked defense and therefore Tenn ran the third most plays on offense in the whole league with only KC and Den ranking ahead of them. I mean factor in all those question marks and how can anyone assume that this offense will be good next year????

Your argument was that even if Brown was healthy he won't get Top 10 status because of the Titans offense, so you can't use one of your arguments as to why the Titans won't be as good is because Brown may not be healthy. The assumption is that Brown would be healthy

Any WR drafted in the 6th spot will fill in RIGHT away.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10. This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there. But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

That still doesn't answer the question of why just about all of these "great" RBs were able to have their BEST seasons under Turner. Oak also spent 2 high picks just last year on Oline their Oline and got what many considered the 2 best linemen in the draft. Certainly the best in Gallery. Both guys should improve this year, should they not? They also added the BEST WR in the game in Moss. Moss alone dictates that Ds can not focus on stoping the run even half as much as they did last year.

The pont still remains that even if you like Brown talent wise more than Jordan. I do at this point. You can't reasonable think IMO that his situation is nearly as good. That is the main point! It hasn't mattered who the RB is with Turner in years past. Yes he has been fortunate enough to land some good ones. Either way though, 14/15 featured backs have been top 10. I still in no way see how this is a negetive on Jordan's chances this year. I dont care if the fairy god mother sent him the other RBs or not. The bottom line is when they got there, they produced. Jordan is there now and IMO at a great time as the O has made nice advances.... lightyears further and better than what they were last year.

It really hadn't mattered one bit who the RB was that ended up there to me. I think any of the FA RBs out there would have had just as great an opp as Jordan has now to be a top RB. He just happens to be the lucky SOB that ended up there. Again, this is more about OPPORTUNITY than it is talent to me when comparing him to Brown.

Cause they were given the ball an insane amount of times. I will guarantee you that Jordan will not get as many carries as those listed above.

 

[jurb26]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10.  This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there.  But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

That still doesn't answer the question of why just about all of these "great" RBs were able to have their BEST seasons under Turner. Oak also spent 2 high picks just last year on Oline their Oline and got what many considered the 2 best linemen in the draft. Certainly the best in Gallery. Both guys should improve this year, should they not? They also added the BEST WR in the game in Moss. Moss alone dictates that Ds can not focus on stoping the run even half as much as they did last year.

The pont still remains that even if you like Brown talent wise more than Jordan. I do at this point. You can't reasonable think IMO that his situation is nearly as good. That is the main point! It hasn't mattered who the RB is with Turner in years past. Yes he has been fortunate enough to land some good ones. Either way though, 14/15 featured backs have been top 10. I still in no way see how this is a negetive on Jordan's chances this year. I dont care if the fairy god mother sent him the other RBs or not. The bottom line is when they got there, they produced. Jordan is there now and IMO at a great time as the O has made nice advances.... lightyears further and better than what they were last year.

It really hadn't mattered one bit who the RB was that ended up there to me. I think any of the FA RBs out there would have had just as great an opp as Jordan has now to be a top RB. He just happens to be the lucky SOB that ended up there. Again, this is more about OPPORTUNITY than it is talent to me when comparing him to Brown.

Cause they were given the ball an insane amount of times. I will guarantee you that Jordan will not get as many carries as those listed above.

Well, maybe, maybe not. I have him slated for around 270 which is a good bit less than most of the guys listed. So i tend to agree with you on that point. Do you think that is enough to make him a top RB candidate? I expect a 10-15 finish this year for Jordan so long as he is the primary ball carrier and well... as always stays healthy. Honestly I don't think that is looking for a lot out of him either as his ceiling could be around 5.

 

[David Yudkin]

Collins, 340 completions, 4340 yds, 35 TDs, 20 INTs

Jordan, 270 carries, 1160 yds, 10 TDs, 25 rec, 200 yds, 0 TD

Moss, 85 rec, 1445 yds, 16 TDs

Porter, 70 rec, 1040 yds, 9 TDs

Curry, 45 rec, 520 yds, 4 TDs

Gabriel, 30 rec, 400yds, 1 TDs

Jolley, 40 rec, 480 yds, 3 TDs

Wow - you will have to forgive me then - if you really see ALL that happening with Oakland this year, more power to you - and I now understand why you think Jordan will be such a star there.

While these numbers seem high, I don't see them as unattainable. In 2004, other teams had some insane offensive TD totals: Indy 61, KC 58, SD 53, GB 45Oakland scored 34 offensive TD and 320 points last year.

