Raiders & the first pick?

[pacman_fl 0]

I have never been a Raider "fan", but always respected their accomplishments and success. As a Packer fan, I thought we would be battling the Jets, Texans and 49ers for the first pick. I think Oakland has "risen" to our level (while Houston and SF may not be that bad - plus have a decent schedule). For those that really follow them, are the Raiders THAT bad, or can their issues be fixed? Reminds of the Packers last year (bad line, no tackling, no DB's) only Brooks REALLY sucks where Favre is just getting older and worn down.

[t.j 35]

I think the Raiders are one of the teams that could challenge for the worst record in the league. Obviously they were a bad team last year, and a lot of the changes they have made to try to fix those problems are big question marks, especially on offense (OC Tom Walsh, QB Brooks, Gallery to LT, Walker to RT, Sims to LG, rookie RG McQuistan).

 

Two things need to happen to eliminate the Raiders from the Brady Quinn Sweepstakes: 1. Brooks needs to pull his head out of his ass (or Walter needs to save the day), and 2. Lamont Jordan needs to stay healthy.

 

If those things happen I like their chances to win 8 games. Maybe more depending if the quarterback play improves enough. I say this because I like the direction they are headed on defense. A lot of the defensive players who started last year by default are fighting losing battles for their jobs this year. The only notable guys they lost are CWood (who only played 6 games anyway) and Ted Washington (expendable with the switch from 3-4 to 4-3). The young corners from last year's draft look like they are really stepping it up, Huff should help the safety situation immediately, Kirk Morrison (also from last year's draft) has taken the starting MLB job with authority. Talented OLB Sam Williams is finally healthy and is a decent bet to improve the D, although rookie Thomas Howard is looking like he may not upgrade the other OLB spot until he develops more.

Perhaps more importantly, they are running the right scheme for the personell now (4-3). Among other things, this makes DE Tyler Brayton useful again, and makes the return of DE Lance Johnstone a significant plus on pass rushing downs.

 

So, to summarize, as bad as things look for the offense (and I am not kidding anyone, least of all myself, it looks really bad right now), I am fairly optimistic about the defense. I think this will be the first year since 2002 that the Raiders give up less than 379 points, in fact, I think they will give up less than 22 ppg on average. Which isn't a feat that anyone will give them a medal for, but it would be a significant improvement.

[pacman_fl 0]

I think the Raiders are one of the teams that could challenge for the worst record in the league. Obviously they were a bad team last year, and a lot of the changes they have made to try to fix those problems are big question marks, especially on offense (OC Tom Walsh, QB Brooks, Gallery to LT, Walker to RT, Sims to LG, rookie RG McQuistan).

 

Two things need to happen to eliminate the Raiders from the Brady Quinn Sweepstakes: 1. Brooks needs to pull his head out of his ass (or Walter needs to save the day), and 2. Lamont Jordan needs to stay healthy.

 

If those things happen I like their chances to win 8 games. Maybe more depending if the quarterback play improves enough. I say this because I like the direction they are headed on defense. A lot of the defensive players who started last year by default are fighting losing battles for their jobs this year. The only notable guys they lost are CWood (who only played 6 games anyway) and Ted Washington (expendable with the switch from 3-4 to 4-3). The young corners from last year's draft look like they are really stepping it up, Huff should help the safety situation immediately, Kirk Morrison (also from last year's draft) has taken the starting MLB job with authority. Talented OLB Sam Williams is finally healthy and is a decent bet to improve the D, although rookie Thomas Howard is looking like he may not upgrade the other OLB spot until he develops more.

Perhaps more importantly, they are running the right scheme for the personell now (4-3). Among other things, this makes DE Tyler Brayton useful again, and makes the return of DE Lance Johnstone a significant plus on pass rushing downs.

 

So, to summarize, as bad as things look for the offense (and I am not kidding anyone, least of all myself, it looks really bad right now), I am fairly optimistic about the defense. I think this will be the first year since 2002 that the Raiders give up less than 379 points, in fact, I think they will give up less than 22 ppg on average. Which isn't a feat that anyone will give them a medal for, but it would be a significant improvement.

