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

Raiders need draft Geno Smith, Bray, Or Matt Barkley next.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22245
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
Burgesskills wrote:
Sure there have been plenty of busts in the NFL at Qb's taken early, but the same could be said for other non-skill positions.

Roberty Gallery never played up to his draft status, We grabbed Ro-McClain at number 7, he looks like garbage. Curry was taken 3rd overall and still hasn't lived up to the hype. We could draft "a can't miss" defensive stud early and he could flop too.

Newton was rare, now a year later RG3 looks to making the same if not better impact, and to this point Smith is playing better than RG3 was at Baylor. It's early and Smith could come down a bit.

You guys are acting like if we go all defense in the draft this is going to turn around. Our offense looks terrible too. The second half Denver's D dominated us. Miami's D throttled us and Arizona put points on the board against the Phins. It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.


Need I remind anyone that while Newton and RGIII look great, their teams haven't won a damn thing? What impact do we want - a talked about exceptional player who is nice to watch play, or playoffs and wins? Rookies don't sniff playoffs at QB unless the rest of the team pitches in quite a lot. See Rothlisberger and Flacco for examples of that.


However, if Cam and RGIII continue to grow and the pieces form around them, you have a franchise QB in place ready to lead for years.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5360
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
ZoomWaffle wrote:
holyghost wrote:
ZoomWaffle wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
In regards to a franchise QB, when you find that guy it props the team up.

Brady in NE has had some poor talent and defenses around him over the years, but wins. Manning in Indy, winner.

Rodgers is carrying the Packers. Brees has carried NO for years.

That QB can elevate the team. Still need pieces, talent on both sides, but that QB is really important in the NFL.

But BPA is always the best bet.


True. A QB can make up for a lot of deficiences- but that QB needs to be great. Are Matt Barkley or Geno Smith Brady, Rodgers, or Brees material? I'm cool with either QB or pass rusher in the 1st next year. I'm happy with palmer but with his contract he may not be around. I dont think we can go wrong with BPA, to be honest. A QB will elevate the WRs and RB, and even make up for a poor o-line. A pass rusher can elevate his d-line and make the LB's and DB's job much easier. Either one will help out their unit a lot.

Burgesskills wrote:
You guys keep talking about how you have to develop a rookie QB for years, have you guys missed the NFL games these past years. Newton, Luck, RG3, rookie QB's who are stepping right in and doing well.


But why do you think such a big deal was made out of Cam Newton having such an impactful and successful rookie season? That stuff just doesnt happen often. In fact, it is very rare. Luck was a guy everyone who had ever watched him play knew would be a good QB from the get-go, but he was the absolute best QB prospect in over a decade. Sure, there have been rookie QBs who made it to the playoffs as part of a good team, or played well, but these 3 guys are the only ones to really make a huge impact this early on in the last 10+ years.

History is proof that more often than not, a 1st round QB busts or becomes nothing more than average:

Patrick Ramsey
Joey Harrington
David Carr
Rex Grossman
Kyle Boller
Byron Leftwich
JP Losman
Jason Campbell
Vince Young
Matt Leinart
Jay Cutler
JaMarcus Russell
Brady Quinn
Mark Sanchez
Sam Bradford
Blaine Gabbert
Tim Tebow

And here are some good starting QBs that either sat for a few years behind an established QB, or started as a rookie and took a few years to blossom:

Eli Manning
Philip Rivers
Aaron Rodgers
Alex Smith (and that depends on how good you consider him today)
Joe Flacco
Matt Ryan

The guys who really made an impact as a rookie (and were not just part of a good team):

Peyton Manning
Cam Newton
Andrew Luck
Robert Griffin

The point it just because "insert any name here" did it, doesnt mean anyone else we draft will. They are all different QBs with different skills and abilities, from different teams in different conferences playing different opponents, being coached by different coaches, etc. I'm not trying to be a smart-*** to you or anything, hope it doesnt come across that way, but only 4 out of 27 QBs have come in as rookies and really looked great so I cant agree with your statement at all. When it comes down to it, every situation will be different. A more NFL-ready rookie QB will surely find more success early on if he goes to a team with a good OL and some talented offensive players already there. On the flip side, a good QB prospect could really struggle behind our line, especially if our run game doesnt get fixed. If our offesne was already set up, I would say go for a rookie QB and let him start right away, but putting a rookie in our offense would not do us any good. I can almost guarantee that the rest of the offense would hold him back, so even if he was ready to make aan immediate impact he wouldnt be able to.


