Smashmouth football.

[BigPoppaPump]

Now hear me out for a second here.

I look at our team as it stands right now and think we can all agree the D is pretty solid. I feel this unit will only get stronger and will address a couple issues this off season.

I also realize that Al Davis has always been a fan of the passing game, but I think we would be smart to become a smashmouth team. We draft AP, keep Jordan and then focus on that OL. Our coaching staff seems aligned to be focusing on this anyway with recent hires.

This would be smart imo for the following reasons:

-Give our D more rest.
-It is much easier to run black than pass block.
-We would have a very solid 3 back attack with Peterson in the fold.
-3 backs would allow AP to not take as much damage.
-Would allow us to not need a super stud at QB.
-If done right, we could be at least a .500 team next year.

I get the idea of peeps wanting to draft QB, but it is riskier and also would be a longer road to take. I know we all would like to think a miracle will happen and we will be a SB contender next year, but that is just not going to happen. We need to realize this will take 3 years to turn around.

We need to get ourselves respectable first. If we can do that, then we might be able to lure better quality FA's here. Our D is young and would be even more intense if it had to play less snaps.

We need to draft AP, get a blocking TE and retool this OL. Dump Brooks, try another vet QB instead of "giggles" and go from there.

AP or Bust.

[Raider Nation]

I agree that the idea of smashmouth football is appealing in some respects BPP, but there are some big problems with it.

1. Kiffin and Al have already stated they want to "attack" at will. That doesn't exactly translate to a "3 yards and a cloud of dust" offensive philosophy, does it?

2. If you draft Adrian Peterson at #1 overall then you have a disproportionate percentage of Oakland's salary cap tied up in the RB position when you combine it with Jordan's salary. We already see a lopsided cap charge at the WR position. Doing the same thing at RB actually would hurt Oakland's ability to add FA's along the offensive and defensive lines, which is also a problem area.

3. Sure, everyone would like to think a miracle could happen and Oakland contends for the Super Bowl, but I don't see anybody realistically predicting anything other than needing 3 years to turn this around. That being the case, what is the difference between drafting Russell as opposed to Peterson. We all know the number of carries Peterson has had in college, so I'm not sure adding 3 years of additional carries while the rest of the team catches up to his level of talent is a good thing.

4. While I think Peterson is a great player, I just don't think you pass up a franchise QB if you have the chance for a RB. Furthermore, why not take Russell at #1 and a guy like Kenny Irons in round 2? Then both problems are solved... franchise QB acquired and another quality RB added to the mix at a cost that isn't prohibitive at the position.

[CrossBones]

I predict this thread with be an 6 pager!

[TommyGirl]

I like the idea of having the ability to play smashmouth football, but like Natty, I have mixed feelings on drafting a runningback. I'm the biggest Andrew Walter supporter out there, but I'm warming to the idea of a quarterback, truth be told.

The idea I like most is that of LaMont Jordan dropping fifteen pounds and getting a chip on his shoulder. What's the chance of that happening?

[BigPoppaPump]

Natty, I would rather we had money tied up in RB's rather than WR's and a QB that could just as easily be an anchor or savior. I know this, teams with good d's need to be able to run the ball to win.

It is all well and good that we want to attack down the field. There is no way we can do that with the current situation. I also think we are at least 2 off seasons away from being that kind of team.

If we look at our current makeup, it is obvious we are right there to be a smashmouth team.

I like Jordan but worry about him being able to carry the load for a full season. He is also coming off a knee injury and is a year older. He might benefit from having a reduced load as well.

As for QB, I think the Ravens showed you don't need a great QB with a good running attack and a nasty D. Well we already have the not so good QB and nasty D.

I have a hard time accepting that an attacking football team is the prudent way to go. I am not saying it is not a fun idea, just very unrealistic.

[Langlier]

4. While I think Peterson is a great player, I just don't think you pass up a franchise QB if you have the chance for a RB. Furthermore, why not take Russell at #1 and a guy like Kenny Irons in round 2? Then both problems are solved... franchise QB acquired and another quality RB added to the mix at a cost that isn't prohibitive at the position.

