No Thanks, Raiders Haters
Let me begin by saying that I've been (relatively) impressed by the media's treatment of Lane Kiffin. I've found the coverage of our new coach, at least recently, to be generally fair and respectful.
Nevertheless, you can always count on Sports Irritating, I mean, Illustrated, to offend the Raider Nation with some genuinely (and suspiciously) bad advice, such as their columnist last year telling us to re-sign Kerry Collins "before it's too late," or their roving crackpot suggesting that Eddie Debartolo and Carmen Policy could take over the Raiders. This week, we get the following draft advice from their star NFL columnist: "1. Raiders - Trade down to No. 6 for the Redskins' first- and second-round picks in 2008 plus WR Antwaan Randle El, and choose QB Brady Quinn. (Washington takes WR Calvin Johnson.)"
Randle El started 16 games last year and racked up a grand total of 351 yards. Our third receiver, Ronald Curry, started four games and racked up 727 yards on the league's worst offense. Yet we're supposed to covet Randle El? Where do these guys get this stuff? The Raiders should choose Brady Quinn over JaMarcus Russell, and the Redskins should essentially hand over their 2008 draft for the privilege of drafting a wide receiver? I'm sure Mr. Davis and Daniel Snyder are working out the details as I write.
They need to stop dispensing crack from the vending machines at the Sports Illustrated cafeteria.
Nevertheless, you can always count on Sports Irritating, I mean, Illustrated, to offend the Raider Nation with some genuinely (and suspiciously) bad advice, such as their columnist last year telling us to re-sign Kerry Collins "before it's too late," or their roving crackpot suggesting that Eddie Debartolo and Carmen Policy could take over the Raiders. This week, we get the following draft advice from their star NFL columnist: "1. Raiders - Trade down to No. 6 for the Redskins' first- and second-round picks in 2008 plus WR Antwaan Randle El, and choose QB Brady Quinn. (Washington takes WR Calvin Johnson.)"
Randle El started 16 games last year and racked up a grand total of 351 yards. Our third receiver, Ronald Curry, started four games and racked up 727 yards on the league's worst offense. Yet we're supposed to covet Randle El? Where do these guys get this stuff? The Raiders should choose Brady Quinn over JaMarcus Russell, and the Redskins should essentially hand over their 2008 draft for the privilege of drafting a wide receiver? I'm sure Mr. Davis and Daniel Snyder are working out the details as I write.
They need to stop dispensing crack from the vending machines at the Sports Illustrated cafeteria.
posted by Raider Take at 12:25 PM
28 Comments:
Looks like we play the NFC West this year for preseason.
http://profootballweekly.com/
PFW/The+Way+We+Hear+It/
default.htm?mode=afcwest
this article is very interesting with regards to what might be happening with our pick. this tells me that russell wasn't kiffin's first choice or probably quinn either for that matter. the fact that they wanted someone else (shaub) other than a QB from this draft tells me they are leaning towards johnson.
moss' status of course holds the key here. the way out of paying a rookie receiver a guaranteed $30 mil signing bonus is to trade down a spot or 2.
Sports Sillystrated has a purpose to.
We need something to paper train our dogs with.
No matter how many draft day speculative scenarios are mentioned (some far fetched, some reasonable), I still can't see Al trading down.
I might be wrong but I can see only 2 legitimate scenarios;
(1) Draft JRuss at #1 + keep Moss
(2) Sign Carr, draft CJ at #1, trade/release Moss
Am I missing something?
Calico Jack, here's a scenario you're missing:
We trade down so that we can get Antwaan Randle El and Brady Quinn, and an extra first rounder next year, from a team that's so desperate for a wide receiver that they would...Oh, sorry, temporary insanity.
No, actually, I don't think you're missing anything, although I'd like to submit the following: Draft Russell at #1, but also trade Moss for a high second round pick and a few other pieces so that we can grab a young running back in the second round while also addressing the offensive or defensive lines. Moss devalued himself, so I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a king's ransom on that front.
