Four Postgame Takes
1. The Raiders defense has not allowed more than 20 points over the last six games—despite getting very little help from the offense. Following are our opponent point totals over this span: 13, 9, 13, 16, 17, 17. This, friends, is something to take pride in, and something to build upon. Imagine if our offense were simply marginal. Imagine if our offense could, say, score 18 points.
2. Aaron Brooks wasn’t merely elusive today. He was a magician. He could have easily been sacked five or six times behind a line that was doing a magnificent impersonation of saloon doors. Randy Moss was also a magician, as he managed to make himself invisible, despite all of the extra time purchased by Brooks. Yes, that was an awful interception to end the game. But this game wouldn’t have even been close without the moxie and agility of Aaron Brooks. Say what you will about our lack of a long-term vision at this position, the late interception, etc. For this one game, Aaron Brooks came straight out of the ice chest and lit a much-needed fire on our offense, with very little help from the offensive line or the starting receivers.
3. As you can tell, I’m really trying to focus on the positives, because I’m tired of rehashing the negatives, such as being unable to adjust and score points in the second half. Really, this inability to score during the last 30 minutes is verging on supernatural. As Raider 00 commented in my earlier take: “You would think even by dumb luck, you would get a turnover, a field goal, a lucky big play, something.” Nope. The little green aliens who control everything apparently won't give us a break. But I’m done with the coaching v. execution argument. I’ll still get on my high horse if we do something utterly crazy, like fail to enact a hurry-up offense while two scores down with less than five minutes to go, or have Andrew Walter go pass happy in blustery Seattle, but I’m resigned to our fate of awful offensive line play (due to lack of talent), weak receiving corps (due to motivational issues compounded by a strange depth chart), and questionable playcalling with an inability to make effective second-half adjustments (Tom Walsh). I’m now going to take my medicine like a good little patient, as I’ve already gnashed my teeth to the nub.
4. The Raiders are trying and fighting and, unfortunately, still losing. But I can live with the latter because of the former. With guys like Curry, Fargas, Williams, Madsen and Morant waiting in the wings, and with offensive line help on the way through free agency and the draft (right?), I think that our offense can be remade in the image of our defense, and that progress can be swift in 2007. Like I said, just imagine if our offense could score 18 points.
2. Aaron Brooks wasn’t merely elusive today. He was a magician. He could have easily been sacked five or six times behind a line that was doing a magnificent impersonation of saloon doors. Randy Moss was also a magician, as he managed to make himself invisible, despite all of the extra time purchased by Brooks. Yes, that was an awful interception to end the game. But this game wouldn’t have even been close without the moxie and agility of Aaron Brooks. Say what you will about our lack of a long-term vision at this position, the late interception, etc. For this one game, Aaron Brooks came straight out of the ice chest and lit a much-needed fire on our offense, with very little help from the offensive line or the starting receivers.
3. As you can tell, I’m really trying to focus on the positives, because I’m tired of rehashing the negatives, such as being unable to adjust and score points in the second half. Really, this inability to score during the last 30 minutes is verging on supernatural. As Raider 00 commented in my earlier take: “You would think even by dumb luck, you would get a turnover, a field goal, a lucky big play, something.” Nope. The little green aliens who control everything apparently won't give us a break. But I’m done with the coaching v. execution argument. I’ll still get on my high horse if we do something utterly crazy, like fail to enact a hurry-up offense while two scores down with less than five minutes to go, or have Andrew Walter go pass happy in blustery Seattle, but I’m resigned to our fate of awful offensive line play (due to lack of talent), weak receiving corps (due to motivational issues compounded by a strange depth chart), and questionable playcalling with an inability to make effective second-half adjustments (Tom Walsh). I’m now going to take my medicine like a good little patient, as I’ve already gnashed my teeth to the nub.
4. The Raiders are trying and fighting and, unfortunately, still losing. But I can live with the latter because of the former. With guys like Curry, Fargas, Williams, Madsen and Morant waiting in the wings, and with offensive line help on the way through free agency and the draft (right?), I think that our offense can be remade in the image of our defense, and that progress can be swift in 2007. Like I said, just imagine if our offense could score 18 points.
posted by Raider Take at 9:56 PM
39 Comments:
Sad to say but if we scored 18 points a game, our record would be 6-4, we would be 3-1 in divisional games, and we would be in the playoff hunt ... imagine that.
