Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If the Raiders werent stupid...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Perry1977
    True dat. Shanny is a proud member of the ABWRFRC!!
    LOL ....

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by TrojanBronco
      We wouldnt have had such a good draft... If they woulda been smart and taken a QB, then the Cards would have taken the last QB and we woulda stayed down at 15 and taken Chad Jackson... and then we might not have traded for Walker, and wouldnt have gotten a better TE than Scheffler, because we prolly woulda taken like Brodie Croyle instead. Wow, the Raiders just made us a heck of a lot better by being stupid and taking a Safety! Who the hell is their QB now... Tuiuasopo, or Walter, or maybe Marcus Vick...? HAHA

      If the Raiders woulda took a qb and Cutler wouldnt been there for us we woulda traded down to get Laurence Maroney. Shanny said so himself on si.com for Monday morning qb....


      QUICK go read it
      Bronco fan from Packer Land.
      Lefty Writer on The Sports Show with Woody Paige and Les Shapiro
      Tweet me @JoRo_5551

      Comment


      • #18
        Devilspawn, I see that you are good at breaking down what someone says word for word.... However.. Your listening skills are lacking a bit.


        Ok...

        Huff, is a damn fine player, so is Bing.

        But here is your DB's...

        27 Washington, Fabian CB 5-11 185 22 R Nebraska
        26 Routt, Stanford CB 6-1 195 22 R Houston
        21 Asomugha, Nnamdi CB 6-2 210 24 3 California
        23 Carr, Chris CB 5-10 180 23 R Boise State
        40 Cooper, Jarrod DB 6-0 215 28 5 Kansas State
        38 Poole, Tyrone DB 5-8 190 34 11 Fort Valley State
        22 Starks, Duane DB 5-10 175 31 9 Miami (Fla.)
        (Denver fans love playing against Starks, just ask any Patriots fan.)
        Huff
        Bing (Probably will be moved to Linebacker.)

        So tell me Spawny, when your corners blow the coverage, it will be up to Huff to pick up the slack... So which side does he rotate to? Rod's side, or Walker's side?

        What about Marshall in the slot, or Scheffler down the seam? Huff is a great player, but he's not enough to stop our receivers. And just when you think you've got a scheme in place to stop them, then you've got Tatum Bell, Ron Dayne, Mike Bell, or Cedric Cobb running it down your throat.

        My point is this... If the point of your draft was to improve your defense, you fell a bit short, because as good as Huff is, he's not enough.

        And I find it funny that you clown on Plummer for making mistakes when your shiny new quarterback makes Plummer look like the King of level headed. So when Moss is wide open streaking down the field and Brooks throws the ball 20 yards backwards, I'll bet you guys will be screaming... "THANK GOD WE GOT MICHAEL HUFF."

        And yes, I think a QB is an immediate need. Not to mention, you could have stopped your rival team from getting their quarterback of the future, which will only help insure your mediocraty for a long time to come.

        Jay Cutler... A loser?

        Let's see...

        Vince Young - Great quarterback, won a lot of games... Talent around him? 6 players from his team were drafted.

        Matt Leinart - Great quarterback, won a lot of games... Talent around him? 11 players from his team were drafted.

        Jay Cutler - according to you, a loser, didn't win a lot of games... Talent around him? 0 players from his team were drafted.

        Yet, Jay Cutler played in a tougher conference than both Young and Leinart, Jay Cutler was the SEC offensive player of the year, Jay Cutler had next to no offensive line, no running game, and no defense to support him. Yet the commadores twice put 40 points on the board this year. Because of his arm, his ability to move around in the pocket, and his ability if needed to run.

        But that is just a few of the reasons why Cutler isn't as you say... A loser. HOWEVER... This isn't even about Cutler, it's about the Raiders ignoring their need for a QB. They have one of the most talented wide receivers in the league, and their 2nd and 3rd wide receivers are pretty damn good as well. But they consistantly plug in players like Kerry Collins and Aaron Brooks to throw them the ball instead of getting a franchise quality quarterback.