Since the next question will be how often do teams make momentous changes in offensive TD from Year X to Year X+1 (excluding strike years):

04 Chargers 53 TD/446 points

03 Chargers 37 TD/313 points

03 Rams 42 TD/447 points

02 Rams 35 TD/316 points

02 Chiefs 53 TD/467 points

01 Chiefs 33 TD/320 points

02 Falcons 41 TD/402 points

01 Falcons 28 TD/291 points

02 Vikings 45 TD/390 points

01 Vikings 33 TD/290 points

01 Bears 32 TD/338 points

00 Bears 18 TD/216 points

00 Broncos 49 TD/485 points

99 Broncos 38 TD/314 points

00 Buccaneers 36 TD/388 points

99 Buccaneers 25 TD/270 points

00 49ers 47 TD/388 points

99 49ers 28/295 points

99 Raiders 42 TD/390 points

98 Raiders 27 TD/288 points

99 Redskins 49 TD/443 points

98 Redskins 39 TD/319 points

99 Colts 41 TD/423 points

98 Colts 33 TD/310 points

99 Rams 55 TD/526 points

98 Rams 29 TD/285 points

98 Bills 41 TD/400 points

97 Bills 26 TD/255 points

98 Falcons 46 TD/442 points

97 Falcons 34 TD/320 points

98 Vikings 58 TD/556 points

97 Vikings 40 TD/354 points

96 Patriots 42 TD/418 points

95 Patriots 30 TD/294 points

95 Bears 44 TD/392 points

94 Bears 29 TD/271 points

92 Broncos 40 TD/373 points

91 Broncos 27 TD/262 points

89 Packers 40 TD/362 points

88 Packers 27 TD/240 points

86 Browns 38 TD/391 points

85 Browns 33 TD/287 points

85 Bears 44 TD/456 points

84 Bears 36 TD/325 points

85 Giants 46 TD/399 points

84 Giants 34 TD/299 points

81 Bengals 49 TD/421 points

80 Bengals 26 TD/244 points

80 Colts 45 TD/355 points

79 Colts 30 TD/271 points

80 Lions 34 TD/334 points

79 Lions 25 TD/219 points

80 Falcons 46 TD/405 points

79 Falcons 34 TD/300 points

80 Rams 48 TD/424 points

79 Rams 35 TD/328 points

(There may be others over the past 25 years, but that's all I got spot easily.)

That's 28 teams that I found in 25 years that improved by 100 or more points (or substantial amounts of TD.)

At this exact date last year, who would have thought the Chargers would be +16 TD and +133 points in 2004?

I'm not saying that a momentous turnaround by the Raiders is forthcoming. But such major turnarounds have happened fairly often.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Ok maybe suck was a little bit of an overstatement but how do you expect them to be good or what you seem to think as better?

Reasons why I can't see them being that good this year:

-They have lost their #1 reciever.

-McNair is a year older and missed half of last season due to a sternum injury that had him contemplating retirement, along with the slew of other injuries he has endured in his career.

-They have a starting RB that has not proven to remain healthy yet in his career

-Their WR core at this time is ???? Can D. Bennet be the number one guy? We know he can with Volek but will he have the same chemistry with McNair? Is Calico healthy and can he produce or will he be hurt again this year??? Who is their 3rd Wr??? And even if they do draft one can he fill in right away???

-Who is their back up RB??? and whoever it is will he be able to perform????

Tenn was the 11th best offense in the league last season. I can't see this team finishing even close to the top 10 for offense this year. There defense last year was the 27th ranked defense and therefore Tenn ran the third most plays on offense in the whole league with only KC and Den ranking ahead of them. I mean factor in all those question marks and how can anyone assume that this offense will be good next year????

Your argument was that even if Brown was healthy he won't get Top 10 status because of the Titans offense, so you can't use one of your arguments as to why the Titans won't be as good is because Brown may not be healthy. The assumption is that Brown would be healthy

Any WR drafted in the 6th spot will fill in RIGHT away.

Oh yes my bad, so take out the C. Brown injury thing and say he does remain healthy and I still don't see the offense fairing better and therefore hurting his production.

 

[jurb26]

Collins, 340 completions, 4340 yds, 35 TDs, 20 INTs

Jordan, 270 carries, 1160 yds, 10 TDs, 25 rec, 200 yds, 0 TD

Moss, 85 rec, 1445 yds, 16 TDs

Porter, 70 rec, 1040 yds, 9 TDs

Curry, 45 rec, 520 yds, 4 TDs

Gabriel, 30 rec, 400yds, 1 TDs

Jolley, 40 rec, 480 yds, 3 TDs

Wow - you will have to forgive me then - if you really see ALL that happening with Oakland this year, more power to you - and I now understand why you think Jordan will be such a star there.

While these numbers seem high, I don't see them as unattainable. In 2004, other teams had some insane offensive TD totals: Indy 61, KC 58, SD 53, GB 45Oakland scored 34 offensive TD and 320 points last year.