I mis-spoke in a previous post, stating our starting receivers had zero receptions. Whitted had two, and I would like to say for the record, he's all class in the effort he puts forth week to week.
But this doghouse BS with Jerry Porter causes a pain in my gut I can't get rid of. Shell is only doing Porter a huge favor by not playing him. Porter will be fresh next year wherever he goes. Porter has remained low-key and kept his mouth shut, so only Shell looks the fool. Worse, Shell has a history of this type of behavior, only the other recipient was Raider Nation beloved hero, Marcus Allen (who now considers himself a lifetime Chief). Other teams’ coaches and GMs can see right through this BS like they see through the Raiders 2nd half offensive game planning.
Does anybody know who the “B” celebrity interviewee is for tonight’s game? I can’t wait to miss some of the game action and hear about somebody’s washed up daytime TV/movie career.
Dan: we can agree to disagree but, yes, I'd start the punk because he has talent and because he’s getting paid a king’s ransom to play. If Shell is going to bench anyone, shouldn't it be Moss, based on his extensive media exposure, horrendous judgement and poor on-field performance?
Am I missing something? The Porter fiasco dates back to a training camp incident and a bad fashion statement (the F-U t-shirt). Since then, Porter has, by and large, remained out of the media. He’s a child in a man’s body, so what. Shell needs to communicate better with his players, and that goes beyond Porter. He admittedly never even spoke with Walter or Moss after their public criticisms of the offense and coaching. Regarding the Moss incident, he said he communicated with Moss through the news paper. What kind of BS is that? Hey, I’m a fan of Art Shell, and there are some things about his demeanor that really impress me, but not communicating with your players and not addressing problems face-to-face is no way to manage people, let alone coach football.
I'm with NYRaider on Art Shell's failure to communicate. I just can't believe he hasn't talked to Porter, Walter, or Moss. The terrible Marcus Allen saga was further proof of that.
Whitted is a class guy, but he's still a #4 receiver at best.
Porter seems to have been on his best behavior lately (though I'm not at the practices obviously), so why not up his PT? What Moss has been saying weekly is much worse in my mind....plus he's a freakin' "Team Captain" and saying these things.
I also agree with PR's take...while our defense is good, Johnson exploited a major weakness - the run defense. Also starting to wonder about Stu at FS. He doesn't seem to be around the ball very much. When was his last pick?
Hate to be a downer, but I just think other teams would in most cases score more on this defense if they needed to.
Dan - no QB without wheels or a quick-drop-and-pass game plan would do any better than Walter in Oakland. I agree that Walter would have been sacked half a dozen times yesterday, but so would Peyton Manning or Carson Palmer. Walter still is the future. Raiders just need to give him an OL and/or a better offensive game plan.
I'm disappointed with the Raiders lack of second half display. I'm tired of getting my hopes up at halftime, to see us come out with no adjustments, running the same plays we did in the first half. There is no rhyme or reason to how our offense is ran. So I've thrown in the towel on our season.
I'm setting my eyes to the Draft, and am looking to hear one of 3 names picked.
1. Adrian Pederson-Oklahoma RB
2. Mike Hart-Michigan RB
3. Troy Smith-Ohio State QB
I'll be happy with either one.
From profootballtalk.com
NFL CONCERNED ABOUT RAIDERS
There's talk on the NFL grapevine that the league office is becoming very concerned about the ability of the Oakland Raiders to be competitive, both in the short term and over the long haul.
Though the Raiders played fairly well against their arch-rivals in Kansas City on Sunday, Oakland lost the game and fell to 2-8 on the season.
In hindsight, we're amazed that the team managed two wins.
The problem, as we understand it, is a complete and total vacuum of leadership in the football operations. Coach Art Shell, as one league insider told us, is regarded by the players as a "joke." Per a league source with extensive experience in dealing with teams and players, there is an "unprecedented negativity" emanating from the locker room.
Beyond the coaching staff, there's a perception that the football types in the front office simply aren't getting it done, and there's a concern that the one guy who has a track record of ability when it comes to player acquisition -- Mike Lombardi -- has lost much of his influence.
The consensus in league circles is that the root of the problem is the uncertainty surrounding Al Davis and the future leadership of the team after his passing. It's unlikely that Davis will relinquish the reins during his lifetime, and it's ambiguous at best as to what will happen when the team has a new person at the helm.
