Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Super Bowl Recipes: A Guide To The Perfect Game Day Menu

Trading Talent to get Talent: Who Might be Out the Door Next Year



In the midst of all the talks of draft possibilities and hope free agent signings, there comes the lost art of the offseason; the trade.

 

While I'm not much for trading away members of such a young and still-developing team. We have some juicy trade opportunities we can look into.

Star-divide

 

 

Trade Huff: I've always had the idea of trading Huff from the very instant he got hot this year. There is no better time to do it either. He only has 1-year left on his contract so the other team wouldn't have to pay much, he's playing his best ball right now, and we have people behind him who could take his place so the trade wouldn't decimate our safety position.

 

But what could we get for Huff? Realistically I'm thinking a third round pick is the best we can get and we should ask for nothing less. Huff is probably worth a second rounder, but teams won't be convinced by one good year to give up that kind of pick. But a mid-third rounder, I could see it happening. Perhaps Al works his post-second round magic and gets us a good OLB or even a good corner to push Routt to dime. For any other team, a third-rounder would be a waste. But Davis has amazing luck with these third-round and on picks, so this is actually really good for us.

 

Plus, Huff might revert to pre-2009 form next year. Who knows? The only bad side is if Michael Mitchell isn't yet up to starting quality (which I think he could have a tyvon-esque second year) and Hiram Eugene is no better.

 

Possible Trade Partners: A team like Jacksonville that's getting beat on the deep ball and getting killed by tight ends underneath is the prime destination. There's also Minnesota who's getting killed by tight ends and is lacking at safety after the departure of Darren Sharper. As much as I'd hate to see him here, Pittsburgh is another possibility. Polamalu's repeated injuries are translating to poor coverage and Ryan Clark at free safety is no better.

 

 

Trade Kelly: Hear me out on this one. If a team is willing to put up with the contract, a lot of 4-3 defenses could use him at UT. And if we want, we can stick with Warren who's the more potent pass rusher and still have Warren Sapp 1.0 in Desmond Bryant. With NT already being a priority that should be addressed anyway, we'd still have two quality guys at UT.

 

So why Kelly and not the better pass rusher Warren? Kelly is more consistent and is the much bigger name. Teams have to figure that Kelly's contract means something, and who knows what teams might have in mind for a Tommy Kelly. Maybe a 3-4 team could use him at end?

 

We're looking once more at a third round pick, but I'd like to see a player or a sixth rounder thrown in with this. The reality is, Kelly is one of three UT's on this team with Warren having the occasional big play in the run game. Plus Bryant is already as good a run stopper as Kelly and possibly a better pass rusher. A nose tackle is bound to come in anyway so we'd still have three solid DT's (if the NT would pan out), so let's at least get something from a hashed DT.

 

Kelly isn't improving, Warren's the better UT, Bryant is a gem of a DT project, to me there's no downside.

 

Possible Trade Partners: The Detroit Lions immediately came to mind. Outside of Cliff Avril, that D-Line is one of the worst in the league. Kelly paired up with a fundamental run stopper like Grady Jackson could be something good for Detroit. They have youth on the team developing, what's two draft picks if you can get that D-Line put together a little more? I could also see the Titans wanting Tommy Kelly. After a bad defensive year in which pressure and pass coverage were hard to come by, Tennessee might be in the mood to improve their D-Line's pass rush to keep linebackers in coverage. And don't look now, but Tampa's going to be hunting for something to revamp that D-Line.

 

 

Trade Bush: I'm not supporting this move at all, I LOVE Michael Bush to death. I think he's the next Jamal Lewis, power with some speed and elusiveness to him. And a great receiver from the backfield. But if the Raiders aren't using him, he could be shipped out. Personally i think this sets us back big time with our running game.

 

However the Raiders might go the route of the Broncos and just dig up a power back from free agency to take his place. With as hellbent as they are on McFadden being a future star (I'd much rather trade him), don't be surprised if this does happen.

 

Honestly I think we could get a second round pick for Bush along with a fourth or fifth bundled in. . Teams have seen plenty of what he can do, mainly carving up the 3rd ranked Broncos rush D for a ton of yards. A lot of teams would like to have that for themselves.

 

The downside, we pass up on what I know WILL be a top-10 running back in this league and he'll probably come back to Oakland to run all over us.