Dog training!? Classic.
RT - I listed what I thought were the 2 most likely scenarios but I would be quite pleased to take JRuss and trade Moss ... for a box of crispy creme donuts.
Moss is like a black cloud hanging over the organization. To start a minty fresh chapter in Raiders history with Victory Lane at the helm, Moss needs to be sent packing.
Stuffing our cap coffers...$7.8M
Getting rid of "I quit on you" Moss...priceless
I have to disagree here on the Moss consensus. Sure, he was disgruntled last season and let it be known. How would you feel playing for Art Shell's team last season?
I think that all Randy really wants is to win. And when he isn't winning he is unhappy. A winning team could change all of that. Yeah, he had a bad attitude, but he was no T.O. and certainly not a distraction like Pacman.
Having said that, if Kiffin can convince Moss to put out 100% effort this year then I still think he is better than 90% of the other WR's in the league. We have to pay him either way so we may as well get the most out of him this season. Also, if he performs well this year it makes him that much more valuable next year to any team who would be looking to pick him up in a trade, so I think his effort will be much higher this season.
Bottom line, keep Moss, draft the best guy available (C.J.) or trade down to our best suited pick - offensive lineman.
I would also look to sign David Carr and let him compete with Walter for the starting job and seek a QB in the 2nd or 3rd round - perhaps Troy Smith?
JD
I'm with you, Calico Jack.
JD, fair points. However, Moss's dispiriting double talk started under Norv Turner (remember his ESPN radio interview in 2005?). And while Moss may not have been a T.O. in terms of off-field distractions, T.O.'s effort on the field remains unquestioned. The fact that Moss needs to be "convinced" to give 100 percent is enough for me to say adios.
Who's this idiot Tom Martinez? He obviously hasn't talked to Heartland.
No, Unlike Martinez ...I wasn't hired by Russell agent.( or Calvin Johnson's for that matter)
What do you expecy an employee of Russell to say??? ? Don't you read the whole article?
Hillary Clinton's political adviser is quoted as saying "She's the best candidate for president ever". Wow what an endorsement...that sure is going to make me vote for her..LMAO
The media wasn't the main reason we only won two games last year. In fact, most of the preseason projections from various writers had Oakland accurately dead in the water for the 2006-7 season. Can't blame the media for tooting their own horn when the Raiders played as poorly as they predicted. In this week's online article, SI's Peter King (who has definitely had many a negative thing to say about the team) wrote a very encouraging article about Coach Kiffin and the new era in Oakland. My point is that the writers who have been dancing on our graves will be the same bums who start praising Al's wisdom when we start posting some W's. There are enough writers in the JR camps and the CJ camps that will see draft day as the pivotal moment of the season and I assure you that you will see start seeing notorious Raider-haters dishing out some love if we play our cards right. Wouldn't you be bashing a football team if they hired an offensive coordinator with Tom Walsh's credentials?
R2G, good points. First off, I began my take by praising the media's coverage of Lane Kiffin (for the same reasons you cited). Also, I have no problem with folks dishing dirt on the 2006 season, as long as the criticism is fair (I've done plenty of dishing myself). But King's latest draft advice does not relate to Kiffin or last year.
If you're going to dispense crazy-ass questionable advice regarding my team in the world's largest sports publication, then you're going to get jeered in Raider Take, it's as simple as that.
RT-
was over at SI the other day and, just for your info, crack is in between Reese's Peanut Butter cups and Twizzlers in the SI candy machine. They also have Rohypnol in the soda machine....
Also agree an extra 2 for Moss would be best, he'd be gone and we'd have five picks [JaMarcus plus four] in the first three rounds to fill offensive holes...
