LAMONT JORDAN SIGNS WITH RAIDERS! (1 Viewer)

[RAIDERNATION.]

My two cents on this ....

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=146083

Hit the bricks, ATTENTION WHORE!

Matt Hasselbeck: "We want the ball, and we're gonna score!"

:rotflmao:

 

[msommer]

[Hmmm...the Raiders have won the Super Bowl 3 times with the 10th ranked D or worse. No other team has ever done that.

Sure but no worse than 13 - how much do they have to improve to get to top 13?

 

[RAIDERNATION.]

GREAT quote.

2004

Total Defense --- 30th

Passing Defense --- 30th

Rushing Defense --- 22nd

Total Offense --- 17th

Passing Offense --- 8th

Rushing Offense --- [bold]32nd[/bold]

5 wins, 11 losses

coach: Norv Turner

Most of the problems the Raiders have will not be fixed by getting Moss, and dealing a draft pick for him may actually hinder fixing those problems.

LAST ranked running game. LAST!!! Now factor in

1. A worse defense than last year and a bad team. Bad teams usually don't turn out well for fantasy numbers....Arizona, San Fran, Oakland, Miami, Cleveland, Chicago from last year. Sorry that I am not a homer like RAIDERNATION and think that now the Raiders will all of sudden be a winning team, but the Raiders needed to improve on Defense to improve as a team.

You think about me even when you're sleeping, don't you?(Be honest...)

 

[Chase Stuart]

As far as Mr. Stuart's words of wisdom that a pass happy defense is not necessarily a good thing for RBs I present the following evidence

Mr. Marshall Faulk and Mr. Priest Holmes. The Rams and Chiefs have been the two most pass happy offenses ever and there is not even a close third. Faulk and Holmes have been the two best fantasy RBs to ever exist.

End of argument.

Hey UFO,I did say that playing in a pass happy offense is not necessarily a good thing...but pointing out two examples doesn't prove that it is. That's not enough "evidence" for me. Here are two "other" examples:

2004: Green Bay leads the league in pass attempts. Ahman Green scores 197 FPs.

2003: Green Bay ranks 27th in pass attempts. Ahman Green scores 345 FPs.

2004: New York Giants rank 23rd in pass attempts. Tiki Barber scores 300 FPs.

2003: New York Giants lead the league in pass attempts. Barber scores 186 FPs.

I've watched every game Jordan has played in the NFL. He is a special back, and deserving of the hype. However, he doesn't have the hands of a Priest Holmes or Marshall Faulk. Additionally, Pennington throws one of the softest and easiest balls to catch in the league--I can assure you, Kerry Collins does not.

It wouldn't shock me to see the Raiders resemble the 2002 Vikings, and if Jordan posts similar numbers to the 2002 version of Michael Bennett.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/min2002.htm

They led the NFL in total yards of offense, but ranked 30th in points allowed. The QB had a ton of fumbles and INTs, and the RB produced 1300/5. I could easily envision Crockett in the Moe Williams role (and why not? Norv Turner isn't a fantasy coach.) by scoring a boat load of TDs.

I'm not too worried about Jordan's ability to handle a full workload. But I'm VERY worried that Norv Turner isn't in control of this team on September 11th, much less by Thanksgiving.

 

[Gadzooks]

"5. Most importantly, I have seen Jordan play in most of the Jets games this year, and he consistently outplayed a Hall of Famer in Martin. He looked bigger, faster, and more powerful, and they used him in important situations. He has the talent to be an excellent feature back."Consistently outplayed a Hall of Famer in Martin? Wow, pretty impressive to consistently outplay the league's rushing leader. Jordan still has to prove that he can do it for an ENTIRE game. He's looked good spelling Martin for a few plays a game, but I'd like to see how he runs after 20 carries. I fell for Barlow last year, no way I'd put a guy in the top 15 who has been a back up for 4 years and never started. I'd love to snag him between 20 and 24, but at 15 its too risky to take him there when there will be other safer rbs available.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think looking at a top 10 defense based on points allowed is a bit misleading.  There are lots of factors that contribute to a defense not allowing many points.  The Rams superbowl year their defense wasn't great, but the Rams offense made an opposing teams offense 1 dimensional because they would jump out to big leads early and often. 

It is much easier to play defense when you know the other team HAS to pass.