Since the next question will be how often do teams make momentous changes in offensive TD from Year X to Year X+1 (excluding strike years):

04 Chargers 53 TD/446 points

03 Chargers 37 TD/313 points

03 Rams 42 TD/447 points

02 Rams 35 TD/316 points

02 Chiefs 53 TD/467 points

01 Chiefs 33 TD/320 points

02 Falcons 41 TD/402 points

01 Falcons 28 TD/291 points

02 Vikings 45 TD/390 points

01 Vikings 33 TD/290 points

01 Bears 32 TD/338 points

00 Bears 18 TD/216 points

00 Broncos 49 TD/485 points

99 Broncos 38 TD/314 points

00 Buccaneers 36 TD/388 points

99 Buccaneers 25 TD/270 points

00 49ers 47 TD/388 points

99 49ers 28/295 points

99 Raiders 42 TD/390 points

98 Raiders 27 TD/288 points

99 Redskins 49 TD/443 points

98 Redskins 39 TD/319 points

99 Colts 41 TD/423 points

98 Colts 33 TD/310 points

99 Rams 55 TD/526 points

98 Rams 29 TD/285 points

98 Bills 41 TD/400 points

97 Bills 26 TD/255 points

98 Falcons 46 TD/442 points

97 Falcons 34 TD/320 points

98 Vikings 58 TD/556 points

97 Vikings 40 TD/354 points

96 Patriots 42 TD/418 points

95 Patriots 30 TD/294 points

95 Bears 44 TD/392 points

94 Bears 29 TD/271 points

92 Broncos 40 TD/373 points

91 Broncos 27 TD/262 points

89 Packers 40 TD/362 points

88 Packers 27 TD/240 points

86 Browns 38 TD/391 points

85 Browns 33 TD/287 points

85 Bears 44 TD/456 points

84 Bears 36 TD/325 points

85 Giants 46 TD/399 points

84 Giants 34 TD/299 points

81 Bengals 49 TD/421 points

80 Bengals 26 TD/244 points

80 Colts 45 TD/355 points

79 Colts 30 TD/271 points

80 Lions 34 TD/334 points

79 Lions 25 TD/219 points

80 Falcons 46 TD/405 points

79 Falcons 34 TD/300 points

80 Rams 48 TD/424 points

79 Rams 35 TD/328 points

(There may be others over the past 25 years, but that's all I got spot easily.)

That's 28 teams that I found in 25 years that improved by 100 or more points (or substantial amounts of TD.)

At this exact date last year, who would have thought the Chargers would be +16 TD and +133 points in 2004?

I'm not saying that a momentous turnaround by the Raiders is forthcoming. But such major turnarounds have happened fairly often.

And thank you.

 

[Marc Levin]

Collins, 340 completions, 4340 yds, 35 TDs, 20 INTs

Jordan, 270 carries, 1160 yds, 10 TDs, 25 rec, 200 yds, 0 TD

Moss, 85 rec, 1445 yds, 16 TDs

Porter, 70 rec, 1040 yds, 9 TDs

Curry, 45 rec, 520 yds, 4 TDs

Gabriel, 30 rec, 400yds, 1 TDs

Jolley, 40 rec, 480 yds, 3 TDs

Wow - you will have to forgive me then - if you really see ALL that happening with Oakland this year, more power to you - and I now understand why you think Jordan will be such a star there.

While these numbers seem high, I don't see them as unattainable. In 2004, other teams had some insane offensive TD totals: Indy 61, KC 58, SD 53, GB 45Oakland scored 34 offensive TD and 320 points last year.

Since the next question will be how often do teams make momentous changes in offensive TD from Year X to Year X+1 (excluding strike years):

David, you are awesome.I agree it isn't impossible - and like I said, I could see a drastic improvement for Oakland - but I just don't see it coming from the running game. I also can't envision 35 passing TDs from Collins, with only 16 of those to Moss, and also see 10 rushing TDs from Jordan. But, I don't fault jurb for the optimism, I just don't see the numbers as realistic - and I now understand his reasoning a lot better.

 

[Chaka]

Cause they were given the ball an insane amount of times. I will guarantee you that Jordan will not get as many carries as those listed above.

I don't know Friday six of those top 10 seasons had fewer than 300 carries. I think a season with 270-290 carries is a reasonable projection for Lamont. If Greg Bell and Stephen Davis can get 15, 16 & 17 TDs on under 290 carries I don't see why Lamont can't do the same. Great backs or otherwise Norv has always been a guy to give his running backs the ball at the stripe. Randy Moss and co. will get the TDs from 5 yards and out but inside the 5 I think the running backs get 2 out of 3 cracks at the TD. At least that has been Norv's M.O. for the last 20 years. Will it be Lamont exclusively? I don't know but I think he gets most of the opps. early and if he is effective then he will get most of the opps. late too. If he is ineffective then we will see more of "The Hammer" Crockett.my 0.02$

 

[cstu]

Collins, 340 completions, 4340 yds, 35 TDs, 20 INTs

Jordan, 270 carries, 1160 yds, 10 TDs, 25 rec, 200 yds, 0 TD

Moss, 85 rec, 1445 yds, 16 TDs

Porter, 70 rec, 1040 yds, 9 TDs

Curry, 45 rec, 520 yds, 4 TDs

Gabriel, 30 rec, 400yds, 1 TDs

Jolley, 40 rec, 480 yds, 3 TDs

Wow - you will have to forgive me then - if you really see ALL that happening with Oakland this year, more power to you - and I now understand why you think Jordan will be such a star there.