Let me counter point this. Why not AP in round 1 and Drew Stanton in round 2?

It reminds me of another team that went elite RB that you know is going to be good in 1 (they actually traded that #1 overall and still got the RB while some other team got stuck with the "franchise QB") and grabbed a QB named drew that ended up being pretty good in 2.

[Ghost To The Post]

I will side with the preceding authorities RNat (Good Day Sir) and TommyGirl (Nice to see you back) regarding the QB pick.

If we have a three year plan, I would see it like this:

1st Year
- Get a QB that will lead this team for the next decade

- Assemble an O-Line that will be together as a unit for the next five or six years

- Put together most of the recieving corps (at least one TE)

- Get a disruptive / penetrating force at the under tackle spot. Can learn behind Sapp.

2nd Year

- Add a stud RB to the mix if one has not emerged from the year one group.

- Add a pass rushing DE to what should hopefully be a solid defense.

3rd Year

- Start making some noise

[Raider Nation]

Let me counter point this. Why not AP in round 1 and Drew Stanton in round 2?

It reminds me of another team that went elite RB that you know is going to be good in 1 (they actually traded that #1 overall and still got the RB while some other team got stuck with the "franchise QB") and grabbed a QB named drew that ended up being pretty good in 2.

Simply put... because the dropoff from Peterson to Kenny Irons/Michael Bush is nowhere near as significant as the dropoff from Russell to Stanton.

It's a lot easier to find a starting RB in rounds 2 & 3 and beyond than it is to find a starting QB in those same rounds.

Futhermore, if we're looking at a 3-yr plan, why not draft the franchise QB this year when you have a true shot at it and then go into next year's super deep RB draft (McFadden, Slaton, et al)?

[massraider]

Nat

As for QB, I think the Ravens showed you don't need a great QB with a good running attack and a nasty D. Well we already have the not so good QB and nasty D.


And John Elway, Payton Manning, and Jim Kelly have shown that if you want to go to the playoffs again and again, a true contender, you need a great QB.

With an average QB, history has shown you can make a run, maybe win a ring with that team.

But a great QB, and you can put your team in the playoffs year after year.

[Madturk]

I'm sort of on the GTTP and Natty's wavelength here but I think we can turn this thing around in less than three years as I don't think that was the old man's intention when he hired Kiffen.

First off, I'm sick and tired of bringing in castoff QB's in here. We've got a chance to draft a physical freak with supposedly the strongest arm in either college and pro football who also seems to have most of the other intangibles to be a franchise type QB. This to me is a no brainer, besides who's really out there from a FA standpoint that can lead this club for the next 10 years? Let's just pull the friggen trigger once and for all.

As far as a RB, I'm of the opinion we can stand pat with our second pick and draft a decent RB, i.e. Michael Bush but I'm thinking that Al is going to trade back into the first with some of our additional picks and maybe a future pick/player to take a shot at Marshawn Lynch. Personally, I'd be happy with Bush, ecstatic with ML. There's no way LJ is coming back at 7 mill. If he's amenable to restructuring, then we should have our running game in pretty decent shape.

It's probably going to take a season to get this OL mess straightened out. I'm totally at a loss for what we'll do here. I think we'll pick up some middle tier FA's and a draft pick or two but for the most part, I see Cable trying to resurrect Gallery and Grove's career. Forget about bringing in Eric Steinbach or Leonard Davis in here. That's a pipe dream.

I also see a strong push for TE's this offseason. I suspect we'll make a run at Eric Johnson and draft a youngster like Olsen or the kid from Minn.

Our defense is in fairly good shape minus another edge guy and two gap run stopper. It's imperative that we bring back TK and Terd. I'm hoping we can find a middle round gem in the draft but DT should be a high priority next season.

[Raider Nation]

I honestly think if we're looking at this from a 3-yr perspective, then there is very little chance Oakland takes a RB high this year considering where Jordan's at with his contract, Russell as a potential #1 overall pick, and holes on the O-line, at TE, WR, FB, and DT.

