Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Start of Free Agency 2.0
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 69, 70, 71 ... 98, 99, 100  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CaliforniaKid7


Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Posts: 5499
Location: Cali
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really hope we can sign some top FA nex year like Michael Johnson, Jon Asamoah, Alex Mack, Aqib Talib, Everson Griffen, Donald Butler, and Henry Melton. Don't know the situations with those players and their current teams but they are all guys who catch my eye.
_________________

big thanks to OakleyCap on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dreadymatt


Joined: 05 Feb 2010
Posts: 1039
Location: Saturn
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

we still need a number 3 QB - some options http://raidalove.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/we-still-have-just-2-qbs-on-the-roster/

Jets just released Brady Quinn heaven-help 2007 draft-busts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rolni


Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Europe
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dreadymatt wrote:
we still need a number 3 QB - some options http://raidalove.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/we-still-have-just-2-qbs-on-the-roster/

Jets just released Brady Quinn heaven-help 2007 draft-busts

No we don't.
We have TP and McGloin and they are enough since you won't activate 3 QB's for a game anyway...then we have Wilson if we need a 3rd guy in case of injury. I would give Wilson a chance to practice, play before any now FA guy...that FA pool is empty...
_________________
WIN LOSE OR TIE...RAIDER FAN 'TIL I DIE!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3622
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TiberiusRising wrote:
raidr4life wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
raidr4life wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
Rolni wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
Ya liking Mike Evans big time especially if we pick after top 10.
Makes me wish we got to see more of Watson. Wouldnt mind trading Veldheer for a high pick to a team trying to compete. Get two top 32 picks to work with. Biggest holes for me so far are WR1(big goes after the ball) and LG. Moore and Streater are rotational at #2/#3. I am hoping by next year our TE depth will move forward on the lineup.

Help on the DL is needed but they have thus far proved they can still win mathcup's with the guys we got and generate some pass rush. I think helping out this offense will go much longer ways than defense. And we can still find good players on the DL after round #1.

I would hate to see Veldheer go unless his injury is a long term concern...

A true #1WR like Evans or like Nicks from the FA market could do wonders to this team offensively...


I was against trading Veldheer also but had Watson been able to play I could be onboard with it. Mainly because if Pryor is going to be our QB for the foreseable future there are other options that might fit his pocket presense or lack theroff better or the same. Now we had a QB like Palmer (style) then ya would never get rid of Veldheer.
Yeah! Let's trade our best Olineman so the QB can have even less time to throw the ball to those #1WR's. Please Veldheer and Watson could be our bookends for years to come, with Wiz at C we must fix the G positions and with the money we have and draft we can sill get a #1WR and all that, so why trade Veldheer for the sake of getting a extra pick to develop.
An extra 1st round pick yes. For one money. Yes we are wide open in the bank next season however if we really add pieces and resign some of our own it wont stay that way for long after next season. The logic is that Veldheer compared to decent LT play whether vet, Watson, or rookie with a mobile QB like Pryor isnt going to make much of a difference. He if he is moving around trying to make plays it neutralizes some of Veldheer's talents. Now I would only doing this having seen Watson play LT for a couple games to see if he can hold up that spot. Been happy with McCants thus far and Pashos/Barnes still in the mix at OT as well.
Pasho's and Barnes both over 30 and about to be out of the league. The idea is to be able to have Pryor throw from the pocket sometimes, without having to run around all game. McCants? Please whoever said he didn't give up any sacks didn't watch the tape. What makes sense about getting rid of your LT then using a pick to replace him, with someone who would need time to develop and possibly bust. How many decent LT's are out there? We have one let's keep him.

The point is we havnt lost any games this year because of how Barnes played at LT. Also meaningless because as I said before Watson would have been the fill in solution but we havnt seen him play enough to make that determination.