 

Possible Trade Partners: Possibilities are endless with a talent like Bush. But the prime candidate to me is the Washington Redskins. Portis is getting old and very injury prone and I highly doubt Ladell Betts is their future. Bush would be able to rotate with Portis, learn from Portis, and be their back of the future. Especially since Washington loves an every-down, 20 carries a game, running back. You could also look at Detroit once again. They could use a split back with Kevin Smith to keep him healthy and effective. Plus I think Smith paired with Bush would be one hell of a 1-2 punch to complement Calvin Johnson and the pass attack.

 

 

Trade McFadden: My dream trade. As much as we all like to think it, McFadden does not have any sort of homerun potential. If he did we'd have seen him break an 80-yarder for a TD like DeAngelo Williams and Chris Johnson do on a practically daily basis. He'll never be a homerun hitter because he goes down so easily that if he ever ran against the breeze it'd probably tackle him, and he's too injury prone.

 

Now while you'd think this would repel trade offers, it won't. McFadden has endless possibilities and i think a lot of teams would like to see what they can do with him in their offense. Many of the up-and-coming offenses in this league would love to have a back who can be another receiver.

 

What could we get? I'm thinking a second rounder or a third bundled with a fourth or fifth. Teams still think he's that breakaway, do everything kinda guy. Luckily we know better. It's not a trade I see happening, but I don't see it not happening either.

 

Possible Trade Partners: Once again a lot of teams are looking to bolster their run games and some would love to bolster the pass attack with McFadden. I'm looking once again at Washington, especially if Shanahan coaches there next year. He likes to do a lot of different things on offense and has seen Mcfadden do some damage against his own Denver team. Of course this also goes hand-in-hand with rotation for Portis and possibly the back of the future. I also think St. Louis is another prime candidate. A struggling passing game, the lack of rotation to keep an injury prone Steven Jackson healthy, the lack of a big-play guy on offense. Seattle is another prime candidate in my mind.

 

 

 

Overall i think these are the most likely trade scenarios and with the obvious exception of the Bush trade, I'd like all of these to happen. However I wouldn't be displeased if none of them happened. So my fellow Silver and Black Prideful, what are your thoughts on these trades and maybe other trade possibilities?

Poll
Which of these for trades do you like best?
Trade Huff
88 votes
Trade Kelly
175 votes
Trade Bush
31 votes
Trade McFadden
189 votes

483 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 64 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Trade McFadden

while we can still get something for him. Yeah, it is part of the coaches fault he’s being used wrong, but he drops the ball too much, falls down to fast, constantly hurt, and can’t see the holes right next to him to run through.

If anything we’ve seen this year he’s a good option at WR so another team may see that and want that.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 29, 2009 8:29 AM PST reply actions  

It would depend on what we're getting, but I am against trading Bush and Huff

they are both getting even better than they were earlier and that was pretty good. DMF is no longer a rookie, it will be his 3rd year, and he has great speed but isn’t effective all around only in space. So, for what we need most [DTs and OL) he is someone we could trade.
kelly has had some good games but (after 6 years) isn’t as consistent as one might expect; and at best he is on the left side of our player quality bell curve – so I gave him the short straw.

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 29, 2009 8:33 AM PST reply actions  

Trade

I think out of all of those players, McFadden or Bush has the best value. I prefer Bush between the tackles and overall think he is the better running back, so I’d rather trade McFadden.

I wouldn’t trade Bush or Huff. As for Kelly, I’d be more open to trading him if I knew we’d be drafting Gerald McCoy in April.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Dec 29, 2009 8:52 AM PST reply actions  

Get rid of Kelly

and his fat contract if we can find any takers. Use the money freed up to go after someone like Woolfork or an offensive lineman. Fargas is 30 and Mcfadden, as unimpressive as he has been, has some upside. With the injuries, o-line problems, bad quarterback play, young receivers, and playcalling woes, I don’t think it’s fair to dump all of the blame on him. He hasn’t helped himself with much with the few opportunities he’s had, but I think he’s not being used correctly either. Bush should be the starter with 20+ carries a game and Huff has finally started to come on.

by STX on Dec 29, 2009 9:23 AM PST reply actions  

I believe McFadden does have a certain home run ability in being a RB receiver, although he is not a good RB in running in between tackles but thats were M. Bush comes in, if anything trade Huff or Kelly or Fargas.

by Raider9 on Dec 29, 2009 9:31 AM PST reply actions  

Not Huff. We need at least one punishing hitter in the Tatum / Lott mold

And since our MLB is incapable of such hits while Huff has been playing smash-mouth since Dallas, we need him around to keep some semblance, or reminder, of our past heritage of fierce D.

