This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
Brees was proven and Russell is a rookie...apples and oranges.You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
I love what the crypt keeper has done this offseason!
I'm talking about from a "team" perspective. What the QB could expect regarding the surrounding talent. And Brees was an unknown as far as if he'd be able to come back effectively from major surgery. He went VERY late in every draft I was in.Brees was proven and Russell is a rookie...apples and oranges.You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
I love what the crypt keeper has done this offseason!
The 2005 Saints were #20 on offense and #12 on defense. That's not great, but it's reasonable in both cases. The 2006 Raiders were #32 on offense and #3 on defense. I think it's realistic to say that the Raiders offense is likely to struggle again in 2007, although, like the Niners in 2006, even a crappy offense will be better than the one they had the year before.
Will they struggle? Probably.But the coaching upgrades alone will pay immeasurable dividends.
No, the Saints weren't close to being as bad as the Raiders before Brees came... And at least Brooks was usuable at times at QB for the Saints... he was awful with the Raiders... The 06 Raiders brought shame to the Nation... it does matter if they scored 76TDs, then even if they didn't win the Superbowl at least they would be close to it... 12 TDs if a strong indicator of a poorly ran team...The brightside is the changes made with the Raiders... but Yes, I do feel for Russell also, and hope it's Josh McCown that takes the beating in 07 as the Raiders try to improve...You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
I love what the crypt keeper has done this offseason!
The 2005 Saints were 3-13. The 2006 Raiders were 2-14.We're arguing over who is the tallest midget.No, the Saints weren't close to being as bad as the Raiders before Brees came.You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
I love what the crypt keeper has done this offseason!
The 2005 Saints also played 16 road games because their homes and stadium had been completely destroyed by a Hurricane. I don't think the situations are comparable in the slightest.The 2005 Saints were 3-13. The 2006 Raiders were 2-14.We're arguing over who is the tallest midget.No, the Saints weren't close to being as bad as the Raiders before Brees came.You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
I love what the crypt keeper has done this offseason!
We are also talking about their offenses, not their records.The 2005 Saints also played 16 road games because their homes and stadium had been completely destroyed by a Hurricane. I don't think the situations are comparable in the slightest.The 2005 Saints were 3-13. The 2006 Raiders were 2-14.We're arguing over who is the tallest midget.No, the Saints weren't close to being as bad as the Raiders before Brees came.You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
I love what the crypt keeper has done this offseason!
They also had an above-average offense for five straight years before 2005, and retained a lot of the key components from those above-average offenses to go with the new additions. Oakland's offense hasn't been even remotely good since 2002, and since then they've lost their QB, both WRs, RB, TE, and all of their good offensive linemen.Can we think of any other reasons why the two situations aren't in the least bit comparable?We are also talking about their offenses, not their records.The 2005 Saints also played 16 road games because their homes and stadium had been completely destroyed by a Hurricane. I don't think the situations are comparable in the slightest.The 2005 Saints were 3-13. The 2006 Raiders were 2-14.We're arguing over who is the tallest midget.No, the Saints weren't close to being as bad as the Raiders before Brees came.You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
I love what the crypt keeper has done this offseason!
Not gonna take the bait.The Raiders are to be blunt a disgrace to the NFL. They are the Expos of the NFL and should follow in their footsteps.
You just did. The ignore feature is a wonderful thing.Not gonna take the bait.The Raiders are to be blunt a disgrace to the NFL. They are the Expos of the NFL and should follow in their footsteps.
Some kid by the name of... hmm.. Kiffone? Kriffun?Yeah, man!
Woooooh!!Wait... I suppose... yeah, it's better than another 0-6.
I have to say, as a Broncos fan, when Raiders fans start "boldly" predicting a whopping two division wins and telling me to "put that in my pipe and smoke it" with such brash confidence, it makes me unaccountably happy. I mean, even OAKLAND fans think that two division wins is a bold prediction.
Problem with this is that the Saints weren't really a 3-13 team in '05. If not for Katrina they likely would've finished about 8-8 (this based on the fact that they seemingly ALWAYS finished 8-8 during the Haslett regime).Being a big LSU fan I would like to see the Raiders succeed under JaMarcus, but it seems to me they have a much bigger hill to climb, talent-wise and organization-wise (at least from a pure football standpoint).
It was so bad making John (Kordell running the option) Shoop OC was a drastic improvement.
Raidernation brings up a good point. While there is a difference b/w a proven NFL starter(Brees) who is question soley b/c an injury and a QB who has little NFL experience(whichever QB wins the job), the really weak spots for the Saints in 2005 and the Raiders in 2006 was the OL. As a Saints fan going into 2006, I(and most pundits) thought the line was in big trouble: they moved the RT to LT(Jamaal Brown), had a center that was deemed unproductive for another franchise(Faine), had an unheralded rookie G(Evans) and a new RT(Stinchcomb) that had many pundits thought was not cut out of the NFL.You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
I love what the crypt keeper has done this offseason!