What Really. How about the fact that the Raiders have no running game. They get absolutely no push in the running game.
Even in the passing game the Barnes needs help from the TE or the RB. That's one less receiver available in passing game. It's not all about given up sacks there's much more to player LT.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TiberiusRising


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 8500
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitty wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
raidr4life wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
raidr4life wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
Rolni wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
Ya liking Mike Evans big time especially if we pick after top 10.
Makes me wish we got to see more of Watson. Wouldnt mind trading Veldheer for a high pick to a team trying to compete. Get two top 32 picks to work with. Biggest holes for me so far are WR1(big goes after the ball) and LG. Moore and Streater are rotational at #2/#3. I am hoping by next year our TE depth will move forward on the lineup.

Help on the DL is needed but they have thus far proved they can still win mathcup's with the guys we got and generate some pass rush. I think helping out this offense will go much longer ways than defense. And we can still find good players on the DL after round #1.

I would hate to see Veldheer go unless his injury is a long term concern...

A true #1WR like Evans or like Nicks from the FA market could do wonders to this team offensively...


I was against trading Veldheer also but had Watson been able to play I could be onboard with it. Mainly because if Pryor is going to be our QB for the foreseable future there are other options that might fit his pocket presense or lack theroff better or the same. Now we had a QB like Palmer (style) then ya would never get rid of Veldheer.
Yeah! Let's trade our best Olineman so the QB can have even less time to throw the ball to those #1WR's. Please Veldheer and Watson could be our bookends for years to come, with Wiz at C we must fix the G positions and with the money we have and draft we can sill get a #1WR and all that, so why trade Veldheer for the sake of getting a extra pick to develop.
An extra 1st round pick yes. For one money. Yes we are wide open in the bank next season however if we really add pieces and resign some of our own it wont stay that way for long after next season. The logic is that Veldheer compared to decent LT play whether vet, Watson, or rookie with a mobile QB like Pryor isnt going to make much of a difference. He if he is moving around trying to make plays it neutralizes some of Veldheer's talents. Now I would only doing this having seen Watson play LT for a couple games to see if he can hold up that spot. Been happy with McCants thus far and Pashos/Barnes still in the mix at OT as well.
Pasho's and Barnes both over 30 and about to be out of the league. The idea is to be able to have Pryor throw from the pocket sometimes, without having to run around all game. McCants? Please whoever said he didn't give up any sacks didn't watch the tape. What makes sense about getting rid of your LT then using a pick to replace him, with someone who would need time to develop and possibly bust. How many decent LT's are out there? We have one let's keep him.

The point is we havnt lost any games this year because of how Barnes played at LT. Also meaningless because as I said before Watson would have been the fill in solution but we havnt seen him play enough to make that determination.


What Really. How about the fact that the Raiders have no running game. They get absolutely no push in the running game.
Even in the passing game the Barnes needs help from the TE or the RB. That's one less receiver available in passing game. It's not all about given up sacks there's much more to player LT.

no kidding. But this is also do to the rest of the OL. Not to mention I didnt say replace veldheer with sack of patatoes or Barnes which is why seeing what Watson had first was a prerequisite.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dreadymatt


Joined: 05 Feb 2010
Posts: 1039
Location: Saturn
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolni wrote:
Dreadymatt wrote:
we still need a number 3 QB - some options http://raidalove.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/we-still-have-just-2-qbs-on-the-roster/

Jets just released Brady Quinn heaven-help 2007 draft-busts

No we don't.
We have TP and McGloin and they are enough since you won't activate 3 QB's for a game anyway...then we have Wilson if we need a 3rd guy in case of injury. I would give Wilson a chance to practice, play before any now FA guy...that FA pool is empty...