        The original post of this thread stated that if the Raiders had taken a QB, like they probably needed to, then the Broncos wouldn't have had as great of a draft as they did. Whether or not you agree that the Raiders needed a quarterback, is irrelivant, it still remains true that you taking Huff, allowed us to get Cutler. And you say, you took an immediate need, to win now... Ok, I'll give you that, because you do NEED to win now. Denver already has the ability to win now, and was able to draft for the future. But that always seems to be the problem in Raidertown... You are always plugging the hole to win now... Never building for the future.

        Going back to 1999, tell me, who have the Raiders drafted that have made a difference on the team, and made them a Better team going forward into the future of the franchise? Fabian? Gallery? Asomugha? Buchanon? Gibson?

        Drafting is about BUILDING, not about winning NOW. Do you know why Denver consistantly has winning seasons, and rarely ever has high draft picks? Because they build for the future, and keep themselves at a higher level so that they can take risks like Picking Cutler, without having to worry about the fact that our #1 draft pick probably won't even get on the field this year. Could Oakland survive if their #1 pick doesn't pan out? Could Oakland survive if Huff got hurt? Could Oakland survive if Huff needed a year to learn the defense?

        Or perhaps the better question is, can Oakland survive even if Huff is a stud? Seriously man, I'm not trying to turn this into a smack forum, but you come in and start clown hammering the picking of Cutler, and signing the praises of Huff... But let me ask you... At the end of each of their careers, who will have the greater impact on their franchise? Don't tell me who will do more for their team THIS year, because that's exactly what I have been talking about, bad teams draft for this year, good teams draft for the future. When you draft for need, and not take the best player available... You suffer in the long run.

        It's just a thought, but let me ask you one last question? Is Michael Huff going to make the difference between going 0-6 in the division and winning it?

        If you answer yes, then you are obviously not able to have a logical or ballanced discussion about your team, or any other for that matter.
        God Bless D. Williams and D. Nash. May their family and friends find peace in knowing that they were both truly loved by all. And they shall never be forgotten.

        Comment


        • #19
          Washington is very good and will be a very good pro. He is a first year guy also. They also now have Bing on the other side for safety. I wouldn't be underestimating the coverage anymore especially once these guys get some NFL experience. I have watched both and they both are really fast and both know how to play. I still don't see us having a problem with the Raiders though.
          Last edited by jhns; 05-02-2006, 11:40 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Part I


            [QUOTE=BroncsOwnU]But here is your DB's...

            27 Washington, Fabian CB 5-11 185 22 R Nebraska
            26 Routt, Stanford CB 6-1 195 22 R Houston
            21 Asomugha, Nnamdi CB 6-2 210 24 3 California
            23 Carr, Chris CB 5-10 180 23 R Boise State
            40 Cooper, Jarrod DB 6-0 215 28 5 Kansas State
            38 Poole, Tyrone DB 5-8 190 34 11 Fort Valley State
            22 Starks, Duane DB 5-10 175 31 9 Miami (Fla.)
            (Denver fans love playing against Starks, just ask any Patriots fan.)
            Huff
            Bing (Probably will be moved to Linebacker.)

            So tell me Spawny, when your corners blow the coverage, it will be up to Huff to [QUOTE=BroncsOwnU]pick up the slack... So which side does he rotate to? Rod's
            Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
            side, or Walker's side?
            Right now, we trust in our corner's progression for them not to let that happen on a consistent basis, but we don't trust in our safeties to do so if it does happen.

            Derrick Gibson = first round bust.
            Starks & Poole are the veteran backup plans to Asomugha & Washington.
            Routt I believe is a nickle back.
            Carr primarily returns punts and kickoffs.
            Honestly, since I live in NY and see 5 Raider games a year, I have no breakdown on Cooper.
            You forgot Schweigart, another up and comer. He needs to come up quicker, though.


            Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
            What about Marshall in the slot, or Scheffler down the seam? Huff is a great player, but he's not enough to stop our receivers.
            Now, no as he's a rookie, which is why this is a learning process, and why we brought in Starks & Poole as #3 & 4 on the depth chart.

            Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
            And just when you think you've got a scheme in place to stop them, then you've got Tatum Bell, Ron Dayne, Mike Bell, or Cedric Cobb running it down your throat.
            Hense Bing. Our linebackers are faster now. Speed was a big concern. This is where a DT comes into play. Even that is a better solution than Cutler/Leinart to stop Dayne, Bell or Corn on the Cobb.

            Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
            My point is this... If the point of your draft was to improve your defense, you fell a bit short, because as good as Huff is, he's not enough.
            But Huff, the best projected DB in the draft, was not the only one. He is a major component of a scheme, of a unit. Thomas Howard & Darnell Bing help at LB. If we drafted ONLY Huff on the defensive side of the ball, the arguement can be made. But we have a fast LB, an LB that can be a playmaker and a safety to lead that charge. Remember, it all starts with the front 7. We have 6. We need a DT run stuffer not an untested QB so there is the question.

            Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
            And I find it funny that you clown on Plummer for making mistakes when your shiny new quarterback makes Plummer look like the King of level headed. So when Moss is wide open streaking down the field and Brooks throws the ball 20 yards backwards, I'll bet you guys will be screaming... "THANK GOD WE GOT MICHAEL HUFF."
            Same as when Plummer throws yet another crucial INT, or doesn't convert on another 3rd down, here comes Cutler to save the day as he has done for 11 out of 44 games in the past.

            Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
            And yes, I think a QB is an immediate need. Not to mention, you could have stopped your rival team from getting their quarterback of the future, which will only help insure your mediocraty for a long time to come.
            ASSUMING Cutler knows how to win for the future. We take care of ourselves first and let our opponents worry about THEMselves.

            Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
            Jay Cutler... A loser?

            Let's see...

            Vince Young - Great quarterback, won a lot of games... Talent around him? 6 players from his team were drafted.

            Matt Leinart - Great quarterback, won a lot of games... Talent around him? 11 players from his team were drafted.

            Jay Cutler - according to you, a loser, didn't win a lot of games... Talent around him? 0 players from his team were drafted.

            Yet, Jay Cutler played in a tougher conference than both Young and Leinart, Jay Cutler was the SEC offensive player of the year, Jay Cutler had next to no offensive line, no running game, and no defense to support him. Yet the commadores twice put 40 points on the board this year. Because of his arm, his ability to move around in the pocket, and his ability if needed to run.
            Right, but I mentioned before on another thread, a winning attitude can be hard to adjust to when you experience losses 3 out of every 4 games. It's in his thinking. Can I do this? I haven't done it before? Brooks in a 2 minute drill in the NFL? He's done it before. Cutler in a 2 minute drill? Hmm. Walter in a 2 minute drill? Same hmm. Two hmms don't make a right.

            Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
            But that is just a few of the reasons why Cutler isn't as you say... A loser. HOWEVER... This isn't even about Cutler, it's about the Raiders ignoring their need for a QB. They have one of the most talented wide receivers in the league, and their 2nd and 3rd wide receivers are pretty damn good as well. But they consistantly plug in players like Kerry Collins and Aaron Brooks to throw them the ball instead of getting a franchise quality quarterback.
            If the Raiders saw that Walter wasn't the answer, perhaps they would've drafted a QB in the later rounds. Perhaps. But as of now, I am taking their word that Walter is either our answer or our backup plan. VS. Cutler, it's a toss up, so why get something you MAY not need instead of going for what you DO need.

            Comment


            • #21
              Part 2

              Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
              The original post of this thread stated that if the Raiders had taken a QB, like they probably needed to, then the Broncos wouldn't have had as great of a draft as they did. Whether or not you agree that the Raiders needed a quarterback, is irrelivant, it still remains true that you taking Huff, allowed us to get Cutler. And you say, you took an immediate need, to win now... Ok, I'll give you that, because you do NEED to win now. Denver already has the ability to win now, and was able to draft for the future. But that always seems to be the problem in Raidertown... You are always plugging the hole to win now... Never building for the future.
              That's right, we do, as we've brought in veteran QBs since 1992. The Marinovich Project was a complete bust. Schroeder, Hostetler, George, Gannon and yes, Kerry Collins & Aaron Brooks are better options for that win now mentality. Three of those QBs took us to the playoffs. Two took us to Championship Games. One took us to a Superbowl. One was offensive player of the year behind a horrific defense (George). One put up respectable numbers behind a horrific O-line. Ok, we see the o-line is the problem. Draft o-lineman and get a QB that can work around that. Can Cutler do that? Yes, most likely. But to win now, we're going with someone who has won 120 NFL games.

              Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
              Going back to 1999, tell me, who have the Raiders drafted that have made a difference on the team, and made them a Better team going forward into the future of the franchise? Fabian? Gallery? Asomugha? Buchanon? Gibson?
              But after 1999 we won 3 straight division titles and a conference championship. We had the Tuck Rule, ran into a superior all-time defense and lost to a coach who called our plays before we did. So, if the system worked for 3 years in a row to make us a contender, the top of the AFC West heap, what's to make us think it won't work again?

              Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
              Drafting is about BUILDING, not about winning NOW.
              So drafting a safety, 2 LBs and offensive linemen (Mr. Irrelevant aside) is now building for the future WHILE trying to win now. Shell has not said we're going to win the Superbowl in '06. But with who we drafted, '07 or '08 looks promising for being a contender, with either Brooks or Walter.

              Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
              Do you know why Denver consistantly has winning seasons, and rarely ever has high draft picks? Because they build for the future, and keep themselves at a higher level so that they can take risks like Picking Cutler, without having to worry about the fact that our #1 draft pick probably won't even get on the field this year. Could Oakland survive if their #1 pick doesn't pan out? Could Oakland survive if Huff got hurt? Could Oakland survive if Huff needed a year to learn the defense? Or perhaps the better question is, can Oakland survive even if Huff is a stud? Seriously man, I'm not trying to turn this into a smack forum, but you come in and start clown hammering the picking of Cutler, and signing the praises of Huff... But let me ask you... At the end of each of their careers, who will have the greater impact on their franchise?
              Can you answer the same thing? What are the chances Cutler is the next Ryan Leaf and Huff is the next Ronnie Lott, or on a lesser scale, Darren Woodson? You style works for you. Our style, even though the past 3 years are no indication, works for us.

              Originally posted by BroncsOwnU
              It's just a thought, but let me ask you one last question? Is Michael Huff going to make the difference between going 0-6 in the division and winning it?
              No, but will Cutler do the same for us? If your answer is yes, then can Andrew do the same for us? Same answer, +1 year in the NFL.

              My point of this is, if we didn't have Andrew, I'd question it. But we have him, so we don't need Cutler or Leinart. Give me one reason why drafting Cutler on a 1st round pick makes sense when we took a QB last year who was projected to be a 1st round pick. We solved that problem last year. This year, defense and o-line. If we see Walter and Brooks are not the answers, then we'll go into next year. Is Cutler the last great QB potentials? Does every 1st round QB have to be great? Does every 3rd, 4th or 5th round QB automatically have to be put behind the line? For every Bradshaw & Elway there's a Brady & Montana. Where was 3-time Superbowl Champion Tom Brady selected? Even better, where was 4-time Superbowl winner Joe Montana selected?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The|Snake#16
                Their QB is Aaron Brooks, but I agree we probably wouldn't have got Cutler if they had taken leinart/cutler, however I highly doubt we would've drafted Chad Jackson.
                If the Raiders took Leinart like they should have then Ari would have picked Cutler and then we would have stayed at 15 and Picked Laurency Maroney
                NHL Blog at:NHL Blog by Medford Bronco!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by DevilSpawn
                  Amazing. Simply amazing. So, taking 1 immediate need at safety for a poor defense is not as good as taking a QB, a loser in college I might add, as an immedate need when we're trying to learn how to win ourselves? QB is not our automatic need, today, right now, this hour, this very second. You guys were smart in moving up to take Cutler. But we would've been dumb for passing up on... get ready for this... the best DB in the draft. Swish. And the foul.