At best I think you might see Al pull the trigger on Lorenzo Booker if he's at the top of the 3rd**. He fits the profile perfectly... very fast, shifty open field guy who has the ability to lower the shoulder. Would be a perfect compliment to Jordan, who would still be starting, and create competition for Fargas. Then after '07, if the RB position continues to under perform, you make a big splash in FA or high in the draft to combine with Russell taking the field in '08.


**Lorenzo Booker in the 3rd is a copyrighted L'il Al selection

[Madturk]

I think we'll be ok at WR and FB can be addressed via the draft, i.e Leron MccLain. The OL and TE are my biggest areas of concern on the offensive side of the ball. That's a big ? right now

I wouldn't be adverse to going with RBBC if we decide to forego one of the big 2-3 RB's. I just don't think LJ should be making 7 mill next season.

[BigPoppaPump]

And John Elway, Payton Manning, and Jim Kelly have shown that if you want to go to the playoffs again and again, a true contender, you need a great QB.

With an average QB, history has shown you can make a run, maybe win a ring with that team.

But a great QB, and you can put your team in the playoffs year after year.

First off, lets address a couple of the names above. Both John and Peyton did nothing without the ground attack. Both were/are stud QB's. However they did jack until the ground game and D got moving.

As for Kelly, he was solid, but I would not have put him in the Hall. The person that made that O go was Thurman. He was the whole key to that Bills O.

In the end, the 3 guys you listed up there did squat without a very nasty RB (RBBC for Indy) and a D that was playing very solid.



As for the 3 year plan....let me say this: We want to make it a shorter climb to the top, then we best be playing smashmouth. To go vertical and get a solid passing attack would take a whole lot more players and time. By the time that happened, good chance Ryan is gone.

I could see us being a very solid smashmouth team in 2 years tops. We would only need 4-5 players to do this (RB, 2-3 OL and another DE). If we got those players, we could be legit pretty quick.

I get that people want the QB, but realize what that means. Russell will not be any good at the next level for at least 2 years. Sorry, but he is not Manning (who took 2 years if memory serves).

We got with Russell or Quinn and expect bad for 2 more seasons imo. If we go with AP, we are on our way right away. We are also protected against LJ and his knee. Sorry if I am a tad concerned about a heavier power back having a busted up knee coming back fine.

[Stanny]

And John Elway, Payton Manning, and Jim Kelly have shown that if you want to go to the playoffs again and again, a true contender, you need a great QB.

With an average QB, history has shown you can make a run, maybe win a ring with that team.

But a great QB, and you can put your team in the playoffs year after year.

My only argument to this was these guys could only go so far without a running game...See Dan Marino. John Elway did dog doo without Bobby Humpries or T. Davis. Jim Kelly had HOF RB Thurman Thomas who was as good or if not better then any RB in his time. Peyton Manning does not win without a running game....see the superbowl ring he just won. Phillip Rivers would not play how he has without LT. Look in the playoffs what Trent Green did when LJ was taken away. Look at the Falcons when Warrick Dunn is shut down, look at the Redskins when Clinton Portis or L. Betts are shut down....the list goes on and on. A great running game makes an average QB legit in my eyes.

Im on the AP wagon myself......

[Madturk]

I get that people want the QB, but realize what that means. Russell will not be any good at the next level for at least 2 years. Sorry, but he is not Manning (who took 2 years if memory serves).



I disagree, signed Tony Romo, Philip Rivers, Jay Cutler, Vince Young

[Seraph24]

I disagree, signed Tony Romo, Philip Rivers, Jay Cutler, Vince Young

all are average-below average at this point w/o broncos rushing system, LT, Travis henry, and Jones/barber combo and each was shown as such when you took their rb away. Vince has some asterisk to him because of his rushes.

Jay Cutler-2152 yards rushing behind him
Phillip Rivers-2578 yards rushing behind him
tony romo-1936 yards rushing behind him
vince young(again asterisk)-2214(552 of it him, 12121 henry in 14 games) yards rushing behind him.