Wasn't Peyton Manning 1-15 his rookie year?


Yea, but if you go by record then you can take Cam Newton off that list, and most likely Luck and RGIII since I doubt they have a winning record this year. Newton, RGII and Luck (so far) have been playing very well. Manning had a ton of picks his rookie year, so him playing very well is debatable. I just put him on the list because, despite the team's record, he set 5 different NFL rookie records, since we are talking about rookie QBs making an impact.


I hear ya.

It just really solidifes the point that having an impact as a rokokie QB still may not get us wins.

I'm so damn desperate to see the playoffs that I will take any ugly wins over how any player looks or is hyped. I don't care who does it or how they do it.


Absolutely agree, it takes more than a QB- especially when your team is a mess all around like ours is.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22245
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:

I hear ya.

It just really solidifes the point that having an impact as a rokokie QB still may not get us wins.

I'm so damn desperate to see the playoffs that I will take any ugly wins over how any player looks or is hyped. I don't care who does it or how they do it.


That's the issue among Raider fans. We want to see a quick fix. There isn't a quick fix. The roster needs reshaping from top to bottom and it will take time.

This team isn't a playoff contender anytime soon. Which is why landing a young signal caller isn't a terrible idea. You have to have that guy for the long haul.

Let's say Palmer stays QB for 2-3 years. Can the FO do enough to put talent around him defense, offense and STs to make a playoff push. I doubt it. Then he retires and what do you have at QB?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reddevil


Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Posts: 549
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me it's about the quality of draft class in the specific positions. If it is a strong DE class comparably to other years, then it would make sense to take a DE. If the QB class isn't quite as good as other years then it would be better not to reach for what you think is the best QB in the draft only for that QB to be considerably less talented than the 3rd/4th QB of a future draft.

This year's draft looks like this scenario to me. There seems to be a plethora of impactful pass-rushers that would hugely upgrade our D and an average QB class (although Smith is intriguing). I would rather add pieces to the team until a strong QB class comes round and a sure enough prospect to lead the franchise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5360
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
holyghost wrote:

I hear ya.

It just really solidifes the point that having an impact as a rokokie QB still may not get us wins.

I'm so damn desperate to see the playoffs that I will take any ugly wins over how any player looks or is hyped. I don't care who does it or how they do it.


That's the issue among Raider fans. We want to see a quick fix. There isn't a quick fix. The roster needs reshaping from top to bottom and it will take time.

This team isn't a playoff contender anytime soon. Which is why landing a young signal caller isn't a terrible idea. You have to have that guy for the long haul.

Let's say Palmer stays QB for 2-3 years. Can the FO do enough to put talent around him defense, offense and STs to make a playoff push. I doubt it. Then he retires and what do you have at QB?


I can agree with that. I think reddevil is right though, it all depends on what type of players are even available when we pick. If there is a QB that Reggie has no doubts can one day be in that upper-echelon of passers, then I think he has to pull the trigger. He just better be right, because if we are rebuilding, moving on from palmer, and taking a QB to lead our team for the next 15 years, he needs to be much better than Palmer. If he sint, then we may as well have just gone BPA and kept Palmer.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 6945
Location: CA
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
Burgesskills wrote:
It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.


That's actually not true. The offense starts with the scheme. And since most will tell you that Greg Knapp is arguably the worst offensive coordinator in the league, choosing to ignore that shows the little you know about the way a successful offense works.


While I do think Knapp sucks. If he had 5 guys who could block, a #1 WR and playmaking TE I would venture a guess it would yield totally different results.


For comparison sake, if you gave all 31 other offensive coordinators what you just described, where would Greg Knapp rank in his ability to get the most out of it? I'd have to say around the bottom, which is what makes him such a bad coordinator. After how poor the Raiders offense has been for the majority of the past decade, I know a terrible coordinator when
I see one. If not for Tom Walsh, Greg Knapp would easily be the worst coordinator this team has had. Tom Cable runs circles around this guy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5360
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

reddevil wrote:
For me it's about the quality of draft class in the specific positions. If it is a strong DE class comparably to other years, then it would make sense to take a DE. If the QB class isn't quite as good as other years then it would be better not to reach for what you think is the best QB in the draft only for that QB to be considerably less talented than the 3rd/4th QB of a future draft.