Wilson isn't on the 53-man roster. So we get two injuries - quite a possibility given our line - then who plays QB?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rolni


Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Europe
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dreadymatt wrote:
Rolni wrote:
Dreadymatt wrote:
we still need a number 3 QB - some options http://raidalove.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/we-still-have-just-2-qbs-on-the-roster/

Jets just released Brady Quinn heaven-help 2007 draft-busts

No we don't.
We have TP and McGloin and they are enough since you won't activate 3 QB's for a game anyway...then we have Wilson if we need a 3rd guy in case of injury. I would give Wilson a chance to practice, play before any now FA guy...that FA pool is empty...


Wilson isn't on the 53-man roster. So we get two injuries - quite a possibility given our line - then who plays QB?

2 QB injury in the same game is not a real/strong possibility. Even if you have 3 QB's on the 53 you won't name all 3 for the game so not make sense to sign a trash just to have. Wilson can be signed from Ps anytime if needed.
_________________
WIN LOSE OR TIE...RAIDER FAN 'TIL I DIE!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dreadymatt


Joined: 05 Feb 2010
Posts: 1039
Location: Saturn
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolni wrote:
Dreadymatt wrote:
Rolni wrote:
Dreadymatt wrote:
we still need a number 3 QB - some options http://raidalove.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/we-still-have-just-2-qbs-on-the-roster/

Jets just released Brady Quinn heaven-help 2007 draft-busts

No we don't.
We have TP and McGloin and they are enough since you won't activate 3 QB's for a game anyway...then we have Wilson if we need a 3rd guy in case of injury. I would give Wilson a chance to practice, play before any now FA guy...that FA pool is empty...


Wilson isn't on the 53-man roster. So we get two injuries - quite a possibility given our line - then who plays QB?

2 QB injury in the same game is not a real/strong possibility. Even if you have 3 QB's on the 53 you won't name all 3 for the game so not make sense to sign a trash just to have. Wilson can be signed from Ps anytime if needed.


good point, I wasn't thinking about them not being active anyway...any other teams got promisisng QB's on their practise squads?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DirtyHarry


Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 1724
Location: Foster City,CA
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/giants/post/_/id/31188/hakeem-nicks-remains-a-mystery?ex_cid=espnapi_public
Looks like the writer is saying Nicks has lost a step also rotoworld bloggers have noted it. I've been a proponent of bringing him in but I'm cooling off obviously. I guess all the lower leg injuries have cost him some explosiveness. Shame
_________________

JonesDrew32 wrote:
38-10 Chargers

This game should definitely bring some lulz from the Raiders side.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 32186
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DirtyHarry wrote:
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/giants/post/_/id/31188/hakeem-nicks-remains-a-mystery?ex_cid=espnapi_public
Looks like the writer is saying Nicks has lost a step also rotoworld bloggers have noted it. I've been a proponent of bringing him in but I'm cooling off obviously. I guess all the lower leg injuries have cost him some explosiveness. Shame


Speed was never his thing anyway, it was his hands in college iirc. His hands have stunk this year too compared to the past.
_________________

ravens_rool28 wrote:
Did somebody mention teens?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RaidersAreOne


Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 8648
Location: Canada, but don't worry... i'm not one of those damn dirty french.
PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What do people think about adding Decker?
_________________

First jersey purchased: Jamarcus Russell.
Second jersey purchased: Rolando McClain.
Next purchases: Every Chiefs, Chargers and Broncos player.
JTagg7754 on the sig.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RaiderX


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 20149
Location: Crown Town, CA
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
DirtyHarry wrote:
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/giants/post/_/id/31188/hakeem-nicks-remains-a-mystery?ex_cid=espnapi_public
Looks like the writer is saying Nicks has lost a step also rotoworld bloggers have noted it. I've been a proponent of bringing him in but I'm cooling off obviously. I guess all the lower leg injuries have cost him some explosiveness. Shame


Speed was never his thing anyway, it was his hands in college iirc. His hands have stunk this year too compared to the past.


He's still having a productive year. Last year he was playing hurt and missed a few games. Wouldn't give him a fat contract, but he's definitely #1 receiver IMO.