I don't think we'll get anything for Moss. Therefore it's likely he'll be forced on us. And if that's the case, I think Kiff ought to deal with it by making Moss earn his spot. If Moss isn't interested in earning his spot, and we can't trade him, then just deactivate him for every game and have him sit the season out. After everyone begins to forget his name, we'll see how his clothing line does.
calico said: I would be quite pleased to take JRuss and trade Moss ... for a box of crispy creme donuts.
you won't be holdin' on to those donuts for long 'cause russell will take 'em off your hands. just kidding :o)
heartland, god forbid billary clinton or obama bin laden get elected to this country's highest office.
i don't see moss leaving. translated: i don't see any team dumb enough to give up anything higher than a 3rd rounder for moss so he's staying. but who knows? maybe jd is right.
the fact that they REALLY were in the market for a QB tells me that they are NOT convinced at all of this crop of QB's. at least the 1st rounders they aren't. the next few weeks will be interesting.
I don't believe for a second that Al tried very hard to get a veteran QB... what Al wants, he GETS, even if it means destroying the entire team (cough MOSS cough).
And I can't remember a single draft or trade rumor that has ever came to be true with Al... I think he really enjoys fucking with everyone... it's part of being a Raider fan... we all just have to wait and see.
...oh, and could I politely ask that we leave the political BS out of here.
Puleeeaaaase.
Well let's see since everyone seems to be trying to shift oaklands attention away from Russell, a red flag should pop up in Oakland's headquarters. They would be stupid to pick up Johnson or Quinn and pass up on Russell he's a franchise quaterback in the making and it's where we should start the rebuilding. TAKE RUSSELL AND SAVE THE RAIDERS....Ted
BR - I have a slightly different viewpoint on your comment
"If Moss isn't interested in earning his spot, and we can't trade him, then just deactivate him for every game and have him sit the season out."
This is the absolute worst (and not necessary) scenario. If were unable to trade Moss and if he is anything less than 100% committed, he needs to be cut not deactivated. Why waste $7.8M in cap space and have the negativity of Moss around? It is the equivalent of paying $9.8M (Moss' 2007 salary) for bad karma.
Ted-
I thought I was the only person to smell a fish on the
"Raiders Should Take Johnson" propaganda.
No sports media outlet has ever cut us a break. Quite the contrary. Now they want to do us a favor?
No thanks.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/
04/03/BAG61P0QIM3.DTL
SEE - YOU KOOL AID DRINKERS? THIS IS THE KINDA AL DAVIS BS CRAP I'M TALKING ABOUT MAN! WHY PRESS THE ISSUE? YOU LOST AL! SUCK IT UP AND SHUT UP ALREADY! JUST ANOTHER SCHEME TO GET BACK TO L.A. MAN. WHAT A SCUMBAG!
Scorpio,
How else do you think Al is going to come up with the $30 million to pay Jamarcus once he is drafted? (LOL).
azraider - you have a very valid point there.
look guys, and gals if any, i'm just wondering why al is sticking his nose in court once again? if not to move outta here once the lease is done in 2010, what other reason is there to keep fighting in court? this is the kind of al davis thing that really chaps my hide.
now, let's say that the statement is true with regards to trying to extend the lease.... as of 2011 the alameda team facility and land has been given up to the city/county as part of the agreement to drop the other lawsuit. so basically that facility is GONE! where they gonna practice?
like i mentioned before, those of you who live outside the bay area don't care where they call home. the raiders are the raiders no matter where they play. but we here in the bay area who grew up with this team happen to think that the raiders BELONG to OAKLAND. al davis doesn't care about all that. al davis doesn't care about what the fans think. he never has and never will because he knows they'll continue to buy tickets. sure it's his team and sure it's his business and he could do whatever he wants. when is this gonna stop?????
oh sure if he moves, i'll go down to LA for games just like i did before. but those "days" are times when i was young and single and had money to blow. these are different times but i would still go down there because...i love the raiders.
the day al davis extends the lease and stays out of the courts is the day i stop despising this man.