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 29, 2009 10:05 AM PST up reply actions  

actually Branch is the Lott/Tatum of the secondary

because of his aggressiveness and the fact he actually is a hard-hitter especially when a receiver tries for the jump ball.

Huff isn’t a hard-hitter, he’s just a sure-tackler. He doesn’t let much get past him, but he’s not going to be forcing any fumbles. And that’s fine by me. If you go for the big hit, you might end up missing the tackle entirely.

Evey- "Are you a crazy person?"
V- "I'm quite sure they'll say so."
V for Vendetta, blowing your mind away since 2005.

by KA1Z3R on Dec 29, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions  

If you don't think Huff hits hard, then I have great respect for your standard of what hard hitting should be

Huff has been improving steadily and this year he pulled it together so I think we would be making a big mistake to part company with him. Branch is out of the question – a keeper.

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 29, 2009 12:36 PM PST up reply actions  

On the ever of his wedding, he shaved his great beard

and on his wedding night, his bride denied him access to herself until he had promised to grow the beard back and never to shave it again.

Let them with understanding heed these words

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 29, 2009 10:47 AM PST reply actions  

trading kelly or huff seems like a safer bet.

we got backups who can fill their shoes. idk how well, but i’d like to see itchel and bryant play.

by patriotguy2 on Dec 29, 2009 10:58 AM PST reply actions  

Keep huff

kelly may be worth the risk of trading.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 29, 2009 12:59 PM PST up reply actions  

quick reminder

it’s about value of contracts. For example, Kelly, JR, MCD play way under their contracts while Murphy, Chad, Miller play well above their contracts. MCD would be my pick to move and bring back talent that could play right away.

by raiders4liffe on Dec 29, 2009 11:05 AM PST reply actions  

DO NOT trade McFadden

If we trade any of those guys, make it Kelly. I am not ready to give up on McFadden. If he leaves the Raiders he immediately becomes a 1,000 rusher.. why? Because other teams do not have idiots on the coaching staff.

Use this guy the right way! See Chris Johnson, Matt Forte (last year), etc.

Light up the Freakin Halo!

by marshgr on Dec 29, 2009 11:54 AM PST reply actions  

It's hard to use Mcfadden right

when he falls down so easily, can’t fall forward, and has zero ability between the tackles. He could be a good receiver if a team decides to make him one, but he’s not an NFL starter to me.

Evey- "Are you a crazy person?"
V- "I'm quite sure they'll say so."
V for Vendetta, blowing your mind away since 2005.

by KA1Z3R on Dec 29, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions  

I concur.

And his durability is in question too.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 29, 2009 1:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Reggie Bush syndrome

jack of all trades….MCD could still prove to be the one. Problem is, unlike other positions LTor QB that typically takes a second to adjust, RB can step in and dominate. He has not in 2 years. Can he carry the ball 20-25 times a game? I just don’t see it with his fumble tendencies and injuries. Without the required carries, he’s too expensive and too much of a luxury to have at his contract. We’re better off picking up a solid starter in a need position (pick any) plus a first rounder in the 2011 draft (as we lost that one for Seymour).

by raiders4liffe on Dec 29, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions  

notice how a lot of pure speed backs don't pan out in the NFL

Chris Johnson one of the obvious exceptions.

Evey- "Are you a crazy person?"
V- "I'm quite sure they'll say so."
V for Vendetta, blowing your mind away since 2005.

by KA1Z3R on Dec 29, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions  

if the raiders actually had some sort of running plan

DMC would be just fine. We have not had a running back to lead us all year. This is in part because we have had each of our 3 backs start different games, play completely different roles in games, etc.
We need Bush to be our featured back to start all games next year. His size combined with his speed will break down defensive lines during the first half. Sprinkle in a little Fargas in there for a nice change of pace and keep them on their toes. Stretch the outside a bit.
Second half, Heavy doses of DMC on the screen plays, line him up as a wide out, etc.
The NY Giants did this the year they went to the super bowl with Jacobs, Bradshaw, and Ward.
trade huff for the best draft pick we can get, but don’t even consider trading Bush! trading DMC is a bad idea as well

by iBleedSnB on Dec 30, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Why trade huff?