I'd like to think he'll turn it around because he had a couple big games. Still no TDs shockingly.
_________________

SaveourSonics wrote:
Yea, RaiderX wins. We can all just top acting like this is a matter of opinion. MY GOD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
raidr4life


Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 3729
Location: Fresno, California
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 12:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TiberiusRising wrote:
bitty wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
raidr4life wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
raidr4life wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
Rolni wrote:
TiberiusRising wrote:
Ya liking Mike Evans big time especially if we pick after top 10.
Makes me wish we got to see more of Watson. Wouldnt mind trading Veldheer for a high pick to a team trying to compete. Get two top 32 picks to work with. Biggest holes for me so far are WR1(big goes after the ball) and LG. Moore and Streater are rotational at #2/#3. I am hoping by next year our TE depth will move forward on the lineup.

Help on the DL is needed but they have thus far proved they can still win mathcup's with the guys we got and generate some pass rush. I think helping out this offense will go much longer ways than defense. And we can still find good players on the DL after round #1.

I would hate to see Veldheer go unless his injury is a long term concern...

A true #1WR like Evans or like Nicks from the FA market could do wonders to this team offensively...


I was against trading Veldheer also but had Watson been able to play I could be onboard with it. Mainly because if Pryor is going to be our QB for the foreseable future there are other options that might fit his pocket presense or lack theroff better or the same. Now we had a QB like Palmer (style) then ya would never get rid of Veldheer.
Yeah! Let's trade our best Olineman so the QB can have even less time to throw the ball to those #1WR's. Please Veldheer and Watson could be our bookends for years to come, with Wiz at C we must fix the G positions and with the money we have and draft we can sill get a #1WR and all that, so why trade Veldheer for the sake of getting a extra pick to develop.
An extra 1st round pick yes. For one money. Yes we are wide open in the bank next season however if we really add pieces and resign some of our own it wont stay that way for long after next season. The logic is that Veldheer compared to decent LT play whether vet, Watson, or rookie with a mobile QB like Pryor isnt going to make much of a difference. He if he is moving around trying to make plays it neutralizes some of Veldheer's talents. Now I would only doing this having seen Watson play LT for a couple games to see if he can hold up that spot. Been happy with McCants thus far and Pashos/Barnes still in the mix at OT as well.
Pasho's and Barnes both over 30 and about to be out of the league. The idea is to be able to have Pryor throw from the pocket sometimes, without having to run around all game. McCants? Please whoever said he didn't give up any sacks didn't watch the tape. What makes sense about getting rid of your LT then using a pick to replace him, with someone who would need time to develop and possibly bust. How many decent LT's are out there? We have one let's keep him.

The point is we havnt lost any games this year because of how Barnes played at LT. Also meaningless because as I said before Watson would have been the fill in solution but we havnt seen him play enough to make that determination.


What Really. How about the fact that the Raiders have no running game. They get absolutely no push in the running game.
Even in the passing game the Barnes needs help from the TE or the RB. That's one less receiver available in passing game. It's not all about given up sacks there's much more to player LT.

no kidding. But this is also do to the rest of the OL. Not to mention I didnt say replace veldheer with sack of patatoes or Barnes which is why seeing what Watson had first was a prerequisite.
Ask MIA and Tannehill how that's worked out for them, letting Jake Long go.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nickdawg


Moderator
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 7099
Location: The home of Yuengling.
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A bit surprised no one has mentioned Moeaki now that he's been released.
_________________
The last time the Cubs won the World Series, diarrhea was one of the 5 leading causes of death, and women weren't allowed to vote.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chali21


Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 2798
Location: Cali
PostPosted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nickdawg wrote:
A bit surprised no one has mentioned Moeaki now that he's been released.


Summoning him would require a ritual sacrifice of Sarah Shahi. I'm not sure some here are willing to do that, but with the current state of our TEs....
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 69, 70, 71 ... 98, 99, 100  Next
Page 70 of 100

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group