I've just been rummaging through some websites here for a little while and I've come across some things that make me scratch my head. The Oakland Raiders have had some of the best offseason work this year that they've done in ages, and yet there is still talk of who else could help this team win.
Now, it's important to remember that I'm not the GM of the Raiders; and I am not in contact with the organization or any members of the coaching staff. That being said, I highly, highly doubt there is any talk what-so-ever of bringing in either one of these players.
Bill Williamson answers a question out of his mailbag this week that asks, "Will Terrell Owens be an Oakland Raider this year?"
Williamson's response, "We will hear that rumor until he signs elsewhere. Many folks around the league have long expected Owens to be a Raider. Now that he has been available for the entire offseason, it seems no one (Oakland included) is interested. Owens is 36 and he is on the decline. But he can still help a team this season. Oakland should think about Owens. The Raiders are very young and unreliable at receiver because of injuries and issues with dropped passes. Owens' presence could give this unit a solid boost in 2010."
The first part that got me was, "Oakland should think about Owens."
Okay, I get the whole the receivers are too young thing, but come on man. Oakland could've got Owens last year if they wanted and guess what; the receivers were even younger then. Why should the Raiders think about Owens, because he is a cancer in the locker room? Perhaps it is because he thinks he is a lot better than he really is?
The next part that took me for a loop was when Williamson says, "The Raiders are very young and unreliable at receiver because of injuries and issues with dropped passes."
What it should say is very young with a ton of upside, like 81 times the upside of the downtrodden Terrell Owens. In addition to that, Owens has issues with dropping passes all by his self; he does not need any help in that regard from the young squad in Oakland. I've seen Owens break wide open before and drop the ball with nobody around him...more than once! Also, to clarify, one wide receiver has issues with drops in Oakland, Darrius Heyward-Bey. Chaz Schilens is a solid starter if he could stay healthy and Louis Murphy does not have issues with drops, he has issues with referee's making totally obscene calls that say he did not catch the ball when he actually did. After that happens three or four times, it kind of gets in your head a little bit; it's like why bother?
"Owens' presence could give this unit a solid boost in 2010," said Williamson.
Let me fill you in a little bit here, Owens' supporters. If Chaz Schilens, Louis Murphy, and DHB are all healthy going into the year, then Terrell Owens won't even be in the top three spots for Oakland. Schilens is far better; he is just as big as Owens and faster, plus he has great hands and he will actually fight for the ball in the air. Murphy is better because he has heart, he is a team player, he is faster, and much younger. DHB will be in the top three just because...like the same reason that McFadden will get the starts over Michael Bush.
So let me answer the question, "Will Terrell Owens be in Oakland this year?"
WHY? Tell me why, make it really good, and maybe you could get me to actually contemplate it for more than a minute. Tell me why the Raiders would want Jason Campbell or Bruce Gradkowski to have to go thru Owens' Trail of Tears to find a good home on the west coast.
The next story I read came from Steve Corkran who is filling in for Jerry McDonald this week while Jerry takes a vacation. He wrote an article called, "Raiders should resist urge to trade for Merriman".
What urge are you talking about? You are assuming, for some reason, that the Raiders have an urge in the first place. Acquiring the soon to be 26 year old linebacker from the Chargers would require at least a second round pick in the 2011 draft. That would mean giving up the two top picks in next year's draft. Seymour was worth it, Merriman has not been worth anything since the NFL forced him to stop using steroids (no offense to Brian Cushing). Merriman sites injuries as the cause of his recent decline, but Raider Nation knows the truth about the Chargers former Super Steroid Stud.
"The Raiders still have a need for players who can change the complexion of games. Merriman once was that kind of player," said Corkran in his article.
So, basically you're saying that the Raiders could trade for Merriman and still be in need of that kind of player?!?!?!
Are you that bored that you can't think of a better story than trading for a guy who is still recuperating from a knee injury he suffered almost two seasons ago...seriously? You force people like me to question your investment in the team. Are you covering the Raiders, or are you just looking to dig at them and garner the attention of BSPN? Have you even been following what's going on this season? Do you know there are a wide variety of linebackers already on the roster?
Man, I tell you what, Raider Nation, these media types need to get a grip. They call for Shady Acres to come get the Raiders owner, Al Davis, because he is crazy and here they are coming up with all kinds of crazy ideas that they are trying to plant. It is almost like they think, ‘no news from Alameda, so now we better make some more stuff up.'
PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE!!!
Follow me on Twitter: Raidersblogger
Should the Raiders go After Merriman or Owens?
Yes, both of them (364 votes)
No, who wants them? (1813 votes)
Merriman, not Owens (350 votes)
Owens, not Merriman (606 votes)
3133 total votes