The reality, as we see it, is that the franchise might very well be at the front end of a protracted period of poor performance, and that the Raiders won't begin to re-emerge until a capable new owner revamps the entire football operation.
Until then, how will the Raiders be able to attract free agents? Instead of the days in which the franchise was a haven for talented misfits, the Raiders could end up being the last refuge for players that aren't wanted anywhere else because of their relative lack of talent, along with the occasional marquee player to whom the team offers a lot more money that he'd otherwise get on the open market.
It's a shame, frankly. Love them or hate them, this league needs a strong and competitive Raiders franchise. With the Raiders fading into oblivion, the NFL for many fans will be like Star Wars without Darth Vader. (Okay, we admit that it was sort of geeky to mention Star Wars, but we couldn't think of anything better.)
The Raiders are barely outscored by two tough division rivals over the past two weeks, lose by 16 points on the road to Seattle, preceded by two wins at home, and the NFL is deeply concerned about the team? They might want to worry first about the Lions, Cardinals and Texans.
I'm sorry, 'Take... I usually am pretty much in line with many of your takes, but a victory over the Cardinals 6 days after their gut-wrenching implosion to the Bears, or a victory over a floundering Steelers team where we didn't win, so much as just made fewer catastrophic mistakes, isn't something to hang our Pride on.
A "close" game against KC, when half their team is on the injured list, and we can't score a freaking point in the second half, is nothing to be proud of either. Same exact story with Seattle, except it wasn't just a 16 point loss, it was a shut out.
And Shanahan, who once used to take great joy in humbling the Raiders, now shows us such disdain that it's no longer even worth it for him to open up the playbook against us. Did you ever seriously feel like we were in control of either of our last two games in the second half?
Mix that all together with losses to the freaking Browns and Niners (I just threw up a little in my mouth typing that) and you end up with a hopeless excuse for a football team. KFC was a symptom, but not the disease, and his tenure alone set us back two years, at least. And now it seems like we're consumed with trying to mitigate the (many) symptoms, while the disease ravages on.
You mention Detroit and Arizona, and everyone already realizes what a joke those franchises are, and have for a very long time. It's sad that one would even think to trot out "at least we're not as bad as an expansion franchise who just can't seem to get launched, or the two worst franchises in the history of the NFL" when speaking of our Oakland Raiders.
A couple of reactions to what's being said here...
The difference between Moss and Porter is that Porter's attitude problem is legion. He's caused trouble with each coach he's worked with (Gruden, Callahan, and Turner), and when he started off on that foot with Shell I think Shell told himself not to even bother. Trade him if there were takers, otherwise let him rot on the bench.
Moss actually showed some cajones last season, by playing through injury. Although I think the injuries weren't as severe as advertised (he dropped a lot of passes last year too), I think Shell decided not rock Moss' boat. But Moss will be gone in the off season.
Also, there apparently was a problem with Porter stiring trouble by things he said in the locker room to find allies from members of the team. With Moss, he says all of the right things to his teammates, and works hard during practice. It's what he says to the national press, and his disappearence every Sunday afternoon that's the problem. Without proof that Moss his just tanking it, Shell has no choice but to play him. However, a couple of times on Sunday, Shell sat Moss down in favor of Curry. I don't know how ready I am to call this, but I think we may see Curry starting over Moss next weekend.
One of the things we're going to have to come to grips with is how much better the O was with a veteran (any veteran) under center. I think it's true that if Walter had played Sunday, KC would easily have had an additional 6 sacks. I didn't even think that Brooks played brilliantly, he just played like a pro. I disagree with RT that he was working magic out there. Brooks simply understands that if you take a 7 step drop, and the D is charging up the middle, roll out; if you take a five step drop and the tackles are coming down at you from the sides, step up. That's just what pro QBs do.
Why I think Fargas is the better running back (over Jordan) if he can stay healthy. Folks here have commented that Jordan doesn't have the speed to get to the outside. It's not just the speed that's the issue. As soon as a HB reeds that he's not going to beat the D to the outside he has to look for an avenue to cut back against the grain. Fargas always does this. Jordan never does.
Panty Raider:
I completely disagree with "if they have a 10 point lead they can feel safe and just try to run the clock" down playing the effectiveness of our defense.
I believe we've had the lead at halftime (most carried into the 4th quarter) in 5 out of the last 6 games that are being discussed.