Trading McFadden is a better bet. They’re are more durable running backs out there that don’t slip on a shoe lace and have better hands. I don’t want to trade bush or huff. I want to trade McFadden while we can still get something from him.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 30, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Keep Huff. When a player is improving like Mike's been doing since mid-season

there’s no telling how good he’ll be. We need hitters like him and Branch and Scott as an inspiration to the others and for the sheer joy of watching them hit. Trade defensive players who hit like sea-sponges. Of course keep Bush. If Cable stays (God forbid) then trade DMF; otherwise, keep him.

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 30, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions  

yo people

nnamdi and shane are starting in the probowl.
thought u should know

by raiderfan4life on Dec 29, 2009 4:53 PM PST reply actions  

nate keating is the kicker.
no backups, but richard seymour and zack miller are alternates.

by raiderfan4life on Dec 29, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions  

Cool for miller

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 29, 2009 5:37 PM PST up reply actions  

There's a 'wish list' but nothing official - is there some Official Post of Alternates?

I doubt Seymour could be on an Official list for tor the Pro Bowl. Zack Miller of course should be unless their holding that dropped pass in the Denver game against him.

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 29, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions  

Well, well, well, Dick is an alternate (per SF Gate/Chronicle)

Raiders picks: Oakland Raiders cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha and punter Shane Lechler have been named to the 2010 Pro Bowl squad, the NFL announced today. Tight end Zach Miller and defensive end Richard Seymour were named Pro Bowl alternates for the game.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/29/SPC01BB6AE.DTL#ixzz0b8oXkpRe

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 29, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions  

That's cool

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 29, 2009 5:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Thanks

I was taking a nap or else I would have made the post earlier.

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Dec 29, 2009 6:08 PM PST up reply actions  

no problem

i live on west coast, so i watched the announcement a couple of hours ago.

by raiderfan4life on Dec 29, 2009 6:13 PM PST up reply actions  

More to the point is who wouldn't you trade

Definitely trade Huff, although you are being way too optimistic. I don’t see anyone giving up more than a 5th for him, and a 4th would be a steal. He’s playing the best of his career but that isn’t saying much. He is still a liability back there; often out of position or overreacting.

The players I wouldn’t trade are but a handful. On D – Scott, Namdi, Johnson, Branch and maybe Mitchell. On O – Bush, McFadden, Miller, Schillens, Henderson, Murphy. And of course not Lechler. Seabass has finally becoming a reliable kicker but that took too many years.

Bush and McFadden are both misused. If Bush were on a team with a good passing game and was the feature back he would be one of the leagues best. Clown-man Cable sees it otherwise and thus he gets only a few touches a game. McFadden only gets a couple of touches a game too so it’s hard to tell how good he really is or isn’t.

by lurker88 on Dec 29, 2009 7:03 PM PST reply actions  

I know a guy who will sell anything he owns at any moment, only his wife and children

arent’ negotiable. That might be a good way to run a football team too but I do get attached to some of the players who play like I think players in their position should play and am reluctant to trade them like pork-bellies on the open meat market. If a player is playing like a True Raider then I’d like him around.

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 29, 2009 7:39 PM PST up reply actions  

Not a fan of trades

2 ex-Raiders come to mind right away. Jim Lachey and Randy Moss and plenty inbetween. Have we ever faired well with trades? Im just not a fan. Any player that is playing well enough to garner a substantial offer, I want to keep as a Raider! I like the idea of finding free agents and a well thought out draft. I like Huff, I think he’s really matured as a player and why lose him right when he’s blossoming. It would be criminal to lose Bush. As a 4th round back, he was a steal and one of Al’s few diamond in the rough draft picks. Hey what could we get for a Jamarcus? a toaster? LoL What could we get for McFadden? a set of steak knives? Not too many teams would take on these contracts. What would we get anyway? 7th round draft picks.

by DvS on Dec 30, 2009 2:24 AM PST reply actions  

McFadden may have some value

he is young and most team scouts see that he’s being underused. It’s the falling down and durability that would probably worry them the most.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 30, 2009 3:06 AM PST up reply actions  

but they probably figure they can do a better job with him than the Raiders have

Evey- "Are you a crazy person?"
V- "I'm quite sure they'll say so."
V for Vendetta, blowing your mind away since 2005.

by KA1Z3R on Dec 30, 2009 6:34 AM PST up reply actions  

which is why he may have some value left

hence the:

he is young and most team scouts see that he’s being underused.

of my comment.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 30, 2009 8:04 AM PST up reply actions  

should have said

probably, used improperly.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 30, 2009 8:04 AM PST up reply actions  

I meant that despite the falling down and durability

they think that they can remedy this unlike the Raiders could.