Hey I never said it wasn't bold. What exaxtly did you think I ment when I said closer to the Min of 98 O though? That was an O that scored 58 TDs.

Oh this also assumes that Jordan scores all of the Rushing TDs, which we know is not likely. I howver am not sure who my factor into those other rushing TDs just yet. Again, why they are high at this point n the year. This minor details should iron out as the preseason approaches and after the draft. So that is the entire O scoring 45

I'm as excited about the Raiders offense as anyone, but I think the numbers are a bit of a stretch. 16 TD's for Moss would be his 3rd best total and he's only had one 1400 yard season in the last four. Porter may well get 1000 yards, but the 9 TD's that he has had twice were when the team lacked a running game to compete with.Rough estimate:

Collins, 300 completions, 4000 yds, 30 TDs, 20 INTs

Jordan, 270 carries, 1160 yds, 10 TDs, 25 rec, 200 yds, 0 TD

Moss, 80 rec, 1300 yds, 14 TDs

Porter, 70 rec, 1040 yds, 6 TDs

Curry, 40 rec, 500 yds, 4 TDs

Gabriel, 20 rec, 300yds, 2 TDs

Jolley, 30 rec, 350 yds, 2 TDs

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

In case any of you think Zeroue will come in for Jordan on third downs I really think he won't, because of Jordan's ability to catch out of the backfield. here is what Turner said about L. Jordan:""We believe he's going to be a premier runner for our organization,"Turner said of Jordan in a release.Turner based that assessment, he said, on Jordan's possessing thethree things Turner looks for in a running back: power, explosivenessand receiving prowess."I mean Jordan is a back who could potentially cathch 40-50 balls out of the backfield in this offense. Also I have seen a lot of Jordan predictions on here, but I have yet to see Brown predictions, I will start..............Brown1200 yds rushing150 recieing yds6 TD's13 games playedHe is a big back that runs up right that presents a big target for taking hits. I mean he is 6'3. Yuds, here is a stat for you. When is the last time a RB over 6'1 has ever finished top 10 in ff? or has there ever been one? I am sure there has been.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

He is a big back that runs up right that presents a big target for taking hits.  I mean he is 6'3.  Yuds, here is a stat for you.  When is the last time a RB over 6'1 has ever finished top 10 in ff? or has there ever been one?  I am sure there has been.

A RB who ran upright and stood 6'3....Eric Dickerson

 

[kevthegrad]

I'll go with Brown

Brown in a heartbeat

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

He is a big back that runs up right that presents a big target for taking hits. I mean he is 6'3. Yuds, here is a stat for you. When is the last time a RB over 6'1 has ever finished top 10 in ff? or has there ever been one? I am sure there has been.

A RB who ran upright and stood 6'3....Eric Dickerson

And since E. Dickerson?????..... Oh ya the same E. Dickerson who played under N. Turner.......

 

[Banger]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10.  This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there.  But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

That still doesn't answer the question of why just about all of these "great" RBs were able to have their BEST seasons under Turner.

LT's best year was not under Turner....

 

[fridayfrenzy]

He is a big back that runs up right that presents a big target for taking hits. I mean he is 6'3. Yuds, here is a stat for you. When is the last time a RB over 6'1 has ever finished top 10 in ff? or has there ever been one? I am sure there has been.

A RB who ran upright and stood 6'3....Eric Dickerson

And since E. Dickerson?????..... Oh ya the same E. Dickerson who played under N. Turner.......

I guess Dickerson was only good cause he played under Turner. And since Dickerson...howabout the RB he replaced, Eddie George (6'3).

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10. This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there. But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

That still doesn't answer the question of why just about all of these "great" RBs were able to have their BEST seasons under Turner.

LT's best year was not under Turner....

Same with Emmitt and DickersonAllen had his best years with Turner, and that was due to carrying the ball 350 times.

Williams had his best years due to carrying the ball an insane amount of times as well.

Turner's RBs are ranked high due to alot of carries or many TDs in comparison to the amount of rushing yards.

Do I think Lamont will get an insane amount of carries? Nope.

Will Lamont get 14-18 TDs? Not likely

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10. This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there. But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

That still doesn't answer the question of why just about all of these "great" RBs were able to have their BEST seasons under Turner.

LT's best year was not under Turner....

Same with Emmitt and DickersonAllen had his best years with Turner, and that was due to carrying the ball 350 times.

Williams had his best years due to carrying the ball an insane amount of times as well.

Turner's RBs are ranked high due to alot of carries or many TDs in comparison to the amount of rushing yards.

Do I think Lamont will get an insane amount of carries? Nope.

Will Lamont get 14-18 TDs? Not likely

Why won't L. Jordan get 280-310 carries?? N.Turner as shown by his past will give a starting RB these types of carries. And not only will he give those guys the carries they were all the goal line backs as well. Only 4 times out of the 20 years up there has the primary RB not gotten the goal line carries. And of those 16 years the lowest TD total for the RB is 9. With the average being....... 12 rushing td's a season. I think it is safe to say that since L. Jordan is the primary back he will should easily get around 10 TD's rushing.