The opposition does not try to run the clock out when they are playing from behind.
It really is as simple as the comments being made: if our O is doing anything in the second half then we are winning games.
Sec 137
Anon 12:05, good points, I was simply referencing the above comment/report in which it was said that the NFL is "very concerned" about the Raiders' ability to be competitive.
I'm not saying the Raiders are doing great by any means, I'm just saying that if the NFL as a league wants to be "very concerned" with franchises, they should start with those that haven't been competitive for decades.
How come when the Raiders hit a rough patch, we get all of these dire and sensational reports, as if there's something so different about the Raiders being in the dumps than any number of teams that have been, or are in, the dumps?
The fact is, that despite our struggles, we've hung tough over the past two games against two difficult opponents, and we won two out of three before that, so I don't want to hear about the Raiders being singled out by the NFL for special concern. This team need to dig itself out of a hole, and they're far from alone on that front.
RT: I agree with you last post completely.
I think I can shed some light on the Marcus Allen thing, from a perspective offered by few others. I was living in LA at the time, and also working as a professional actor.
From about 1990 the Raiders' OL started showing some difficult holes to fill. Often they were addressed by finding a former great on the downside of his career. Somebody who could be marginally effective, but not providing the "wall" the Raiders had become used to.
Marcus Allen was never a straight ahead power runner. He was always a "slash 'n' dash" runner. The Raiders' OL could no longer provide holes for Allen to run through, and he was routinely getting stuffed at the line of scrimage, unless they sent him on a pass patern or a sweep.
Shell began looking for runners capable of power running over the middle. Bo Jackson was still capable, until his career was ended by injury. Nick Bell, Shell hoped, would be effective, but never was. Shell wanted Allen to essentially work as a 3rd down RB which would allow the Raiders to use his skills more effectively.
Simultaneous to all of this, Allen, who attended USC, was a Los Angeles media darling. He hung with the NFL/Hollywood celebrities such as OJ Simpson. While Allen was always discreet to the local press, he complained bitterly within the organization. His trouble with Davis wasn't that Davis was pulling the strings, it was that Allen felt he had done so much for Davis that Davis owed it to Marcus to intervene with Shell. Davis refused. Internally, Allen began to get more and more vocal within the organization, prompting Shell to say, "Marcus Allen is a cancer on this football team."
So the Raiders let Allen leave to KC, where he worked as a 3rd down RB.
Anon 1:14 & PantyRaider:
For the record, the Raiders have had the lead at half time in 6 of the last 8 games.
Cleveland (Up 21-10, lose 21-24; 0 offensive pts. in 2nd half)
SF (Up 13-7; Lose 20-34; 7 offensive pts. in 2nd half)
Denver (Down 0-13; Lose 3-13; 3 offensive pts. in the 2nd half)
Arizona (Up 17-3; Win 22-9; 3 offensive pts. in the 2nd half)
Pittsburgh (Up 10-6; Win 20-13; 3 offensive pts. in the 2nd half)
Seattle (Down 0-13; Lose 0-16; 0 offensive pts. in the 2nd half)
Denver (Up 13-7; Lose 13-17; 0 offensive pts. in the 2nd half)
K.C. (Up 13-7; Lose 13-17; 0 offensive pts. in the 2nd half)
Over this 8 game span, the Raiders offense scored a total of 16 points or 2 points per 2nd half. 8 games that hung in the balance at half that were very winnable. Ouch...Double Yikes...get me some tylenol & Peptol Bismo with a beer chaser.
Calico:
And what sticks out in each of those 2nd halves? Stupid penalties and turnovers. When they move the ball in the 1st half, they move it reasonably effectively. They hold it together. They still can't overcome penalties, but the penalties and turn overs are fewer. I'd like to see if there is a statistic somewhere that gives you penalties by half. I'd be willing to bet the worst of them, and the majority of them have all come in the 2nd half.
One added point. I wonder if anyone in the media have noticed that with the exception of the first two games, the Raiders could have won every game since. That's the thing that is most frustrating for me this season. Just a slightly better attitude from a couple of players, and fewer mistakes, and this team is in the playoffs - as bad as the offense has been.
BR -
When a team's offense has scored only 1 TD in 10 games' worth of 2nd halves, it is a much bigger problem than just 'turnovers and penalties'. It is a combination of many issues and shortcomings.