One of the reasons the Raiders defense had trouble last year was their offense didn't do anything to keep the defense off the field.  Most defenses in this league will give up lots of points if you are losing the time of possesion battle.  This is something I think the Raiders have improved on this year by adding Moss and Jordan.  Their offense can be big play AND it can control the clock.  If this happens I expect to see an improvement in ranking for the Raiders defense.

just my 2cp

I strongly disagree. Big leads usually mean garbage time TD's and the dreaded prevent defense. The best defenses ever were usually accompanied by a mediocre offense at best...Bears, Ravens, Bucs, and Giants that made a living off of turnovers.

I was about to post this BassNBrew. Funny how when someone wants to say a team has a great defense but the numbers say they don't, they imply that they give up a lot of garbage points.

 

[Mr. Vegas]

For those saying that the Raiders, Chiefs, or Colts have a chance based on their offense, DEFENSE wins championships.  Here's the track record for Super Bowl champions and where they ranked in points allowed.

2004: Patriots (2)

2003: Patriots (1)

2002: Buccaneers (1)

2001: Patriots (6)

2000: Ravens (1)

1999: Rams (4)

1998: Broncos (8)

1997: Broncos (6)

1996: Packers (1)

1995: Cowboys (3)

1994: 49ers (6)

1993: Cowboys (2)

1992: Cowboys (5)

1991: Redskins (2)

1990: Giants (1)

1989: 49ers (3)

1988: 49ers (8)

1987: Redskins (6)

1986: Giants (2)

1985: Bears (1)

1984: 49ers (1)

1983: Raiders (13)

1982: Redskins (1)

1981: 49ers (2)

1980: Raiders (10)

1979: Steelers (5)

1978: Steelers (1)

1977: Cowboys (8)

1976: Raiders (12)

1975: Steelers (2)

1974: Steelers (2)

1973: Dolphins (1)

1972: Dolphins (1)

1971: Cowboys (7)

1970: Colts (7)

1969: Chiefs (1)

1968: Jets (4)

1967: Packers (3)

1966: Packers (1)

In the history of the Super Bowl, the winning team has been a Top 10 ranked defense 37 of 39 years including the past 21 years in a row.It is interesting to note , though, that the 2 times a non-Top 10 defensive team won it was the Raiders both times.

To put things into perspective, here's what would have needed to happen for the Colts, Chiefs, and Raiders to have ranked as a Top 10 defensive team last year . . .

Colts needed to have allowed 37 fewer points

Chiefs needed to have allowed 131 fewer points

Raiders needed to have allowed 138 fewer points

IMO, the Colts are a lot more closer to being serious contender than the Raiders or Chiefs are.

I completly agree that defense wins championships. There is no doubt to that fact in my opinion.However, this is a FANTASY FOOTBALL site. A great offsense coupled with poor defense is Fantasy Gold. I can not wait to see that stat line after each game that ends 45-40... Raider skill position players should be highly sought after in this years re-drafts. Jordan should be a 2nd rounder for sure, if he slips any farther than end of the 2nd in average draft position by August I will be very surprised. I would happily have any of the 3 WR's on my re-draft team this year too.

Should be fun!

It's here in Black and Silver:The last 2 teams that won not ranked in the top 10 The Raiders.

Yeah I'm not a Raiders fan. Numbers are just that numbers.

Ask the Fun Bunch and Riggings how Good the Raiders Dee was.

Case closed.

Yes the Dee has to be better,but it will because of Jordan,I mean Fargas. :rotflmao:

Thanks to David Yudkin for proving my point.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

WOOOH HOOOOOO>............. I hate to say it but I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO, and what do you L.Jordan haters have to say???

That he's 2005's Kevan Barlow ?

 

[BroadwayG]

I sincerely hope he doesn't pull the next Canidate or Barlow trick, but it certainly is a possibility.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

WOOOH HOOOOOO>............. I hate to say it but I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO, I TOLD YOU SO, and what do you L.Jordan haters have to say???

That he's 2005's Kevan Barlow ?

If you read the entire thread the whole K.Barlow thing came up already, so if you are going to address this situation and say that; I would at least like you to try and explain how the situation is even remotely similar to Barlow.

 

[Toomuchnv]

I think looking at a top 10 defense based on points allowed is a bit misleading.  There are lots of factors that contribute to a defense not allowing many points.  The Rams superbowl year their defense wasn't great, but the Rams offense made an opposing teams offense 1 dimensional because they would jump out to big leads early and often. 