Evey- "Are you a crazy person?"
V- "I'm quite sure they'll say so."
V for Vendetta, blowing your mind away since 2005.

by KA1Z3R on Dec 30, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions  

Maybe.

I think durability will always plague him and he’ll never be a push the line runner. And he need to work on ball control. I just think there’s enough potential we can get a 3 or 4 round pick for him. But he’s not working out here be it the coaching or whatever.

But I’m biased. I didn’t want him to begin with.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 30, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions  

lol neither did I

then again I wanted Dorsey and look how that’s going.

Evey- "Are you a crazy person?"
V- "I'm quite sure they'll say so."
V for Vendetta, blowing your mind away since 2005.

by KA1Z3R on Dec 31, 2009 7:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Al was once an excellent trader in football talent

But, as you said, we haven’t done it well recently. All the same, we could trade Seymour (especially now that he’s been given some recognition) and DMF (who doesn’t have the package we need) and come out of it in better shape. Btw, RB Marcel Reece was just activated – another big, 240, Pac10 rusher. Maybe the plan is to keep DMF out and health for the trading block.

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 30, 2009 8:56 AM PST up reply actions  

He played in the Cleveland game

I would bet he’s to play instead of Bush.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 30, 2009 8:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Are we trying to lose? or are we planning on trading Bush?

The insanity continues if Bush rushes under 20 times. What could this young man have done to warrant what can only be called a self-destructive response from this organization?

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 30, 2009 9:18 AM PST up reply actions  

I read an article

bout a fumble. And I know Bush doesn’t want to play FB. So apparently if you don’t tell the organization about surgeries or if you don’t want to play a position, you’re just a bench warmer.

But apparently Davis doesn’t care about this to make him play Bush more. Cable is just fucking up the whole ground game and it’s time for a real offense coordinator and/or cable to be rolled out of the building and down the hill into the Pacific.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 30, 2009 9:36 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm really only comfortable trading Kelly; The other guys can be developed under the right coaching

with the right additions. We can’t afford to lose out on safety depth at this point.

Bush and McFadden can be bulit upon. I’d entertain the trades, but only if we filled a significant hole with a key guy that would make an immediate impact, of which I see few really on the trading block, but that will definitely change as the season commences, and the offseasonal moves usher in some very different looking teams.

An uncapped year will make things very interesting.

by brhynno on Dec 30, 2009 9:46 AM PST reply actions  

Projects aren't a bad thing

if taken in a lower round and really do have potential. Same as 4 year vet who would be good for depth and can be refined, provided we have the write staff. For instance, in a possible scenario:

Next year we re-sign Gradkowski. He starts. Losman stays as 2nd string. Hackett works w/ both of them and polishes up Losman a little more. Now we could have 2 viable starters. So if Grad goes down again, Losman is a drop in replacement.

Win, Lose, or Tie, Raiders til I die!

by mikesd1981 on Dec 30, 2009 10:22 AM PST up reply actions  

I have been intrigued by Losman, and think he can fulfill that scenario.

He has a very similar skill set and style to Bruce, too, which will help in the event you lose your starter. The approach and style doesn’t need to be completely changed.

I’ll take the projects in positions like qb. After Jamarcus, I feel pretty good about qb for next year. It’s in the weakness positions I’d prefer we draft to fill the holes unless we know someone can step in and immediately change the position weakness to a strength. Without directly addressing the glaring inefficiencies, or replacing them with someone that just brings more weak links for opponents to attack, we’ll continue to have players making up for others’ mistakes.

Trade wisely, or do not trade at all. It’s tough to say who we can really attract with any of these guys we really don’t want

by brhynno on Dec 30, 2009 5:34 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree that projects "aren't a bad thing" in theory but our needs right now call for ...

immediate help in weak positions that, as brhyno mentioned, “opponents … attack”

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Dec 30, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions  

fundamental issue

you don’t take a high draft pick as a “project”. You trade down and pick up your project with more picks or a starting player. Unless DHB works out and becomes the next jerry rice, it’s way too much a gamble when he would still be there at 15. This is where AD lost his touch to move around the draft to address immediate needs and taking on projects at a fair pick instead of always over reaching. The economics have changed where a high pick will saddle in a cap era and where you’re forced to live with rookies. AD picks players on potential and you simply can not do that with high picks.

by raiders4liffe on Jan 2, 2010 5:58 AM PST up reply actions  

It has proven to be a failed experiment and painful reminder

to stay with what we’ve succeeded in before – assemble veterans – mercenaries, the Raiders were the opposite in the 70s when we had what everyone considered old players and double-digit wins – now it’s the exact opposite, unproven youth and humiliating records.