That comment was more for guys like the Jacket, who will predict a 4 win season without anything to support their prediction, but references to the last few years.And judging by the strength of the AFC W and where this team is coming from I'd say 2 division wins and 7 wins overall would be a good season. I'm a homer, but I'm also realistic.This year will be a stepping stone to better times in '08 and beyond. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, but to close your eyes and predict 4-12 without knowing anything at all about what this team has done this offseason is simply annoying.SSOG said:I have to say, as a Broncos fan, when Raiders fans start "boldly" predicting a whopping two division wins and telling me to "put that in my pipe and smoke it" with such brash confidence, it makes me unaccountably happy. I mean, even OAKLAND fans think that two division wins is a bold prediction.
Like I said, you don't know squat.I've been watching this offseason VERY closely, and so far I really like what KIFFIN has done. From the draft to free agency to OTAs to Moss to his pressers, the kid coach has been very impressive.This is a coaches' game and Art Shell was BY FAR the worst coach in the league last year. A piece of dead wood would've been an upgrade, yet less a young, energetic guy with a plan and an ability to motivate and lead. Kiff hasn't proven anything yet, but the vibe around this team is 180 degrees different from the last few years based upon the camp reports. I think he's done a terrific job so far and am truly excited to see how he does once the season rolls around.But keep hating without any real knowledge, dude. It speaks very highly of you.Some kid by the name of... hmm.. Kiffone? Kriffun?Yeah, man!
lol! I agree with you. That brings joy to my heart. A new bold prediction of 2 div wins. I can't wait!!!SSOG said:I have to say, as a Broncos fan, when Raiders fans start "boldly" predicting a whopping two division wins and telling me to "put that in my pipe and smoke it" with such brash confidence, it makes me unaccountably happy. I mean, even OAKLAND fans think that two division wins is a bold prediction.
You can draw some simularities, but I wasn't worried about Brees when he got to the Saints... bad OL and all, Brooks had success there... The records mean nothing, we are talking offensive succcess and the problem with the Raiders last year was more then just the OL... there are plenty of teams with suspect OL that still score TD's... The Cards have a horrible OL that even Edge couldn't find room in and still managed 33 TD's...The whole Raiders philosophy was wrong in 06... You've lost touch when Art Shell and Mr. Bed and Breakfast is the best you can do... QB was an issue, OL, WR, coaching... it was just sad... and no team in the NFL was close to being that bad.Saints-Man said:Raidernation brings up a good point. While there is a difference b/w a proven NFL starter(Brees) who is question soley b/c an injury and a QB who has little NFL experience(whichever QB wins the job), the really weak spots for the Saints in 2005 and the Raiders in 2006 was the OL. As a Saints fan going into 2006, I(and most pundits) thought the line was in big trouble: they moved the RT to LT(Jamaal Brown), had a center that was deemed unproductive for another franchise(Faine), had an unheralded rookie G(Evans) and a new RT(Stinchcomb) that had many pundits thought was not cut out of the NFL.You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
I love what the crypt keeper has done this offseason!
While some people think the Saints are one of the better teams in the NFC now, I think the OL is still a question mark. With a year to figure them out, will the Saints be able to be as effective as they were last year? While I have high hopes, I am not yet convinced.
The Raiders OL could easily improve. If the light bulb goes on with Gallery and some of the other young lineman, the OL could really improve and make things easier for the QB. I am not saying it will, just that it is possible.
I agree with every single point you just made. I don't think the Raiders are a 4-win team, mostly because very, very few teams wind up being 4-win teams (and which teams hit that mark are usually fairly unpredictable). I also agree that 2 division wins and 7 wins overall would be a very good season. I'm just saying that, as a Broncos fan, I *love* the fact that 2 division wins and 7 wins overall would be a very good season.I also think that 3 division wins isn't entirely out of the question, although I think it's unlikely. I could see KC collapsing and getting swept by Oakland, and then it's just a matter of stealing 1 game out of 4 that Oakland has no business winning.That comment was more for guys like the Jacket, who will predict a 4 win season without anything to support their prediction, but references to the last few years.And judging by the strength of the AFC W and where this team is coming from I'd say 2 division wins and 7 wins overall would be a good season. I'm a homer, but I'm also realistic.This year will be a stepping stone to better times in '08 and beyond. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, but to close your eyes and predict 4-12 without knowing anything at all about what this team has done this offseason is simply annoying.SSOG said:I have to say, as a Broncos fan, when Raiders fans start "boldly" predicting a whopping two division wins and telling me to "put that in my pipe and smoke it" with such brash confidence, it makes me unaccountably happy. I mean, even OAKLAND fans think that two division wins is a bold prediction.
