Most of us like to rip on the main stream media when their analysis on the Raiders is more a verbal spewage of ignorance, stupidity and/or hate. It is a fun little hobby. But let's face it—most of the time it is just nit-picking. They are what they are. They are mainstream and we are not. We are the Raider Nation. We are supposed to know way more about the Raiders than they do. We are supposed to think outsiders hate us. That's what makes us a happy little family.
Often times these members of the "MSM" are cultivating our hate just to be provocative—the Raiders will always be a target for that. Other times the mistakes come from just an understandable lack of in-depth knowledge. Normally, the swing and miss opinions of the Raiders warrants only a passing comment here and there. Then there are other times, like the one I am about to present, that are so prolifically comical a full post is needed.
Below is my nomination for worst Raider analysis of this offseason. Feel free to present your own candidates if you can find one more laughable.
Gary Horton of Scouts Inc., which is connected to ESPN, released a recent summary on the Raiders needs. It is so lazy and haphazard I am amazed it was printed. I assume that for Senor Horton covering the NFL is a full-time job. And let me tell you; he either does not know football at all, or he just mailed this one in. Either way, how does this guy have his job?
Check out his list of the Raiders needs. He starts off with cornerback as the number one need and guard/center as the second.
Sure the Raiders need another corner, but does a starting combo of Stanford Routt and Chris Johnson warrant a bigger need than a starting duo of Daniel Loper and Cooper Carlisle at guard, which is what it would likely currently be with the roster the way it is now? I think not, but that complaint falls more under the nit-picking category. Don't worry it gets better...or actually worse, I guess.
He lists QB third. Yes, the Raiders could use a QB of the future, but that hardly makes it the third need. What team couldn't use another quality QB? This moves Horton more to the mailing it in category.
Then he has tight end fourth, which isn't an appalling placement of the tight end need, but he has offensive tackle fifth. What kind of sick joke is this? Zach Miller is almost certainly coming back, and he is a way, way, way stronger starting option than Langston Walker at tackle, who by the way is also a free agent. Sure they could use better blocking depth at tight end, but that blocking wouldn't be as needed if they had better tackle play. I don't know how you view the Raiders roster, see they only have one tackle under contract and a whole pile of fail at the position in 2010 and list that as the fifth need.
But he saves the best for last. He lists defensive tackle as the sixth need. Here is his reasoning:
"This was a poor interior run defense in 2010 and they struggled to hold up physically. Starters Richard Seymour and Tommy Kelly are coming off decent seasons, but age is a factor with Seymour, Kelly gets pushed around too much and the backups are nondescript."
The Raiders run defense was poor, but not on the interior. I could pull out some numbers, but I trust if you are reading this you know more about the Raiders then this poor excuse for a NFL expert. Seymour and Kelly are coming off decent years...you know if you consider making the Pro Bowl decent.
Still, the worst part about this statement is about the nondescript backups. Since when is John Henderson nondescript? Sure he has injury concerns, but he proved he is far from nondescript. The Raiders also increasingly moved LaMarr Houston to tackle as the season progressed, and Desmond Bryant is a rock solid fifth defensive tackle option. I'd say defensive tackle is the deepest position on the team. Running back is close, but given that Michael Bush isn't currently under contract I give the edge to DT.
Gary Horton, Failure. Failure, Gary Horton.