 

[jurb26]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10.  This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there.  But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

That still doesn't answer the question of why just about all of these "great" RBs were able to have their BEST seasons under Turner.

LT's best year was not under Turner....

I guess you missed the part where it says "just about" huh.

 

[jurb26]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10.  This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there.  But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

That still doesn't answer the question of why just about all of these "great" RBs were able to have their BEST seasons under Turner.

LT's best year was not under Turner....

Same with Emmitt and DickersonAllen had his best years with Turner, and that was due to carrying the ball 350 times.

Williams had his best years due to carrying the ball an insane amount of times as well.

Turner's RBs are ranked high due to alot of carries or many TDs in comparison to the amount of rushing yards.

Do I think Lamont will get an insane amount of carries? Nope.

Will Lamont get 14-18 TDs? Not likely

and thats 3 out of how many? Care to list to ones who did.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10. This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there. But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

That still doesn't answer the question of why just about all of these "great" RBs were able to have their BEST seasons under Turner.

LT's best year was not under Turner....

Same with Emmitt and DickersonAllen had his best years with Turner, and that was due to carrying the ball 350 times.

Williams had his best years due to carrying the ball an insane amount of times as well.

Turner's RBs are ranked high due to alot of carries or many TDs in comparison to the amount of rushing yards.

Do I think Lamont will get an insane amount of carries? Nope.

Will Lamont get 14-18 TDs? Not likely

Why won't L. Jordan get 280-310 carries?? N.Turner as shown by his past will give a starting RB these types of carries. And not only will he give those guys the carries they were all the goal line backs as well. Only 4 times out of the 20 years up there has the primary RB not gotten the goal line carries. And of those 16 years the lowest TD total for the RB is 9. With the average being....... 12 rushing td's a season. I think it is safe to say that since L. Jordan is the primary back he will should easily get around 10 TD's rushing.

280-310 carries? Try 340-400 carries. They had 320 carries as a TEAM last year. Not gonna happen.

 

[jurb26]

Why won't L. Jordan get 280-310 carries??

N.Turner as shown by his past will give a starting RB these types of carries. And not only will he give those guys the carries they were all the goal line backs as well. Only 4 times out of the 20 years up there has the primary RB not gotten the goal line carries. And of those 16 years the lowest TD total for the RB is 9. With the average being....... 12 rushing td's a season. I think it is safe to say that since L. Jordan is the primary back he will should easily get around 10 TD's rushing.

I would have to agree. Theo only red flag as far as goalline carries I see could be the use of Moss in those situations. he is one of the best, if not best goalline option in the game. Turner however has shown over the years, that he woul like to use his RB there though.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Every single RB that has ever been featured in Turner's system has been Top 12, all but one of which was Top 10. This is regardless of the fact of who they were or how they got there. But no, the important thing is who they were and how they got there.

1985: Eric Dickerson 292-1234-12 rushing, 20-126-0 receiving (10th)

1986: Eric Dickerson 404-1821-11 rushing, 26-205-0 receiving (1st)

1987: Charles White 324-1374-11 rushing, 23-121-0 receiving (1st)

1988: Greg Bell 288-1212-16 rushing, 24-124-2 receiving (4th)

1989: Greg Bell 272-1137-15 rushing, 19-85-0 receiving (7th)

1990: Cleveland Gary 204-808-14 rushing, 30-150-1 receiving (6th)

1991: Emmitt Smith 365-1563-12 rushing, 49-258-1 receiving (3rd)

1992: Emmitt Smith 373-1713-18 rushing, 59-335-1 receiving (1st)

1993: Emmitt Smith 283-1486-9 rushing, 57-414-1 receiving (1st)

1994: Ricky Ervins 185-650-3 rushing, 51-293-1 receiving (28th)

1995: Terry Allen 338-1309-10 rushing, 31-232-1 receiving (7th)

1996: Terry Allen 347-1353-21 rushing, 32-194-0 receiving (1st)

1997: Terry Allen 210-724-4 rushing, 20-172-1 receiving (28th)

1998: Terry Allen 148-700-2 rushing, 17-128-0 receiving (31st)

1999: Stephen Davis 290-1405-17 rushing, 23-111-0 receiving (4th)

2000: Stephen Davis 332-1318-11 rushing, 33-313-0 receiving (12th)

2001: LaDainian Tomlinson 339-1236-10 rushing, 59-367-0 receiving (7th)

2002: Ricky Williams 383-1853-16 rushing, 47-363-1 receiving (2nd)

2003: Ricky Williams 392-1372-9 rushing, 50-351-1 receiving (9th)

2004: Amos Zereoue 112-425-3 rushing, 39-284-0 receiving (39th)

Care to re-think that comment? Turner has had plenty of years where his RBs have struggled. Given the Raiders run game ranking last year and the fact that Turner has NEVER inherited a run game situation as dire as the Raiders' is, I think it is extremely important HOW these RBs became top-10.But, you are right - why look behind Turner's numbers? They speak for themself.