 

Yep - sounds like a parallel universe to the Packers. Defense wins championships though. If Gallery doesn't look better after this week, are there other options and will Shell make a switch again (because he DOES look lost)

[esoitl 0]

id say the Raiders are the front runner right now

Brooks has no clue, even Randy says every stride that is made in practice is erased once they get in the game and they are always at square one

 

it seems like he isn't learning the offense and the OL is having issues as well only compounding that problem

 

if anything i think this team is far away on both sides of the ball right now, i think there will definatley be a surprise contender for at least a top 3 pick as well

it happens most years where a team just plummets

 

im betting on Buffalo and Oakland to continue their decline and Kansas City to begin their plummet this year

[Freak Jones 0]

I think the Raiders are one of the teams that could challenge for the worst record in the league. Obviously they were a bad team last year, and a lot of the changes they have made to try to fix those problems are big question marks, especially on offense (OC Tom Walsh, QB Brooks, Gallery to LT, Walker to RT, Sims to LG, rookie RG McQuistan).

 

Two things need to happen to eliminate the Raiders from the Brady Quinn Sweepstakes: 1. Brooks needs to pull his head out of his ass (or Walter needs to save the day), and 2. Lamont Jordan needs to stay healthy.

 

If those things happen I like their chances to win 8 games. Maybe more depending if the quarterback play improves enough.

 

Hey t.j I'm with you on the defensive side of the ball. Not great, but should be improved there.

 

I follow the Raiders a bit. I've had Jordan as a keeper for a few years and been a Moss fan forever. But I think 8 wins in that division is going to be way too tough. No matter how good they are, I think they'll have a tough time winning 1 game against Denver and San Diego. They might be able to split with the Chiefs, if as you pointed out those 2 big things happen. But that would put them at 1-5 in the division and they'd need to go 7-3 against the rest of the league. Considering they play Baltimore in week 2 and Seattle and Pittsburgh later on, I think 6-10 would be more realistic. If everything goes well. If not, then #1 pick for sure.

[t.j 35]

I think they'll have a tough time winning 1 game against Denver and San Diego. They might be able to split with the Chiefs, if as you pointed out those 2 big things happen. But that would put them at 1-5 in the division and they'd need to go 7-3 against the rest of the league. Considering they play Baltimore in week 2 and Seattle and Pittsburgh later on, I think 6-10 would be more realistic. If everything goes well. If not, then #1 pick for sure.

 

As far as the schedule goes, I agree with you that Denver, San Diego, Seattle, and Pittsburgh will be hard to beat even if the Raiders play well on those given days. The team's divisional track record is especially terrible of late. At least there are only 6 division games rather than 9. I'm not particularly scared of Baltimore, I think BAL, CLE, SF, ARI, HOU, SL, NYJ, and KCx2 are all very beatable opponents on the Raiders schedule. I'm not suggesting that if the Raiders right the ship they will win each of those games, or anything like that. But I don't think their schedule is any harder than average this year.

[Freak Jones 0]

As far as the schedule goes, I agree with you that Denver, San Diego, Seattle, and Pittsburgh will be hard to beat even if the Raiders play well on those given days. The team's divisional track record is especially terrible of late. At least there are only 6 division games rather than 9. I'm not particularly scared of Baltimore, I think BAL, CLE, SF, ARI, HOU, SL, NYJ, and KCx2 are all very beatable opponents on the Raiders schedule. I'm not suggesting that if the Raiders right the ship they will win each of those games, or anything like that. But I don't think their schedule is any harder than average this year.

 

I gotcha. If they get the offense clicking, you're right, those are winnable games. The only reason I'm hesitant on the Baltimore game is cause its early. That Baltimore D could feast on Brooks & Company if they don't get thinks figured out pretty soon here. That said, we've only seen the O against a pretty good Philly D and an underrated Minny D thus far. Maybe the next couple against SF and Detroit will allow Brooks to get into some kind of rhythm before the season starts. If not, I really hope they just give Walter a shot to chuck it. I really didn't like Brooks demeanor in that sideline interview on Monday. Talk about lack of charisma.