                  Cutler, for now, is a loser with impressive skills and a nice QB rating in college. But he hasn't won the big game. Shoot, the Vanderbilt Commodores would've lost to Lionel Richie & The Commodores. Brooks knows how to win. Yes he knows how to lose, but he's won some big games against good competition in the NFL. Cutler? Don't think so. At our current rebuilding stage, we don't need him when Walter is waiting. You chuckle at Walter? Check this out, his last collegiate season:



                  Name the last time Cutler won 8 games in a season. In 2 seasons combined. Heck, they only won 6 games in his first three seasons combined. Vanderbilt from 2002-2005: 11-33. So, why bring in another young QB when we have one in our midsts? Can you legitimately say Cutler will be a better pro than Walter? Assume Walter's shoulder is healed and you're potentially looking at the biggest steal in the draft, hands down. Cutler might be that as well, (Bush to New orleans aside) so it looks like we're both sitting pretty. :wave:

                  Now, back to our new safety/cornerback. Michael Huff adds youth and playmaking skills to our secondary. What would Jay Cutler ADD to our offense? Nothing. We're looking ahead to fill immediate holes, then solve questions that will play themselves out during the upcoming season. One year at a time. We will progress with a better defense. We will falter or go nowhere with a bad defense and a learning rookie/untested QB. I like the former over the latter.

                  Yeah, that sounds stupid. About 5xs smarter than taking a QB that could lead to a QB controversy. How many superbowl teams have post game conferences saying they overcame a QB controversy? New England? Wasn't controversial.

                  And the Huff pick was about 10xs smarter than Maurice Clarett pick. Jailhouse Orange seems to fit him better than a Mile High version.
                  Jay Cutler is the best quarterback coming out of the draft in at least 20 years. One who uses his record at Vandy to show how "bad" he is has not studied much football in their lifetime.

                  Take this year for instance. Vandy's offense was 2nd in the SEC. Vandy's defense was 2nd to last.

                  One player does not make a team. You will be eating your words in about 3 years.
                  As the great divide in America continues we are causing harm to our future generations by avoiding what needs to be done.

                  More people recognize Britney Spears than Dick Cheney.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by vandyman53
                    Jay Cutler is the best quarterback coming out of the draft in at least 20 years. One who uses his record at Vandy to show how "bad" he is has not studied much football in their lifetime.

                    Take this year for instance. Vandy's offense was 2nd in the SEC. Vandy's defense was 2nd to last.

                    One player does not make a team. You will be eating your words in about 3 years.
                    So the big question is from a fellow person that follows college football... Who would you rather have Cutler or Bunkley

                    Good post

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by vandyman53
                      Jay Cutler is the best quarterback coming out of the draft in at least 20 years.
                      According to who? Why were Young & Leinart projected ahead of him on some boards for a long while? Why wasn't Cutler guarenteed to go ahead of them no matter who picked him?

                      Originally posted by vandyman53
                      One who uses his record at Vandy to show how "bad" he is has not studied much football in their lifetime.
                      Oh no, I didn't say he was bad. I said he is not used to winning. There's a difference. Players and teams who are used to winning are better in situations that call for it instead of those who lose on a regular basis. Ever see a team on the rise who have had year after year of losing, come up short when the game is on the line? That's because they're not used to winning, they don't have the experience to put it together just yet. Start to win and then you have a winner. I am not the only one saying this about Cutler, that is one of his listed negatives, probably his biggest one. He has the tools and skills yes, but until he shows he CAN win, then I have my doubts.

                      Originally posted by vandyman53
                      Take this year for instance. Vandy's offense was 2nd in the SEC. Vandy's defense was 2nd to last.
                      That may not apply since he's still on a losing team. The Ravens had a poor offense and a stellar defense, but they won. They knew how to win. All of the players knew how to win.

                      Originally posted by vandyman53
                      One player does not make a team. You will be eating your words in about 3 years.
                      Exactly. Cutler doesn't make your team and Huff doesn't make ours. 3 units make a winner: Offense, defense, special teams. Our offense right now is set, despite what people think of Brooks. Our defense needs an overhaul and we drafted accordingly, minus defensive tackle. If Cutler is a scrub, I hope you have delicious dressing to go with your words.
                      Last edited by DevilSpawn; 05-02-2006, 01:09 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by DevilSpawn
                        We have Brooks. Go ahead and laugh. Guess what. He can throw a ball, and throw it well. He's a premier athelete.
                        Yep he can throw it backwards great. Oh, or he can throw it well right into Champ or Darrent's hands.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X