This year's draft looks like this scenario to me. There seems to be a plethora of impactful pass-rushers that would hugely upgrade our D and an average QB class (although Smith is intriguing). I would rather add pieces to the team until a strong QB class comes round and a sure enough prospect to lead the franchise.


+1

Can you imagine using a top pick on a QB this year, only to have him become a mid-tier NFL QB? That would accomplish nothing at all, and we would still be missing a single defensive playmaker.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5360
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
Burgesskills wrote:
It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.


That's actually not true. The offense starts with the scheme. And since most will tell you that Greg Knapp is arguably the worst offensive coordinator in the league, choosing to ignore that shows the little you know about the way a successful offense works.


While I do think Knapp sucks. If he had 5 guys who could block, a #1 WR and playmaking TE I would venture a guess it would yield totally different results.


For comparison sake, if you gave all 31 other offensive coordinators what you just described, where would Greg Knapp rank in his ability to get the most out of it? I'd have to say around the bottom, which is what makes him such a bad coordinator. After how poor the Raiders offense has been for the majority of the past decade, I know a terrible coordinator when
I see one. If not for Tom Walsh, Greg Knapp would easily be the worst coordinator this team has had. Tom Cable runs circles around this guy.


I agree with palooka in that it would make a difference if we had those things. I mean, how could 5 OL who block better and two real good targets in the passing game not help? I just dont think it would bump us up into the top-10 offenses or anything.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22245
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
Burgesskills wrote:
It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.


That's actually not true. The offense starts with the scheme. And since most will tell you that Greg Knapp is arguably the worst offensive coordinator in the league, choosing to ignore that shows the little you know about the way a successful offense works.


While I do think Knapp sucks. If he had 5 guys who could block, a #1 WR and playmaking TE I would venture a guess it would yield totally different results.


For comparison sake, if you gave all 31 other offensive coordinators what you just described, where would Greg Knapp rank in his ability to get the most out of it? I'd have to say around the bottom, which is what makes him such a bad coordinator. After how poor the Raiders offense has been for the majority of the past decade, I know a terrible coordinator when
I see one. If not for Tom Walsh, Greg Knapp would easily be the worst coordinator this team has had. Tom Cable runs circles around this guy.


So you take Knapp, make him the OC in Houston. Are they going to fall apart? Are they going to be the worst offense in football?

Of course not. They have a line who've gelled as a ZB unit. They have a #1 WR and a pass catching TE. They have RBs who run behind that ZBS.

You logic is working.

Point is, if the Raiders start to gel on the Oline, then he can run his scheme.

How long did it take Kubiak to establish this system in Houston? YEARS!

Doesn't mean I'm in favor of watching it struggle for years. Just that until it's executed properly, the impatient crowd is going to knee jerk because the Raiders are not going to the playoffs.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5754
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
Burgesskills wrote:
It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.


That's actually not true. The offense starts with the scheme. And since most will tell you that Greg Knapp is arguably the worst offensive coordinator in the league, choosing to ignore that shows the little you know about the way a successful offense works.


While I do think Knapp sucks. If he had 5 guys who could block, a #1 WR and playmaking TE I would venture a guess it would yield totally different results.


For comparison sake, if you gave all 31 other offensive coordinators what you just described, where would Greg Knapp rank in his ability to get the most out of it? I'd have to say around the bottom, which is what makes him such a bad coordinator. After how poor the Raiders offense has been for the majority of the past decade, I know a terrible coordinator when
I see one. If not for Tom Walsh, Greg Knapp would easily be the worst coordinator this team has had. Tom Cable runs circles around this guy.


So you take Knapp, make him the OC in Houston. Are they going to fall apart? Are they going to be the worst offense in football?

Of course not. They have a line who've gelled as a ZB unit. They have a #1 WR and a pass catching TE. They have RBs who run behind that ZBS.

You logic is working.

Point is, if the Raiders start to gel on the Oline, then he can run his scheme.

How long did it take Kubiak to establish this system in Houston? YEARS!