It is only natural to try to make sense of this 2nd half trend. If I had to point to the contributing factors in order of weight, this is what my list would look like:
#1: Lack of 2nd half adjustments/poor playcalling
#2: Poor O-Line performance/talent
#3: Poor QB play/poor passing attack
#4: Turnovers & penalties
#5: General sub-par talent and execution
BR: Your take on Marcus Allen and you’re knowledge of Raider history is, as always, interesting. However, your discussion of the Porter history is just that, history. Shell made it quite clear when he started his current reign that nothing that happened in the past would weigh into his gaging players’ ability to contribute to this team and that he would consider each player on his performances moving forward, i.e., during training camp, pre-season, etc.
Personally, I believe he went into the Porter pre-training camp “get-to-know-you” meeting with extreme prejudice, perhaps placed there by his good friend Freddy B. What I can’t understand is why many posters feel Porter has been a cancer to this team with his attitude. Seems like that assertion is based on pure conjecture. I have barely heard Porter’s name in the media, yet Moss is all over ESPN as having diarrhea of the mouth and worse, he’s exchanged his trademark long arm reach for a set of alligator arms.
Also, and maybe most telling, players such as Warren Sapp and Andrew Walter have publicly supported Porter. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that his presence on the field is the consensus among the players.
The second half scoring funk speaks for itself. Penalties are not the problem.
Actually you need to continue to concentrate on the negative. The Raider performance this year is absolutely unacceptable. Why talk about the positives? We need to get the Raiders to make some changes... Morons like you don't seem to get that.
On any other team Tom Walsh would have been toast. Probably French Toast. He needs to go back to Idaho to play mayor and breakfast fry cook.
Only then will we see some victories.
PR: Sapp’s comment suggesting to let Porter go seems to speak more to the stupidity of the situation and its distraction to the team. Sapp later said in an interview with local CBS 5 that he speaks with Porter regularly and had advised him to do what the coaches tell him, whether or not he agrees with them. When asked directly, do you want to see Porter play, Sapp said, “of course you want your best players on the field.”
"Don't let the inmates run the asylum" are just words. There are many ways to earn respect and motivate players besides putting a dunce cap on them and sending them to the corner. One way to lose respect is not playing your best players to put your team in a position to win. Another way is to avoid direct communication, particularly when a problem presents itself.
Many just assume Walsh will be gone after this year, and so will Porter, Moss and any malcontent who might pose a threat to the blind faith. Don’t be too sure. Shell has undying loyalty for Walsh, and Porter and Moss present financial constraints as well as marketability issues which might preclude their individual or collective dismissal. What happens then???
And how many of us would blindly support the coaches if the defense wasn’t playing at playoff caliber? We could easily be getting blown out every game. Fact is, Rob Ryan and the defense are a self-contained unit that requires no attention from our head coach. Shell needs only to concentrate on offense and regain the respect of the NFL. As close as the last couple games have been, where’s the respect?
PR -
You must not have read my breakdown (or comments) very carefully. Let me repeat it ... In 6 of the last 8 games the Raiders have had the lead going into the 2nd half.
Your comment "I was speaking about the second half, if a team has us down by 10 points they can feel comfortable and protect the lead" is not relevant in 6 of these 8 games.
The point I was trying to make with the breakdown is quite simple. The Raiders offensive ineptitude in the 2nd half has been colossal and should be sounding off alarms in Alameda.
- 4 2nd half shut outs including the last 3 games
- Only 1 TD in 10 games worth of 2nd halves
- 1.9 pt. average scored per 2nd half. (19 pts TOTAL in 10 games)
These numbers indicate that Walsh is totally incompetent at game planning, making 2nd half adjustments, and dialing up the right plays.
PantyRaider,
I don't agree with your comment that Marcus allen was a cancer in his final year with the Raiders.
Just because Allen was fueding with Shell, & Davis, doesn't mean he was disruptive.
As I recall, Allen remained highly respected by the fans, & his teammates alike. So much so, that I believe Allen was named MVP of the Raiders by his teammates at seasons end.
PantyRaider: I don't live at sea, as you do, but I'll continue to wait at the docks for the ship to come in. I just hope it doesn't sink before it gets there.
A couple of points...