I would kindly disagree about the Raiders belonging to Oakland to everybody. I was raised in El Segundo, just outside LA and the Raiders practiced down the street from my house. Granted I was young and didn't understand the legal bit of it, but going to see the Raiders beat the Giants 20-10 in my first pro sports game ever is a cherished memory. So, for me as a youngin', the Raiders were the LA Raiders. Just puttin' that out there. Even if at this point I think they should stay in Oakland.
franco, with all due respect, i've been to many, many, many games in LA over those years. i've hung out at that school where they used to practice in el segundo. i've seen that old POS LA coliseum practically empty for most of those games over those years. there were only a couple of times when the stadium was full at 90K+. there was one time when attendance records were broken for a pro football game at 100K+. but for the most part in that 100 year old stadium, it was mostly empty. the people of LA don't care about pro football. they can get all the games on TV this way anyway. there's too many things to do and too many places to go in LA for the people to worry about pro football. besides, all the gang-bangers spoil it for everyone anyway. and i hear that LA never wants al davis to set foot in that county again, which i hope is true. the raiders aren't a good fit for LA. they were too hollywood in their time there making rap records, with celebrities hanging out on the sidelines during games etc.
for cryin out loud, the nfl put a franchise in houston instead of the second largest media market in the nation. as far as we oakland bay area fans, LA was only a temporary stop. oakland is home to this team. always has been. always will be. only your lordship al and his minion of yes people can take this away from us yet again, and it looks like he will. it's funny how the league says it should have a team in LA in place for the 2011 season and the lease at the oakland coliseum just happens to run out in 2010. plus the practice facility in alameda is no longer property of the team after 2010. now this new lawsuit?
smells amy trask fishy to me.
just to add to my raiders being too hollywood in LA comment, i remember an article many years ago (i forget the writer and paper) where the writer criticized the raiders for being "soft". he happened to witness a couple of players getting a manicure. one of those players was frank hawkins, a fullback in the LA years. so i walked up to hawkins at the el segundo facility they used for practice, asked him to sign my raider helmet. we chatted a bit and i asked him about that article. he said he knew of it so i asked him what did he think? his comment was "that's bullshit". as he was writing, i noticed his beautifully manicured and polished fingernails.
the players were soft in the LA years. they had other things to do just like the fans there. it would be a major mistake for davis to pick up and go back there.
Scorpio,
I agree with your opinion on the Raiders in LA, however not necessarily that they were soft due to being in LA.
To make things clear, I am not an LA appologist. I was born in Oakland, raised in the East Bay and our family had season tickets between '74-'81.
I too believe that the Raiders are Oakland, and Oakland is the Raiders. I do think that the story you told regarding Frank Hawkins manicured fingers, the softness of the team is just as much a reflection of the times as much as it was an LA thing.
When the Raiders won their SB in LA, it was primarily an Oakland Raider team with old school players and old school attitudes.
I think that NFL players heading into the mid to late 80' and 90's were just a different breed. A younger generation of player that we see today. I think most NFL players are softer now than the players of the 70's and before.
Maybe LA just happened to speed up the process to our blue collar 70's Oakland Raiders.
I went many years without even saying Los Angeles Raiders. I never bought any LA Raider merchandise, but I always supported my team, just like you did by going to the games in So Cal.
I am older now (even some grey hair, but still younger than Blanda when he retired) and I accept the fact that they were on loan to LA. For the sake of using an over used term..."it is what it is". It was a part of our history that I have learned to accept.
I think Franco is correct on his LA point of view simply for the fact that "perception is reality". His view of the Raiders is completely different from ours, but not wrong (not trying to put words in your mouth).
His view is not something that I can identify with, but I fully respect it because he is a member if the Raider Nation.
Just my 1 cent opinion.
Take care
I was merely stating that, as a child, my coming to be as one of the Raider Nation was through their LA years. Knowing what I do now and no longer being in California, I would agree, Oakland is the rightful place the Raiders should be.
Fact is, they're still the Raiders, and I still bleed silver and black.
coachella, you can hold me to it but i said that davis would need to extend the lease AND stay OUT of the courts. if he does both those things, we'll talk.
Post a Comment
<< Home