Doesn't mean I'm in favor of watching it struggle for years. Just that until it's executed properly, the impatient crowd is going to knee jerk because the Raiders are not going to the playoffs.


I don't think anyone here likes Knapp or can be considered as liking him.

But yes. Cohesion and scheme execution that takes time is a big deal.
Kubiak took years over there. How many, 8? His line was a pile of vomit for years, with Carr. I mean, just the worst Oline you can imagine. And look at them now.

Time means alot in both execution and scheme, and building a roster. Can we ever be top 10? With Knapp?
Yes.

Can we be #1? No way.

We can be good, and good is probably all we need. But the closer you get to the top the more every facet plays in. So, Knapp can have success but never wild success here. But goddamn, I'd rather have a good defense than the #1 offense. #10 or 12 offense and a top 15 defense and we can make the playoffs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 6945
Location: CA
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
Burgesskills wrote:
It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.


That's actually not true. The offense starts with the scheme. And since most will tell you that Greg Knapp is arguably the worst offensive coordinator in the league, choosing to ignore that shows the little you know about the way a successful offense works.


While I do think Knapp sucks. If he had 5 guys who could block, a #1 WR and playmaking TE I would venture a guess it would yield totally different results.


For comparison sake, if you gave all 31 other offensive coordinators what you just described, where would Greg Knapp rank in his ability to get the most out of it? I'd have to say around the bottom, which is what makes him such a bad coordinator. After how poor the Raiders offense has been for the majority of the past decade, I know a terrible coordinator when
I see one. If not for Tom Walsh, Greg Knapp would easily be the worst coordinator this team has had. Tom Cable runs circles around this guy.


So you take Knapp, make him the OC in Houston. Are they going to fall apart? Are they going to be the worst offense in football?

Of course not. They have a line who've gelled as a ZB unit. They have a #1 WR and a pass catching TE. They have RBs who run behind that ZBS.

You logic is working.

Point is, if the Raiders start to gel on the Oline, then he can run his scheme.

How long did it take Kubiak to establish this system in Houston? YEARS!

Doesn't mean I'm in favor of watching it struggle for years. Just that until it's executed properly, the impatient crowd is going to knee jerk because the Raiders are not going to the playoffs.


With Greg Knapp creating the weekly game plans, and calling the plays, the Texans offense would become a whole lot worse. Gary Kubiak, and Rick Dennison are two of the brightest offensive minds in the game, and you'd be replacing them with one of the worst. That makes a huge difference. It all starts with the coordinator's vision for the offense, his game plans every week, then his play-calling. If the person directing your offense struggles in those 3 areas, it's going to be hard for the players to overcome that.

The reason the Raiders offensive line hasn't played well in the ZBS is because Greg Knapp hasn't coached it right. In Knapp's 1st season as "OC" in 2007, the ZBS worked great. The reason being because Lane Kiffin called the plays, and Tom Cable coached the line. Knapp's in way over his head right now. He should be a position coach, yet he's coaching our entire offense. SMH.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22245
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:

With Greg Knapp creating the weekly game plans, and calling the plays, the Texans offense would become a whole lot worse. Gary Kubiak, and Rick Dennison are two of the brightest offensive minds in the game, and you'd be replacing them with one of the worst. That makes a huge difference. It all starts with the coordinator's vision for the offense, his game plans every week, then his play-calling. If the person directing your offense struggles in those 3 areas, it's going to be hard for the players to overcome that.


Kubiak installed his ZBS offense in Houston in 2006. They were 28th in the NFL in scoring. It took until the next year and trading for Schaub to get that offense moving.

Darkness wrote:
The reason the Raiders offensive line hasn't played well in the ZBS is because Greg Knapp hasn't coached it right. In Knapp's 1st season as "OC" in 2007, the ZBS worked great. The reason being because Lane Kiffin called the plays, and Tom Cable coached the line. Knapp's in way over his head right now. He should be a position coach, yet he's coaching our entire offense. SMH.


That is the dumbest thing I've heard yet. Him coaching it and the players being able to execute it are two entirely different things.

The issue is, they don't have the talent needed or the time put in to make the ZBS a success. If you can't block it correctly, then you can execute the runs and play action. But stop acting like it falls 100% on Knapp. The players, Oline coach are also involved.