Your confusing me here. I don't know if you are not reading my posts or simply ignoring certain information. The only times his RBs have "struggled" are the times they were in RBBCs. I showed this rather clearly several posts back I had thought.

I don't know if you haven't been following the conversation or what, but many of those RBs with the great stats are RBs that Turner inherited when he started coaching for his new team, and who were good before Turner came. Its not like Turner turned them into good RBs, they were good in the first place and then Turner inherited them and used them properly. This is the complete opposite case with Oakland right now as Turner has inherited a terrible rushing TEAM and recruited Zereoue and Hambrick in his first year. How did that turn out?With how the rushing fared last year, you can't simply toss in any RB and look at stats from Emmitt Smith, Ricky Williams and Eric Dickerson and think that because Turner coached them and is coaching Lamont, that Lamont will be awesome like the above RBs They have the exact same O-line as last year, which is quite the contrary to what Lamont had in New York.

That still doesn't answer the question of why just about all of these "great" RBs were able to have their BEST seasons under Turner.

LT's best year was not under Turner....

Same with Emmitt and DickersonAllen had his best years with Turner, and that was due to carrying the ball 350 times.

Williams had his best years due to carrying the ball an insane amount of times as well.

Turner's RBs are ranked high due to alot of carries or many TDs in comparison to the amount of rushing yards.

Do I think Lamont will get an insane amount of carries? Nope.

Will Lamont get 14-18 TDs? Not likely

Why won't L. Jordan get 280-310 carries?? N.Turner as shown by his past will give a starting RB these types of carries. And not only will he give those guys the carries they were all the goal line backs as well. Only 4 times out of the 20 years up there has the primary RB not gotten the goal line carries. And of those 16 years the lowest TD total for the RB is 9. With the average being....... 12 rushing td's a season. I think it is safe to say that since L. Jordan is the primary back he will should easily get around 10 TD's rushing.

280-310 carries? Try 340-400 carries. Not gonna happen.

This is my point, I will take 280-310 carries. That will be plenty carries to get good rushing yards and double digit td scoring. I am not asking for 340 carries. If he gets 290 carries he will be easily be close to 1300-1350 yds with 10-12 TD's. That is somewhere in the range I think he can accomplish easily in this offense.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Why won't L. Jordan get 280-310 carries??

N.Turner as shown by his past will give a starting RB these types of carries. And not only will he give those guys the carries they were all the goal line backs as well. Only 4 times out of the 20 years up there has the primary RB not gotten the goal line carries. And of those 16 years the lowest TD total for the RB is 9. With the average being....... 12 rushing td's a season. I think it is safe to say that since L. Jordan is the primary back he will should easily get around 10 TD's rushing.

I would have to agree. Theo only red flag as far as goalline carries I see could be the use of Moss in those situations. he is one of the best, if not best goalline option in the game. Turner however has shown over the years, that he woul like to use his RB there though.

His Rb named Crockett

 

[lipster26]

This is my point, I will take 280-310 carries. That will be plenty carries to get good rushing yards and double digit td scoring. I am not asking for 340 carries. If he gets 290 carries he will be easily be close to 1300-1350 yds with 10-12 TD's. That is somewhere in the range I think he can accomplish easily in this offense.

So basically he'll easily be a top 10 rb next year with 1300yds, 10tds, and 40-50 receptions.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

This is my point, I will take 280-310 carries. That will be plenty carries to get good rushing yards and double digit td scoring. I am not asking for 340 carries. If he gets 290 carries he will be easily be close to 1300-1350 yds with 10-12 TD's. That is somewhere in the range I think he can accomplish easily in this offense.

So basically he'll easily be a top 10 rb next year with 1300yds, 10tds, and 40-50 receptions.

Yup, thats what he has been projecting since the trade with what appears to be no thought behind it. 290 carries for a RB would have been the 10th highest carries in the league last year,

Oakland is not going to go from the worst rushing team in yards and carries to having a RB who will carry for the ~10th most carries in the league.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

This is my point, I will take 280-310 carries. That will be plenty carries to get good rushing yards and double digit td scoring. I am not asking for 340 carries. If he gets 290 carries he will be easily be close to 1300-1350 yds with 10-12 TD's. That is somewhere in the range I think he can accomplish easily in this offense.

So basically he'll easily be a top 10 rb next year with 1300yds, 10tds, and 40-50 receptions.

Well I have projected him there.....

 

[fridayfrenzy]

This is my point, I will take 280-310 carries. That will be plenty carries to get good rushing yards and double digit td scoring. I am not asking for 340 carries. If he gets 290 carries he will be easily be close to 1300-1350 yds with 10-12 TD's. That is somewhere in the range I think he can accomplish easily in this offense.

So basically he'll easily be a top 10 rb next year with 1300yds, 10tds, and 40-50 receptions.