It is much easier to play defense when you know the other team HAS to pass.

One of the reasons the Raiders defense had trouble last year was their offense didn't do anything to keep the defense off the field.  Most defenses in this league will give up lots of points if you are losing the time of possesion battle.  This is something I think the Raiders have improved on this year by adding Moss and Jordan.  Their offense can be big play AND it can control the clock.  If this happens I expect to see an improvement in ranking for the Raiders defense.

just my 2cp

I strongly disagree. Big leads usually mean garbage time TD's and the dreaded prevent defense. The best defenses ever were usually accompanied by a mediocre offense at best...Bears, Ravens, Bucs, and Giants that made a living off of turnovers.

I think we are arguing about the wrong thing here. My point was ranking a defense on points allowed is misleading and doesn't prove much in my eyes. I would be more inclined to see a defenses ranking on total yardage allowed as that is a more tell tale sign of how well a defense stops an offense. While I don't have the stats in front of me to back it up, I would venture to guess if you showed all the superbowl winners' defensive ranking based on total yardage allowed there would be plenty more out of the top 10....

I'm sure some stat guru can look it up as I don't have the time at the moment

 

[Toomuchnv]

I think looking at a top 10 defense based on points allowed is a bit misleading.   There are lots of factors that contribute to a defense not allowing many points.  The Rams superbowl year their defense wasn't great, but the Rams offense made an opposing teams offense 1 dimensional because they would jump out to big leads early and often. 

It is much easier to play defense when you know the other team HAS to pass.

One of the reasons the Raiders defense had trouble last year was their offense didn't do anything to keep the defense off the field.  Most defenses in this league will give up lots of points if you are losing the time of possesion battle.  This is something I think the Raiders have improved on this year by adding Moss and Jordan.  Their offense can be big play AND it can control the clock.  If this happens I expect to see an improvement in ranking for the Raiders defense.

just my 2cp

I strongly disagree. Big leads usually mean garbage time TD's and the dreaded prevent defense. The best defenses ever were usually accompanied by a mediocre offense at best...Bears, Ravens, Bucs, and Giants that made a living off of turnovers.

I was about to post this BassNBrew. Funny how when someone wants to say a team has a great defense but the numbers say they don't, they imply that they give up a lot of garbage points.

Did you even read my post?? If you did then maybe you should read it again as you have no clue what I said. I never implied or said the Raiders defense last year was great and gave up a lot of garbage points. For the reading impaired my points were:

1. Ranking a defense by points allowed is misleading and doesn't mean as much to me as ranking a defense by yards allowed...

2. The Raiders lost the TOP battle in almost every game last year which can frustrate a defense and tire them out.....which will result in more points given up.

 

[David Yudkin]

I think looking at a top 10 defense based on points allowed is a bit misleading.   There are lots of factors that contribute to a defense not allowing many points.  The Rams superbowl year their defense wasn't great, but the Rams offense made an opposing teams offense 1 dimensional because they would jump out to big leads early and often. 

It is much easier to play defense when you know the other team HAS to pass.

One of the reasons the Raiders defense had trouble last year was their offense didn't do anything to keep the defense off the field.  Most defenses in this league will give up lots of points if you are losing the time of possesion battle.  This is something I think the Raiders have improved on this year by adding Moss and Jordan.  Their offense can be big play AND it can control the clock.  If this happens I expect to see an improvement in ranking for the Raiders defense.

just my 2cp

I strongly disagree. Big leads usually mean garbage time TD's and the dreaded prevent defense. The best defenses ever were usually accompanied by a mediocre offense at best...Bears, Ravens, Bucs, and Giants that made a living off of turnovers.

I was about to post this BassNBrew. Funny how when someone wants to say a team has a great defense but the numbers say they don't, they imply that they give up a lot of garbage points.

Did you even read my post?? If you did then maybe you should read it again as you have no clue what I said. I never implied or said the Raiders defense last year was great and gave up a lot of garbage points. For the reading impaired my points were:

1. Ranking a defense by points allowed is misleading and doesn't mean as much to me as ranking a defense by yards allowed...

2. The Raiders lost the TOP battle in almost every game last year which can frustrate a defense and tire them out.....which will result in more points given up.

