FanNation - The Republic of Sport

No one saw the Saints as being an 8-8 team last year either. They wound up 10-6 and playing in the NFC Championship game. The 2000 Ravens had two high draft picks and wound up winning the Super Bowl after drafting Jamal Lewis. No one saw that coming either. Chargers had the #1 pick in the 2004 draft, after a miserable year, and wound up having a fantastic season the very next year. Who foresaw any of that. Just because a team has a terrible year, doesn't mean they are doomed to repeat it. Especially, if their defense was ranked 3rd in the league.

Russel can't do much on his ****. They really need to improve the o- line. 8-8 will be a stretch, but anything can happen.

Oakland went from 45 sacks in '05 to 72 sacks in '06. They had pretty much the same line in both years. The Raiders had assistant coaches that they literally pulled off the street, who hadn't coached in years. If Russell starts they should be able to lower that number with his mobility and brush off defenders with his size and strength. They should return back to '05 form and be a potential 45 sack O Line. and With Russell's size and mobility he could avoid possibily 12 of those sack making them possibly a 33 sack OL. 35-40 sacks is usually average. The 72 sacks is deceiving.
For crying out loud, the guy has listed no reasons to support his claim on why the Raiders will be worse than .500. Proof is in the pudding, this team got drastically worse under Art Shell, yet maintained much of the same team from the prior year. It's not that far of a stretch that they'll be a .500 team. Who thought that the Chargers in 2004 was going to make the playoffs after having the first pick in the draft? I guarantee no one did. There is too much parady in the NFL to say there is no way the Raiders can go 8-8 in '07. Just remember the 2004 Chargers, and last year's Saints. No one had them reaching .500 in their next season's predictions. The coaching change, JaMarcus Russell and the rest of the draft, could have that kind of impact. They aren't as bad as what Art Shell made them to be last year.

Russel will be good. When he can stand. Ask David Carr whats it like to be #1 and not have a o-line.

San Diego went 4-12 in '03 and then went 12-4 the following year, after people gave up on Brees and they drafted Eli Manning and traded him to New York for Philip Rivers. It is possible, and unless you have a reason more than you just think that the Raiders suck, there is no way you can say that it's impossible for them to be a .500 team. Especially with a defense that ranked 3rd in the league.

im not saying it is impossible, just unlikley

Carr still completed 68% of his passes (best in the league), and had one receiver and an injured RB last year, with virtually no TE. Carr to Johnson was their offense, so they double teamed Johnson all the time. Oakland has an average line, and the numbers were inflated due to the man blocking scheme that Art Shell implemented. They can potentially give up as little as 33 sacks next year hich is far above average and by no means suggests that your QB is playing from the horizontal position.

I wonder how many people actually read the arguments, and instead decide their vote solely on the headlines on top of them.

This argument has almost nothing to do with Jamarcus Russell or the Raiders for that matter. The fact that both the Chargers and Broncos are in the AFC West makes the division un-winnable for the Raiders, both of those teams are way too good for the Raiders to over come in one year.

The same thing could have been said about the Chargers in '04 after their horrible '03 campaign. When you had a KC and Denver as locks in the division. Besides, the Raiders always play the Broncos tough, and the Broncos made a lot of moves on defense that you have no idea will work out. They could steal a game from the Broncos, they could possibly sweep KC, but I'll stay with a victory there as well. Then they have a game against SD in the very last game. If SD is as good as everyone believes, they should be resting their starters and preparing for the bye, and possibly home-field advantage in the playoffs. That should also be a win for the Raiders.

Scotty the argument was about the Raiders chances at .500. No one talked about them winning the division. Ya figga deal me.

Keep your arguments in the throwdown, EPL.

Yes, fun police. Don't take me to fun jail! Like it matters anyway. The throwdown leader's main argument (Jack Kenoff) is: They suck balls; speaks volumes about the formality on this board. No one cares about the argument anyways. They are just voting for whatever matches closest to their own opinion instead of comparing the facts and coming to a reasonable conclusion.
How about this Paul? Try making a comment that's in direct relation to the topic at hand, instead of policing comment areas for extended arguments.

The Raiders have a 30 year old coach. Im 30 and I cant manage my checkbook non less a bad NFL team. The only thing the Raiders now have going for them is youth in two key positions. With those positions youth will not produce wins.

Chuck Noll (37), and Bill Cowher (35) were both in their 30's when they took over their teams. Mike Tomlin (35) is predicted to lead the Steelers to a few Super Bowls during his tenure (various ESPN analysts. Jon Gruden was 35 when the Raiders hired him and he turned the franchise around. At 39, he won a Super Bowl with the Buccaneers, against the Raiders team that he built. Youth does not translate into failure, and is actually a good thing, because it means they are more has ambitious and energy.