Well I have projected him there.....

But you have been throwing out stats and numbers and not really understanding what they represent or comparing them to prior years. Thats a big downfall when projecting.

 

[Chaka]

Oakland is not going to go from the worst rushing team in yards and carries to having a RB who will carry for the ~10th most carries in the league.

Son, making comparisons between last years Raiders and this years Raiders is foolish and you know it. And just because you say it with conviction doesn't make it true.My only guess is that you are posting so much anti-Jordan propaganda for the strict purpose of getting under Carter's skin. Apparently it's working. Nice job.

 

[Jedimaster21]

I have been reading many of the arguments which prefer C. Brown and I just don't see too much merit. If you analyze the stats, they show that Norv Turner prefers to use one back when he has one cabable of the feature role. The Raiders are not paying Jordan 27.5 million to be in a committee. He also uses the same back in the red zone, which just adds value to LaMont. C. Brown is a talented back who will play in an offense which has lost one impact WR, and multiple lineman. They are rebuilding and trying to adjust their cap situation. The Raiders have made several dramatic moves to improve their offense, while the Titans have made several cuts that will decrease their effectiveness on offense. Personally, I think Lamont is the type of player that can dominate a game, and he is in a perfect situation. I think this is a no brainer: Lamont will dominate C. Brown statistically. I also don't usually quote others' opinions and specifically argue with them, but after reading posts from Fridayfrenzy, I must come to the conclusion that he has no forsight. Honestly, stating that the Raiders only ran the ball 320 times last year, and using that as a reason that Lamont won't get a lot of carries, is a terrible argument. First of all, they had no effective player running the ball, and secondly, they were behind the majority of the time. I hate to be this deliberate, but when predicting a player's effectiveness next year, you must not only take into account his skill and talent, but also how his AND the team's situation has changed. You must come with a better argument than, "Well they didn't run a lot last year, so..." Also, those of you that say I am only defending Lamont due to the fact that I have him are partially right. However, I do have him for a reason. If I did not think he was going to have a great season, I would not defend him on this board, but instead try to move him...

 

[goonsquad]

If I did not think he was going to have a great season, I would not defend him on this board, but instead try to move him...

...Or you would defend him on this board in an attempt to artificially raise his value and THEN move him. Your Jedi mind-tricks won't work on me, boy.

 

[kevthegrad]

He is a big back that runs up right that presents a big target for taking hits.  I mean he is 6'3.  Yuds, here is a stat for you.  When is the last time a RB over 6'1 has ever finished top 10 in ff? or has there ever been one?  I am sure there has been.

A RB who ran upright and stood 6'3....Eric Dickerson

And since E. Dickerson?????..... Oh ya the same E. Dickerson who played under N. Turner.......

Lest we forget Dickerson also talked with a mouthful of marbles for an entire season on Monday Night Football as "sideline reporter".

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

He is a big back that runs up right that presents a big target for taking hits.  I mean he is 6'3.  Yuds, here is a stat for you.  When is the last time a RB over 6'1 has ever finished top 10 in ff? or has there ever been one?  I am sure there has been.

A RB who ran upright and stood 6'3....Eric Dickerson

And since E. Dickerson?????..... Oh ya the same E. Dickerson who played under N. Turner.......

Lest we forget Dickerson also talked with a mouthful of marbles for an entire season on Monday Night Football as "sideline reporter".

what does that even mean...... and how is it relevant to the post. E. Dickerson was brought into the discussion becuase he, like C. Brown stands at 6'3.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Oakland is not going to go from the worst rushing team in yards and carries to having a RB who will carry for the ~10th most carries in the league.

Son, making comparisons between last years Raiders and this years Raiders is foolish and you know it. And just because you say it with conviction doesn't make it true.My only guess is that you are posting so much anti-Jordan propaganda for the strict purpose of getting under Carter's skin. Apparently it's working. Nice job.

he is not under my skin, I laugh it off as it does amuse me. He is anti- Jordan for the only reason that I own him and he does not. And not just because I own him, but that I drafted him last year and was claiming all year that he was going to get signed by someone in the off season because he was a free agent and has the skill to be a good starter in this league. He laughed at me at the time, and said things like how is he any more valuable then other free agent running backs and yada yada yada, but he is not laughing any more. What I don't get is he does not seem anti-Jordan by saying he has him projected as the 18th RB next season. And 18th is a very fair projection as he could finish there for sure but the problem is Friday, if you do have him projected as 18th you do hold value in him, and if you do hold value in him then you should manage to see that he "possibly" could produce top 10 numbers. And instead of saying he won't produce this top 10 value you throw out arguments that don't relate well with his new circumstance and team next season. Like claiming he could not beat out C. Martin as the starter....... I mean you claim he is nothing but a back up and did not have the skill to get touches so he must not have been that good and then you rank him 18th and laugh when I say he could finish top 10. At least you are not being condescending.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

On a side note, I love NFL offseason. We are on page 6 of a debate between C. Brown and L. Jordan.