RE: Porter. Why is everybody assuming that Porter is earning a start in practice? Remember, Porter was still a developing player prior to this season. Many of us had anticipated, before Porter went to the dog house, that Curry or Gabriel would eventually beat Porter out for the #2 during the season. This is the way the media colors things by re-writing history. Porter was always promising - he was never great. Couldn't it just be possible that Porter, while keeping his mouth shut, isn't cutting the mustard Monday thru Friday?
When a team is losing, the problems can be complex, or they can be extremely simple. Sometimes it's the difference of only a single player. You all witnessed the difference in the Raider offense with a veteran at QB. In one season in the early '70s, the Raiders had no difficulty at all moving the ball between the 20 yard lines. They'd quickly move the ball to the red zone, and then settle for a field goal. Their opponents were scoring TDs, but the Raiders could only answer with FGs. Finally John Madden pulled the trigger and substituted Lamonica for Stabler, and the Raiders began lighting up the scoreboard. The difference? Lamonica was losing his accuracy in short and medium range passes, but still able to put it on the money deep. Also the OL was not as strong as it had been in the past, because of some changes on the right side. Lamonica was rather statuesque. But in those days, Kenny could scramble. He also threw short and medium range passes like some people throw darts (and with touch). So, what had become a big media inquiry into "why the Raiders can't score from inside the 20," was cured by the change of a single player.
BR - Saying "Porter was still a developing player prior to this season." is just flat out ridiculous. This is his 7th season in the league. He has been playing a significant part in the Raiders' pass offense since 2002.
Also, you state "Many of us had anticipated, before Porter went to the dog house, that Curry or Gabriel would eventually beat Porter out for the #2 during the season." I totally disagree.
Prior to the Feb. incident with Shell, most fans and experts alike would naturally assume that Porter had a lock on the #2 WR slot. Why? Because of his production. He was the leading Raider WR in 2004 and 2005.
You also say "Couldn't it just be possible that Porter, while keeping his mouth shut, isn't cutting the mustard Monday thru Friday?" Come on...are you implying that Porter is less talented, productive, and experienced than Alvis Whitted? Give me a break.
Finally, to this day, I have yet to hear, read, or see any comments from Coaches or players that would indicate anything about Porter not being diligent in practice.
In summary, you've got a guy who keeps his mouth shut, practices hard, is talented, productive ... and he doesn't play?
Calico:
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. While you may not have been one of them, several people had suggested that Curry or Gabriel would have been a better fit at number two. And I also don't know why we are all forgetting that Porter had "effort" issues. Many have said that Porter will often disappear from the offense for several games at a time.
People are also forgetting the nature of Shell's differences with Porter. Shell started the off season by doing what virtually all new coaches, installing a new system, do. He requested that all of his players show up at the team facility for their off season workouts so that they could get a head start on the new system. Gruden did the same thing when he started, and got the commitment from every Raider player. Shell got the commitment from every Raider player except Porter. Porter told Shell that he didn't want the system, and he didn't want Shell. He stayed home, while everybody else showed up, and worked out on his own. He essentially told Shell, "I'm not going to work with you or for you. I want to be traded!" I have not heard Porter change that attitude. Have you? If I were Shell, I would not have played Porter as much as he's played. If I were any other coach in the league, I would not pursue Porter in a trade nor even as an off season free agent pick up.
As for Whitted... for my money, right now he's playing better than Moss.
BR: you’re right, none of us are inside the day-to-day workings, but it doesn’t seem a far reach to assume Porter can be more productive than either Whitted or Moss at this point. Porter has proven he is a little more than a “developing player,” as you suggest. For that matter, why don’t we see more of Morant?
I also believe a single player can make a difference, but what we saw Sunday was improvisation by Brooks, when what we really need stems much deeper in terms of playcalling and o-line play. By himself, Brooks can not save this offense.
BR: Moss has repeatedly requested a trade, this year prior to the deadline and since the deadline for next year. Yet, Shell still has him as the #1 receiver.
Some of the circular logic being used to justify Porter's benching is mind boggling to me. The guy gets paid to play. He doesn't have to like it or like his coaches, and they don't have to like him. He just needs to perform when asked, and all indications are that he is willing to do that. So why isn't he being allowed? Pure stubborness of the part of Shell. This "I'll show you who's boss" attitude is worthless. If this were a public corp I had stock in, and I could see this deep into the daily workings, I'd be on the phone with my broker right now... SELL ALL SHARES.