One thing to note in that clip: it really displays how awful Andrew Walter's pocket presence is. At least half of the sacks he took were avoidable with small moves in the pocket. I don't know if Russell will be any better, but there's room for improvement there even if the Oline doesn't perform any better.
I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to dredge up some threads where Raider fans were very excited about bringing back Shell's "tradition of excellence." When the coach of the Raiders is actually given an opportunity to coach, then we can talk about how it's a "coach's game."
excellent point that few people realize . . . they had numerous games last year where the D held down the fort only to see the offense perform miserably . . .the 2006 raider offense was horrible?
Thanks for pointing that out and making a thread about it I didn't even notice that before
With the Defense Oakland has (which will be even better this year because everyone is back and they guys are more experienced) the offense just has to be below average for them to be a 6 to 7 win team. Look out for them in 08 though if Kiffin is the real deal the offense should be nice with JaMarcus, Bush, Porter, Curry and Miller.
Wanna bet? Okay, here was MY take on it the week he was hired.http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...t&p=4325581
There were many of us who questioned the Shell re-hire. And many more of us who downright hated the Tom Walsh hire. Get your facts straight before you make claims.Plus, if you've been following the offseason moves at all, you can see clearly that Kiffin has been given a lot of control. He got to select his offensive coaches, his free agents, his draftees and is installing the WCO.Sure big Al will probably continue to lurk over his shoulder, but it seems pretty clear that the kid has been given more control than any Raiders' coach in a long time.
Okay... whadayagot? You were on this board when he was hired. Show me your outrage.
Link?
I don't know. The 2005 Packers won 4 games total. In one of those victories they beat the Saints by 49 points.No, the Saints weren't close to being as bad as the Raiders before Brees came... And at least Brooks was usuable at times at QB for the Saints... he was awful with the Raiders... The 06 Raiders brought shame to the Nation... it does matter if they scored 76TDs, then even if they didn't win the Superbowl at least they would be close to it... 12 TDs if a strong indicator of a poorly ran team...The brightside is the changes made with the Raiders... but Yes, I do feel for Russell also, and hope it's Josh McCown that takes the beating in 07 as the Raiders try to improve...You would have said the exact same thing this time last year about Drew Brees. The Saints are the most recent proof that being awful one year doesn't mean the same fate is in store the following year. And Oakland's defense is far better than the one New Orleans opened with in '06.Only one team is happy when the season ends. It doesn't matter if Oakland scored 12 TDs or 76 TDs... the bottom line is that they didn't win a Super Bowl, and they were horrible enough to secure what many personnel people feel is one of the best young QBs to come out in many years.
I love what the crypt keeper has done this offseason!
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=256535&hl=http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=274200&hl=
http://www.ibabuzz.com/raidersblog/2007/06...s-kiffins-show/Penalty proves it's Kiffin's show
This thread is about speculation of the RBs under Shell. It doesn't express any outrage about either hiring.
Gimme a break. Both of these posts were WAY after the fact. It's easy to complain about a head coach after he comes out sucking. I predict you will have similar input come late September this year.
Look dude, I'm done pissing with you and searching for old threads. I know that many of us questioned the Shell hire and absolutely hated the Walsh hire. There is one conclusive thread that I can't find that sums it all up. It describes Walsh's first tenure with the team in the mid-90s and how Hostetler and Brown basically rebelled against him and Shell and their BS 1960s plays. And that was in the 90s!!!Last year I was warning people to be leary of the Raiders b/c of Shell/Walsh and took a lot of heat from Jordan owners. The year prior I was high on Jordan and his catch stats b/c of Norv.I don't know everything about every team, but I do know the Raiders very well.This year, I'm on the record saying that they have made a ton of positive moves and that Kiff has really been impressive so far. Whether that will translate to success this year or next remains to be seen, but as of now I do think they'll be better than many seem to think.8, 9, 10+ wins. Even I don't think so. But will they be awful like in recent years? I think not as well. If the offense can be even marginally decent, the D will keep them in games.2007 will be a growth year. The D is solid and needs just a productive Toad DT to stop the run in order to become dominant. The O is rebuilding. New scheme and young unproven players. There is talent there however and how quickly that talent on O develops will determine how quickly this team competes in the AFC.
That's convenient... and unsurprising.
Okay, smart man, let's see you find some threads or stories to support YOUR stance.Show me one story that shows Al calling the shots this offseason. Or one thread where I support Shell and especially Walsh. Any semblance of hope I had for Art went out the door when he rehired Mr. B&B.You know nothing about the current state of the Raiders. All you want to do is focus in the rear view mirror. Enjoy that view as you drive off the cliff.
Really? You're not even a reliable source for yourself, much less the Raiders.