 

[David Yudkin]

Yuds, here is a stat for you. When is the last time a RB over 6'1 has ever finished top 10 in ff? or has there ever been one? I am sure there has been.

I don't have time to look at this in great detail, but I can add that from 1994-2003, there were 5 RB that were 6'1" or taller that were TOP 5 RB. Three were 6'1", one was 6'2", and one was 6'3". I don't have the file on me that would tell me which RB they were . . .

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I have been reading many of the arguments which prefer C. Brown and I just don't see too much merit. If you analyze the stats, they show that Norv Turner prefers to use one back when he has one cabable of the feature role. The Raiders are not paying Jordan 27.5 million to be in a committee. He also uses the same back in the red zone, which just adds value to LaMont. C. Brown is a talented back who will play in an offense which has lost one impact WR, and multiple lineman. They are rebuilding and trying to adjust their cap situation. The Raiders have made several dramatic moves to improve their offense, while the Titans have made several cuts that will decrease their effectiveness on offense. Personally, I think Lamont is the type of player that can dominate a game, and he is in a perfect situation. I think this is a no brainer: Lamont will dominate C. Brown statistically. I also don't usually quote others' opinions and specifically argue with them, but after reading posts from Fridayfrenzy, I must come to the conclusion that he has no forsight. Honestly, stating that the Raiders only ran the ball 320 times last year, and using that as a reason that Lamont won't get a lot of carries, is a terrible argument. First of all, they had no effective player running the ball, and secondly, they were behind the majority of the time. I hate to be this deliberate, but when predicting a player's effectiveness next year, you must not only take into account his skill and talent, but also how his AND the team's situation has changed. You must come with a better argument than, "Well they didn't run a lot last year, so..." Also, those of you that say I am only defending Lamont due to the fact that I have him are partially right. However, I do have him for a reason. If I did not think he was going to have a great season, I would not defend him on this board, but instead try to move him...

I think you are placing too much emphasis on what Lamont will bring to the running game. The difference maker is Moss and I understand that, but bringing in the best WR in the game is not going to catapault your carries from the worst to top 10. I know they didn't have stellar RBs last year, but a large part about not running last year was the O-line, system and having to air out the ball in an attempt to keep games close. Not one of those things has changed to this year. The defense on paper has actually gotten worst which is not a good thing when you are playing offensive teams such as San Diego, KC and Denver twice a year.I also understand that bringing in an elite WR will help the offense and help move the chains but that also means they will pass that much more as well. Everyone brings up how much Lamont was signed for...well how much was Moss signed for, HE is their offense, not Lamont. How many teams bring in one of the best WRs in the game to make their free agent RB their offense? Oakland was 4th overall in PASS attempts so it is not like defenses were stacking the box against the run tlast year. To say the Oakland running game was ineffective due solely to the RBs is being quite naiive. Good running teams are built around O-lines and systems, not necessarily who is running the ball in the backfield. And that brings me to another reason why I think Lamont is over-rated. The Jets have a good O-line and great running system and that paired with the fact that Lamont amassed his stats in 4th quarters and against weak defenses (which is FACT by the way, and I have the stats to prove it) makes Lamont look that much better. Lamont Jordan coming to Oakland is not a huge boost to their running game by any means. He is a better RB, but what makes a good running game is the O-line and system, not just the back. Their O-line, system and defense have all stayed the same. I am positive that the Raiders offense will be better due to Moss coming in, but with that being said it is not going to be a huge boost that will catapault Lamont into top 10 stardom. And please don't bring up the argument about Moss keeping defenses honest, cause all of last year defenses were playing the pass the whole time anyways, so nothing will change in that regard.Add all of that with people disregarding Zereoue's presence in the receiving backfield and Crockett on the goal line and I have a hard time projecting Lamont in the top 10 like alot of people are doing. Lamont is not a better blocking/receiving back than Zereoue and I don't care how much Lamont makes, cause there are better and more expensive RBs who get pulled on passing downs. Their isn't a rule about if you make 5 million as a Rb then you will also be in on 3rd downs, they will play whoever is more skilled in that area, regardless how much they make. Crockett is also thought of as one of the best goalline backs in the league, and he will still get his touches on the goalline as well. I read a post a while back about the Raiders signing the FB that is specifically used to block for Crockett on goal line situations, so that isn't a good sign for Lamont lovers.There are WAY too many questions marks about Lamont for me to project him in the top 10, and those that are projecting Lamont in the top 10 are adding their wishes in with their projections.

 

[cstu]

I also understand that bringing in an elite WR will help the offense and help move the chains but that also means they will pass that much more as well. Everyone brings up how much Lamont was signed for...well how much was Moss signed for, HE is their offense, not Lamont. How many teams bring in one of the best WRs in the game to make their free agent RB their offense? ---------------One like the Raiders that just wants to sell jerseys. They have an owner whose phrase is "just win, baby" but runs the team more like "just sell gear, baby".