Unfortunately, being a loyal and life-long devoted fan, I must endure the hardships that come with the territory.
To me, "I'm here and I'll do what you ask, but I'd like to be traded," is night and day different than "F you and the horse you rode in on - I want to be traded." But I guess that's just me.
NYR:
I agree that Brooks, by himself will not save this offense. It's going to take a couple of tackles, a TE, and a couple of new WRs to do that.
But as I've stated many times, improvisation is built into this offense, and the QB is called upon to use it. It's not dumb luck that Brooks was able to find open receivers when he'd roll out when being charged up the middle, or stepping up when being attacked from the corners. As Branch Rickey always used to say, "Luck is the residue of design."
Blandarocked,
You say we all witnessed the difference in the Raider offense with a vet playing.
What I saw was the same. One TD in the first half, & shutout in the 2nd half.
Same as when Walter was playing.
What's so different ?
Certainly not the results.
The Raiders gave Jerry Porter a 5 year, $25M contract in 2005 before he was able to hit the free agent market. $10M of that was guaranteed.
That kind of contract doesn't go to a developing / project player.
If not for the Randy Moss trade that soon followed Porter was CLEARLY the #1 receiver on this team. With Moss coming on board he was CLEARLY the #2.
Any other argument is in Mike Tyson's words...."lud-a-kwiss".
Anon, I have to agree with you about Porter, re: his contract numbers. I was thinking the same thing.
Raider 00, prior to the TD against Denver, which was set up by an interception near the red zone, the Raiders hadn't scored an offensive TD in 33 possessions with Walter at the helm. Brooks, on the other hand, quickly marched us down the field for a touchdown. Brooks also drove us down the field and put us in a position to win in the last minute, something that Walter hadn't come close to doing.
You are right, the result wasn't different in the end. But I thought it was pretty clear that Brooks put significantly more pep in our offense. His mobility not only evaded what would have been multiple sacks with Walter, it opened up the running game in the process. It's just one game, but I, for one, was happy to see our offense moving the ball with considerably more authority.
BR: please add a decent RB to your wish-list for the offense. For that matter, I believe we should use our top pick in next year's draft on a RB. A couple names have already floated around the Nation.
My point about Porter wasn't the contract he got. My point regarded what very many people had been saying about Porter - that he disappears, that he's difficult to work with, and that he had never once had a 1000 yard season (although last year he came very close).
Anyway... New post over at BlandaRocked...
http://raiderhistory.blogspot.com/
Wow, all this talk about the WRs and no one seems to be talking about the two potential season ending injuries to Lamont Jordan and Robert Gallery.
We can talk ad nauseum about Porter and Moss but the truth is that any semblance of a running game may have just went out the window with Jordan's injury. Fargas is a decent enough backup and, while it's be good to see what he can do in an extended role, he's not going to turn into a workhorse back that they can give the ball to 25-30 times in a game. One tie-in with Moss and Porter here is that the Raiders are going to have to turn to their passing game even more (gulp) to try to move the ball down the field.
And even though Gallery can officially be labeled a bust at this point, the bottom line is that with his injury he loses opportunities to learn on the field, including any possible plans to convert him to guard.
All this at a time when the offense just starting to show some life...
Missed my dose of Raider Take this week while on biz travel...had to catch the game on NFL replay last night. Biggest difference between Moss and Porter [and only one that matters, imho], Porter plays hard no matter whatever the distractions are, Moss is a dog. Tough to read about 07 draft in November, but that's the sad reality. We need linemen...
Check out this article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/11/22/SPGP7MHQHF1.DTL
It’s worth reading the entire article, but here are a couple quick slants.
“After the Raiders lost to the Broncos 17-13 in Week 10, Jordan revealed that the team went into that game with only three running plays.”
“One coach who has scouted Seattle on defense said this week that the Raiders' game film in that contest was so bad, ‘I couldn't even use it.’”
ARE WE CAUGHT IN OBLIVION OR WHAT?
Yikes! BlandaRocked, please make it all better!
NYRaider:
"But you only have to look through the 49ers' balanced playbooks in recent weeks to see what's working and to understand why Norv Turner will eventually be regarded as one of the NFL's best offensive coordinators of all time"
Oof. Quite possibly true, but that comment still stings after watching him as head coach in Oakland for two years. It's even worse that, offensively, I'm longing for those good ol' days of '04 and '05.
Post a Comment
<< Home