[Toltec 0]

I predict 2nd pick of the draft and (being a Raiders fan) understand that they may very well screw that one up royally as well.

 

Look, no true Raiders fan was surprised by the aquisition of brooks in the off-season. For every FA pickup or trade that lands us Ronnie Lott or Rich Gannon(that one was a fluke, because in reality, in any other system he sucked) there are a hundred Sapps, Washingtons, Schroeders, Georges, etc. etc.

 

Look, the Raiders in the 70's and early 80's was a home to rejects from around the league and they made it work because those guys wanted to prove something. And they were on a team where they were wanted and appreciated.

 

In the 90's and 00's the Raiders were and are a home to rejects from around the league and they make for a bad team. These guys are selfish, or untalented, or premadonnas (sp). These guys made their cash when they hit Oaktown and drop off the map. A few exceptions notwithstanding. This apparently is due to the fact that either their scouts are complete morons or Al Davis is completely insane.

 

I am one Raiders fan that has never sipped of the Kool-Aid passed out by the team every year. I was not angry when Shell was fired because he was Davis' lapdog. Sitting Allen on the bench, caving to a wing it and pray philosophy that they did not have the personnel to employ.

 

This year just rounds us back out as the Gruden hiring must have been just a tease to get all long suffering Raiders fans hope before having the rug pulled back from under our feet. It is a cruel world... Raiders fans know it. Hey Detroit fans, we feel your pain. come party at Raider nation. I hear Al Davis has some killer drugs.

[The Moose 0]

All I can say is: BILLS. They already had among the worst records in the league last year, and now they play in a much improved division. The Pats aren't any worse than last season, assuming they keep Branch. The Fins were winning games with Gus Frerotte, for God's sake, and Nick Saben is a good coach. The Jets had a lot of injuries last year, so they look to improve just by being healthy. Plus, they have more depth at QB. As for the Bills, they lost their only proven WR in Eric Moulds, we still don't know if Losman is any good yet, and the OL hasn't improved. Look around the league and show me an offense that has only 1 big name (Willis McGahee, the "best back in the NFL").

[t.j 35]

I predict 2nd pick of the draft and (being a Raiders fan) understand that they may very well screw that one up royally as well.

 

Look, no true Raiders fan was surprised by the aquisition of brooks in the off-season. For every FA pickup or trade that lands us Ronnie Lott or Rich Gannon(that one was a fluke, because in reality, in any other system he sucked) there are a hundred Sapps, Washingtons, Schroeders, Georges, etc. etc.

 

Look, the Raiders in the 70's and early 80's was a home to rejects from around the league and they made it work because those guys wanted to prove something. And they were on a team where they were wanted and appreciated.

 

In the 90's and 00's the Raiders were and are a home to rejects from around the league and they make for a bad team. These guys are selfish, or untalented, or premadonnas (sp). These guys made their cash when they hit Oaktown and drop off the map. A few exceptions notwithstanding. This apparently is due to the fact that either their scouts are complete morons or Al Davis is completely insane.

 

I am one Raiders fan that has never sipped of the Kool-Aid passed out by the team every year. I was not angry when Shell was fired because he was Davis' lapdog. Sitting Allen on the bench, caving to a wing it and pray philosophy that they did not have the personnel to employ.

 

This year just rounds us back out as the Gruden hiring must have been just a tease to get all long suffering Raiders fans hope before having the rug pulled back from under our feet. It is a cruel world... Raiders fans know it. Hey Detroit fans, we feel your pain. come party at Raider nation. I hear Al Davis has some killer drugs.

 

I wouldn't say that the signing of Gannon was a fluke, or that the hiring of Gruden was a tease! But, I would say that the hiring of Gruden was a fluke, and that Gruden alone is responsible for the signing of and success with Gannon. I think Davis (wisely) really wants to hitch his wagon to another talented young coach who hasn't gotten a shot at being a head coach before (ala Madden, Gruden), but unfortunately those guys won't touch the job with a 100' pole right now. Until one does, we are stuck with another maybe decade or so of coaching carousel.

[seattle_pt1 0]

1. Brooks needs to pull his head out of his ass (or Walter needs to save the day),