Notice when Carson found rhythm against Pitt and was dicing it up, things looked good. The blocking was on point, he was able to read and hit open WRs and WOW.... looked like an NFL offense. Denver shows up w/ some pass rushers and the Oline's head spins and can't execute.

To easy to place blame on 1 guy. Same BS people said about Bresnehan last year. And now the defense is just as bad if not worst. TALENT and EXECUTION.
_________________


Last edited by big_palooka on Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:07 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Burgesskills


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1114
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What makes Palmer better than Dilfer and or Brad Johnson?

How can you say that?

I'm not saying he isn't, but what makes it so evident that Palmer is better than both. Johnson had some great years. Palmer may have more prototypical QB strengths than both, but doesn't translate.

Since shredding his knee against the dirty Steelers he hasn't had any great seasons. He's had average seasons at best.

Career ratings:

Palmer 86.2, Johnson 83, and Dilfer 70. So yes numbers wise he is better, but Palmer plays in era where passing numbers are crazy.

They both won Super Bowls with phenomenal defenses, but Palmer is pretty average. Not saying we can't win a Super Bowl with him, but we won't. Great franchise QB's make their team better.

He'd have to have three wishes to make this team better....If we are rebuilding we should start with an exceptional QB. Not an average QB who is paid like a star/franchise QB.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Burgesskills


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1114
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Knapp was never the Offensive coordinator in Houston. He was the QB coach. He was in Houston for one season. What are you talking about it took him years to run the scheme.

He was in Seattle as Coordinator in 2009.

Knapp is crap and we should scrap the zone blocking scheme because it doesn't fit McFadden, we are keeping our Thoroughbred in the stable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RaiderX


Joined: 04 Jan 2007
Posts: 20305
Location: Crown Town, CA
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
Darkness wrote:
Burgesskills wrote:
It's starts with the Qb and you guys all make excuses for Carson. It's the scheme, it's the lack of a run game, the O-line sucks. excuses, excuses, excuses.


That's actually not true. The offense starts with the scheme. And since most will tell you that Greg Knapp is arguably the worst offensive coordinator in the league, choosing to ignore that shows the little you know about the way a successful offense works.


While I do think Knapp sucks. If he had 5 guys who could block, a #1 WR and playmaking TE I would venture a guess it would yield totally different results.


For comparison sake, if you gave all 31 other offensive coordinators what you just described, where would Greg Knapp rank in his ability to get the most out of it? I'd have to say around the bottom, which is what makes him such a bad coordinator. After how poor the Raiders offense has been for the majority of the past decade, I know a terrible coordinator when
I see one. If not for Tom Walsh, Greg Knapp would easily be the worst coordinator this team has had. Tom Cable runs circles around this guy.


So you take Knapp, make him the OC in Houston. Are they going to fall apart? Are they going to be the worst offense in football?

Of course not. They have a line who've gelled as a ZB unit. They have a #1 WR and a pass catching TE. They have RBs who run behind that ZBS.

You logic is working.

Point is, if the Raiders start to gel on the Oline, then he can run his scheme.

How long did it take Kubiak to establish this system in Houston? YEARS!

Doesn't mean I'm in favor of watching it struggle for years. Just that until it's executed properly, the impatient crowd is going to knee jerk because the Raiders are not going to the playoffs.


I don't think anyone here likes Knapp or can be considered as liking him.

But yes. Cohesion and scheme execution that takes time is a big deal.
Kubiak took years over there. How many, 8? His line was a pile of vomit for years, with Carr. I mean, just the worst Oline you can imagine. And look at them now.

Time means alot in both execution and scheme, and building a roster. Can we ever be top 10? With Knapp?
Yes.

Can we be #1? No way.

We can be good, and good is probably all we need. But the closer you get to the top the more every facet plays in. So, Knapp can have success but never wild success here. But goddamn, I'd rather have a good defense than the #1 offense. #10 or 12 offense and a top 15 defense and we can make the playoffs.


It took Kubiak a few years but he got the line working. His problem was finding s RB. He went through guys like Amman Green, Ron Dayne and Steve Slaton before finding Foster. Carr left the next year. It was Capers' regime that ruined his career.

I wouldn't expect to see some gelling until next season if Knapp is brought back. I'm with you on the good defense good offense. Gonna be a rebuilding process and take good scouting.
_________________

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
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 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 6 of 24

 
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