tecklc2112 7 Posted August 3, 2006 Raiders coach Art Shell isn't so sure he'll get LaMont Jordan's desired "23-26" carries a game. Jordan is obsessed with those numbers, saying the exact same ones were needed last year for him to be effective. Shell said he was going to get Justin Fargas more carries this season. Source: San Francisco Chronicle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xxx 0 Posted August 3, 2006 Raiders coach Art Shell isn't so sure he'll get LaMont Jordan's desired "23-26" carries a game.Jordan is obsessed with those numbers, saying the exact same ones were needed last year for him to be effective. Shell said he was going to get Justin Fargas more carries this season. Source: San Francisco Chronicle Fargas!?!? cmon, Art, get real. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted August 3, 2006 Calm down, guys. For Fargas, "more carries" literally could mean 1 per game. As for Jordan and his dream to carry the ball 23-26 times per game... I don't begrudge Jordan for feeling that way, but it's only going to happen if: 1. he's more effective, and 2. the team is competitive. You can't keep feeding him the rock on every other play when he's averaging 3.5 yards per carry and the team is down 10 in the second half, as was often the case last year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tecklc2112 7 Posted August 3, 2006 Fargas!?!? cmon, Art, get real. Hopefully this is just "coach speak"...I can't see Fargas being much of a factor...maybe 5 carries a game. Raider homers heard anything else on this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kutulu 1,564 Posted August 3, 2006 Fargas won't even be in the league next year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_scooter 0 Posted August 3, 2006 this is taken a bit out of context. the statement I heard was that the Raiders wanted to run more this year, period. That they wanted to get Justin Fargas more involved, because they feel he can be a good change of pace back. However, I didn't hear anyone say it would come as a detriment to Jordan's workload - it was more a statement to the raiders run game overall. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akaoni 0 Posted August 3, 2006 If anything working Fargas into the rotation could be a good thing. Yes, it would be nice for Lamont to get 23-26 carries per game, but it also helps to get a breather every now and then without having a drive stall out... ...in any event, this post is a non-story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tecklc2112 7 Posted August 3, 2006 If anything working Fargas into the rotation could be a good thing. Yes, it would be nice for Lamont to get 23-26 carries per game, but it also helps to get a breather every now and then without having a drive stall out... ...in any event, this post is a non-story. I would say that any bit of info about a top 10 RB whose coach is talking about taking away some carries is worthy of being posted and not a "non-story"...if you don't like it, don't make a worthless statement like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_scooter 0 Posted August 3, 2006 I would say that any bit of info about a top 10 RB whose coach is talking about taking away some carries is worthy of being posted and not a "non-story"...if you don't like it, don't make a worthless statement like that. That's the point though. The coach is not talking about taking away carries from Jordan, he is talking about giving carries to Fargas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tecklc2112 7 Posted August 3, 2006 That's the point though. The coach is not talking about taking away carries from Jordan, he is talking about giving carries to Fargas. Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but I'm sure those looking to draft Jordan and those that already do own him are interested by Shell's comments here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akaoni 0 Posted August 3, 2006 I would say that any bit of info about a top 10 RB whose coach is talking about taking away some carries is worthy of being posted and not a "non-story"...if you don't like it, don't make a worthless statement like that. I'm all for more info on any top players, don't get me wrong. My point was just that I don't think that the info provided is going to have much, if any fantasy impact, and won't effect my opinion of Lamont. Additionally, it's important not to place too much importance on coach speak. Who knows why he's saying what he's saying? Maybe he want's Fargas to put more effort out in practice, and is using this as motivation. We just don't know. That said, I'm not sure why you're taking this so personally. I was just responding to your post. You're acting like I was flaming you or something. Relax... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted August 3, 2006 Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but I'm sure those looking to draft Jordan and those that already do own him are interested by Shell's comments here. Yeah, but like I pointed out, Fargas only had 5 carries last year. He could triple that and not make a dent in Jordan's production! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_scooter 0 Posted August 3, 2006 Well, you are entitled to your opinions, but I'm sure those looking to draft Jordan and those that already do own him are interested by Shell's comments here. I just looked over the Chronicle and I don't see this quote from Shell you keep referring to. http://www.sfgate.com In fact, I can't find any article with your outrageous and apparently fabricated claims. Here's the only mention of Fargas in the Chronicle today. while close to what you claim was said, it seems like you were fairly liberal with inserting your own spin and attributing it to the Chronicle - likely why you didn't link to it. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...001&sc=1000 (08-02) 21:56 PDT Napa, Calif. (AP) -- Coming off the most productive season of his NFL career, Oakland Raiders running back LaMont Jordan made a startling admission this week when he acknowledged he hadn't even studied the team's blocking schemes in 2005. That Jordan still managed to rush for 1,025 yards while finishing second on the team with 70 receptions was noteworthy, but the numbers weren't nearly enough to push him into the class of elite running backs. Neither did it do much to help an anemic offense that was 29th in the NFL in rushing, 23rd in scoring and 28th in time of possession. Jordan vows that won't happen again. "I'm a lot more focused this year," said Jordan, who led Oakland with 11 touchdowns last season. "Last year I was ready for them to put in a certain type of run game (and) I never really did make the adjustment and say, 'Hey, this is what they're going to do so this is what I have to do.'" That certainly wasn't what the Raiders had in mind when they signed Jordan as a free agent to a five-year, $27.5 million contract in March 2005. A backup to Curtis Martin in New York, Jordan jumped at the opportunity to become a full-time starter in the NFL and vowed to breathe life back into the Raiders' moribund running game. That plan never came to fruition, though Jordan had varying degrees of success throughout the season. He was the only player in the NFL to rank in the top 20 in rushing yards, receptions, total yards from scrimmage, first downs and in scoring. Jordan had three 100-yard games and nearly doubled his career rushing total before a turf toe injury sidelined him for the final two games of the regular season. Had he spent more time in the film room, Jordan admits, he might have been able to do more. What also should help Jordan and the rest of the Raiders offense is a renewed commitment to the running game by coach Art Shell and offensive coordinator Tom Walsh. Under previous coach Norv Turner, Oakland's offense sputtered and frequently misfired. As a team, the Raiders ran the ball fewer than 18 times in seven games during the 2005 season; in three others they had 23 rushing attempts or less. Conversely, the Raiders had 29 attempts or more in three of the team's four wins. "I think this offense is definitely geared more toward my running style," Jordan said. "Last year we did a lot more running sideways which I didn't like nor did the linemen like. This year you can tell Coach Shell's mentality is downhill power football." Jordan spent the offseason recovering from the turf toe injury while dealing with the reality that he was sitting out the postseason for only the second time in his five NFL seasons. In an attempt to get stronger and more durable to handle the rigors of a 16-game season, Jordan also renovated his workout regimen, adding yoga and boxing to his list. The Raiders also plan to give Justin Fargas more playing time in an effort to keep Jordan healthy. Getting better acquainted with the playbook should help Jordan even more. "He admitted that there were some things that he didn't understand about what (linemen) were doing blocking-wise," Shell said. "It's important for the back to know exactly what the scheme is on each particular play so that he can make adjustments and know where the point of attack is, and he'll adjust off of what he sees as he's moving toward the point of attack." the bold section makes a reference to increasing Fargas' carries, and does so for the exact reasons that I and others mentioned. Where in the hell did you get "reducing Jordan's carries" or "Art Shell said" from? What, are you drafting today with people here and are bent on misinforming them so Jordan slides to you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mobb_deep 919 Posted August 3, 2006 I just looked over the Chronicle and I don't see this quote from Shell you keep referring to. http://www.sfgate.com In fact, I can't find any article with your outrageous and apparently fabricated claims. Here's the only mention of Fargas in the Chronicle today. while close to what you claim was said, it seems like you were fairly liberal with inserting your own spin and attributing it to the Chronicle - likely why you didn't link to it. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...001&sc=1000 the bold section makes a reference to increasing Fargas' carries, and does so for the exact reasons that I and others mentioned. Where in the hell did you get "reducing Jordan's carries" or "Art Shell said" from? What, are you drafting today with people here and are bent on misinforming them so Jordan slides to you? I don't care if Vargas steals some of his carries. I'm seriously considering drafting him #4 ahead of Tiki and Portis in my PPR league. He showed last season he could be a work horse, He caught 70 passes compared to Tiki's 54 (equivalent of almost 3 TD's in FF points), and the Raiders play Cinci, St Louis, and KC in weeks 14-16 compared to Tiki Carolina, Philly, and then the laughable Nola. I'm sure I'll end up going back and forth over this as that Nola matchup in week 16 looks good but getting past Carolina in week 14 would be tough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akaoni 0 Posted August 3, 2006 the bold section makes a reference to increasing Fargas' carries, and does so for the exact reasons that I and others mentioned. Where in the hell did you get "reducing Jordan's carries" or "Art Shell said" from? What, are you drafting today with people here and are bent on misinforming them so Jordan slides to you? He's directly quoting a blurb from Rotoworld. Here's a link to the story that's being referenced (scroll down to the bottom). It's not much, but still, give the kid a break... Update, Rotoworld link added as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tecklc2112 7 Posted August 3, 2006 He's directly quoting a blurb from Rotoworld. Here's a link to the story that's being referenced (scroll down to the bottom). It's not much, but still, give the kid a break... akaoni...this is just classic football scooter...being a ****head to anyone that has an alter opinion than his own. Let him go on, it's comical Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
t.j 35 Posted August 3, 2006 He's directly quoting a blurb from Rotoworld. Here's a link to the story that's being referenced (scroll down to the bottom). It's not much, but still, give the kid a break... Update, Rotoworld link added as well. Thanks akaoni. Next time, tec, please give us the Rotoworld link to avoid this confusion. Also, here's Shell's quote from the sfgate article: "I also have to make sure Justin Fargas gets some carries," he said, referring to Jordan's backup who, Shell noted, "is having a great camp." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_scooter 0 Posted August 3, 2006 Thanks akaoni. Next time, tec, please give us the Rotoworld link to avoid this confusion. Also, here's Shell's quote from the sfgate article: Right. And nowhere in that quote does Shell say anything about Jordan losing carries. This same argument went down last year - exactly the same in fact. Team wanted Fargas to get more carries so people assumed (incorrectly) that LJ's carries would be reduced. Get the facts straight and I have no issues with anyone. But to infer something from an article and represent it as fact is irrisponsible. Say what you want about me - at least I have the story straight and have links to back it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PackYourNut 47 Posted August 3, 2006 Right. And nowhere in that quote does Shell say anything about Jordan losing carries. This same argument went down last year - exactly the same in fact. Team wanted Fargas to get more carries so people assumed (incorrectly) that LJ's carries would be reduced. Get the facts straight and I have no issues with anyone. But to infer something from an article and represent it as fact is irrisponsible. Say what you want about me - at least I have the story straight and have links to back it up. I thought LJ played for the Chiefs... Maybe he should be LJ2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Black Label Society Posted August 3, 2006 Right. And nowhere in that quote does Shell say anything about Jordan losing carries. This same argument went down last year - exactly the same in fact. Team wanted Fargas to get more carries so people assumed (incorrectly) that LJ's carries would be reduced. Get the facts straight and I have no issues with anyone. But to infer something from an article and represent it as fact is irrisponsible. Say what you want about me - at least I have the story straight and have links to back it up. You're a FUCKING TOOL Scooter. That is all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lechuza 0 Posted August 3, 2006 Justin Fargas shouldn't be in the NFL. he wasn't impressive at USC and he won't make an impact his year for the Raiders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
football_scooter 0 Posted August 3, 2006 You're a FUCKING TOOL Scooter. That is all. Guess I asked for that when I said, "say what you want about me". so well played Trebeck, well played. The game's afoot! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