Son-of-Blanda

by Sons-of-Blanda on Jan 2, 2010 9:08 AM PST up reply actions  

The run game here is fine, and is a solid foundation upon which to build

We should not be so quick to jettison the young talent. I’d entertain certain players, as I’ve said, but those are big names. Otherwise, even trading McFadden, is a mistake.

It’s quite easy for us to point fingers at our run game, when they have lacked the big plays, and we’ve been unable to give any one of them adquate carries to get going, they’d have looked spectacular with a consistent qb and passing game.

A core group of us are pretty much in agreement of where the urgency of personnel needs exists. DT, O line, a true MLB, another corner…

A consistent qb and passing game and this run game hits five to ten more home runs this season. They did what they did, despite the lack of help and proper set-up from our passing game, or lack thereof, which is pretty much commendable. You could make the argument that we’d have five or ten more touchdowns had we made better play calls and utilized personnel better in the red zone, but we’d be splitting hairs about all the things that made us ineffective on offense.

We know we need consistency from qb, and believe we can get it from Bruce. Develop the depth, get him adequate blocking in the draft and in free agency (get Jake Grove back, maybe?) and this run game is top five in all categories. The vast majority of successful offenses pass to set up the run these days, too, which makes the fact our guys got anything going at all is something that indicates this position is a strength, and breaking up the current trio could be a big mistake.

by brhynno on Dec 30, 2009 8:57 PM PST reply actions  

I think you guys should trade Asomugha

across da bay to the niners.

We could give you Walt Harris and a second round pick for him lol

DREAM DRAFT:
Trade down #12, #80 (3rd round), and #112 (4th round) to ~18 for #18, #50 (2nd), and #82 (3rd).
1b (16). Draft CJ Spiller
1b. (18). Draft best OT available.
2b. Best CB available.
2b. BPA or trade up
3. Jordan Shipley
5-7. BPA

by MichaelClutchtree on Dec 31, 2009 2:11 AM PST reply actions  

HaHaHa

Give us Patrick Willis, And Michael Crabtree..We could give you Nhamdi and Darren McFadden

There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.

by Remix. on Dec 31, 2009 2:26 AM PST up reply actions  

Wait

You have to, at the very least, throw in the crown jewel that is Darrius Heyward-Bey!

The Ultimate Opportunist

by Rated-R Superstar on Dec 31, 2009 5:42 AM PST up reply actions  

and we can solve their quarterback problem

how would ya’ll like some JRuss. I hear he’s pretty dang good.

Evey- "Are you a crazy person?"
V- "I'm quite sure they'll say so."
V for Vendetta, blowing your mind away since 2005.

by KA1Z3R on Dec 31, 2009 7:42 AM PST up reply actions  

you guys are killin' me!

Might as well throw in the stud DT’s Girard Warren and Tommy Kelly!

as long as we’re givin’ props to the overachievers!

by brhynno on Dec 31, 2009 6:05 PM PST up reply actions  

gasp

How dare u forget routt, he’s one of the best guys we got.

And Cornell green, my he’s the least penalty prone o-linemen in the nfl

Evey- "Are you a crazy person?"
V- "I'm quite sure they'll say so."
V for Vendetta, blowing your mind away since 2005.

by KA1Z3R on Dec 31, 2009 9:18 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

They don't know talent when when they see it.

DHB should be the #1 receiver. not stinky schilens(GASP!).

by patriotguy on Jan 1, 2010 6:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation Blog about the Oakland Raiders.

Editors

Sunshine_small Raymond St. Martin (Saint)

Network_small Rich Langford

Moderators

Raiders_logo_small TheRaiderWay

Westyule_small Sons-of-Blanda

Editorial Staff

Ka1z3r_small KA1Z3R

Raiders_small LiveAdam

_the_beast__reece_small brhynno

Richraven-irish_small RDreamer

Contributors

Small Travis Goethel 50