I, on the other hand, don't put much stock in yards allowed. The Pats, for example, were not great in terms of yards allowed (17th vs pass, 6th against the run, 9th overall), but ranked 2nd in points allowed.A team doesn't win or lose games based on yardage gained or yardage allowed. They win or lose based solely on points scored and points allowed.

 

[Mr. Vegas]

I think looking at a top 10 defense based on points allowed is a bit misleading.   There are lots of factors that contribute to a defense not allowing many points.  The Rams superbowl year their defense wasn't great, but the Rams offense made an opposing teams offense 1 dimensional because they would jump out to big leads early and often. 

It is much easier to play defense when you know the other team HAS to pass.

One of the reasons the Raiders defense had trouble last year was their offense didn't do anything to keep the defense off the field.  Most defenses in this league will give up lots of points if you are losing the time of possesion battle.  This is something I think the Raiders have improved on this year by adding Moss and Jordan.  Their offense can be big play AND it can control the clock.  If this happens I expect to see an improvement in ranking for the Raiders defense.

just my 2cp

I strongly disagree. Big leads usually mean garbage time TD's and the dreaded prevent defense. The best defenses ever were usually accompanied by a mediocre offense at best...Bears, Ravens, Bucs, and Giants that made a living off of turnovers.

I was about to post this BassNBrew. Funny how when someone wants to say a team has a great defense but the numbers say they don't, they imply that they give up a lot of garbage points.

Did you even read my post?? If you did then maybe you should read it again as you have no clue what I said. I never implied or said the Raiders defense last year was great and gave up a lot of garbage points. For the reading impaired my points were:

1. Ranking a defense by points allowed is misleading and doesn't mean as much to me as ranking a defense by yards allowed...

2. The Raiders lost the TOP battle in almost every game last year which can frustrate a defense and tire them out.....which will result in more points given up.

I, on the other hand, don't put much stock in yards allowed. The Pats, for example, were not great in terms of yards allowed (17th vs pass, 6th against the run, 9th overall), but ranked 2nd in points allowed.A team doesn't win or lose games based on yardage gained or yardage allowed. They win or lose based solely on points scored and points allowed.

 

[my man otis]

OK, here's my take on LJ.

First, yes I am a Raiders fan (which should be evident from the alias and avatar.)

Jordan should be a pretty decent performer. The top15 predictions should be easily attained.

Jordan will not be in a RBBC situation. Will another back come in on, say, 3rd and longs? Probably. But that happens on most teams that are not in a RBBC. Is it possible for Crockett to get the ball on those 4th an 1's. Again, possibly. But that alone doesn't make a RBBC. No team in the NFL has just 1 RB that gets 100% of the carries throughout the season. It just doesn't happen. So why is it that because there might be a few situations when Jordan is not the back on a play the Raider Haters are jumping all over claiming RBBC?

As for my personal preference of Jordan, I do think they paid a bit more for him than I would've liked. I much rather would've gone after Davenport for considerably less, or draft a RB (I was hoping for Fason in the 2nd.) But that's just my opinion.

As for the Raiders still sucking because they have no defense... Only 1 day of free agency has passed people. There's still alot more to come before the season starts.

Woodson is more than likely to get traded, which will free up about $10mil in cap room, and they'll more than likely get a first round pick in return for him.

The Raiders are probably going to go all defense in the draft, with maybe picking up a QB late. So they're defensive changes are far from complete, so it's way too early to be judging them.

Good post.I watched Jordan in every game last year. It's hard to judge what you'll get from him over the course of 250-300 carries, but he is a tough, tough football player that over the past 4 years has learned from one of the best RBs to ever play the game. Solid acquisition.

He won't average 4.9 ypc, but 1300/6 to 1500/10 is about the range I'd expect. Collins/Porter/Moss are going to air the hell out of the ball this year and unless they upgrade the D Jordan is going to spend the 4th quarter pass blocking instead of rushing.

11-15 next year. Probably will fall to the early 3rd round of a redraft as there just seems to be a good # of RBs available next year.

 

[Mr. Vegas]

You ever have that feeling and say 'Boy I hope I'm wrong,but know theres noway to be on something'?Boy I hope I'm wrong and all you Jordan lovers and guys who have him(In Fantasy Leagues) I hope your right and He's the next M.Allen.Like I said I hope He's as good as Kenny King.