We actually ran for less yards in 2005 than this year (both years near the bottom).
2005-1369
2006-1519

[Madturk]

Well two made the pro bowl irregardless and VY basically carried his team. I don't think our running game was all that bad considering the sorry state of our OL and TE's.

[Seraph24]

Well two made the pro bowl irregardless and VY basically carried his team. I don't think our running game was all that bad considering the sorry state of our OL and TE's.

well damn its herecy to say that for the passing game but its the first thing i get on our running game.:D even before Art got here we sucked at it and Lamont Jordan couldnt finish a whole season. so i can't color myself sold on that. it may be true, may not.

also yes two average qb's are going to the pro bowl. thats kinda my point. phillip rivers isnt seeing a pro bowl w/o the 32 rushing td's(more than most guys passing td's) on his side.

[BigPoppaPump]

I disagree, signed Tony Romo, Philip Rivers, Jay Cutler, Vince Young

Tony Romo got exposed and that team does not make the playoffs in the AFC.

Cutler did not make the playoffs.

Philip is not that good and does anyone truly think having the MVP as his RB did not sort of make him look better?

Vince Young is an abberation (sp?) and is truly a once in a lifetime kind of talent. I wanted him bad for our squad last year. And as stated earlier, he is quite the running attack himself.

I will just say that it is near impossible to win it all without a stud RB and more SB's have been won by teams with good/great RB's and decent QB's than great QB's without a decent RB.

And does anyone not think that AP is a plug and play guy from day 1? Seriously, there are really very few question marks for him, he would help our team from day 1 and his selection would shorten any climb back to the top. No other guy in the top 6 can have that said about them. Sorry, but them's the facts.

[massraider]

First off, lets address a couple of the names above. Both John and Peyton did nothing without the ground attack. Both were/are stud QB's. However they did jack until the ground game and D got moving.

As for Kelly, he was solid, but I would not have put him in the Hall. The person that made that O go was Thurman. He was the whole key to that Bills O.

In the end, the 3 guys you listed up there did squat without a very nasty RB (RBBC for Indy) and a D that was playing very solid.

.


You mean they did nothing aside from make the playoffs every year, and in the case of Kelly and Elway, multiple Super Bowls? You mean aside from that, right? ;)

[hawaiianboy]

I know we all would like to think a miracle will happen and we will be a SB contender next year, but that is just not going to happen. We need to realize this will take 3 years to turn around.

We need to draft AP, get a blocking TE and retool this OL. Dump Brooks, try another vet QB instead of "giggles" and go from there.


You're actually making a good point toward drafting the QB if you ask me....


Assuming we need 3 years to turn things around as you say, why take a RB when the shelf life of the average RB is usually pretty short as opposed almost every other position....

Also if you look at the success rate we've had lately with vet QB's it's not all that encouraging that we'll be able to hit on one... Outside of Gannon, we had a gutsy Hoss and a bunch of misses... Myself I think it's easier to pull a Wheatley or Garner off the scrapheap than it is to pull a Gannon or Plunkett...



Philip is not that good and does anyone truly think having the MVP as his RB did not sort of make him look better?

It's easy to dismiss Rivers as a product of Tomlinson and the SD defense, but let's not forget that the Dolphins had 2 or 3 years there where they got great production out of Ricky Williams and their defense but did nothing because they had Jay Fielder behind center...



all are average-below average at this point w/o broncos rushing system, LT, Travis henry, and Jones/barber combo and each was shown as such when you took their rb away. Vince has some asterisk to him because of his rushes.


I think the counterpoint to that is guys like Joseph Addai, Rudi Johnson, Laurence Maroney etc benefit just as much from the presence of their QB's/passing game...

[Seraph24]

with all due respect jay fielder was horrible, not average. never looked better than horrible as soon as he left miami. i dont feel that comparison at all.

[007]

with all due respect jay fielder was horrible, not average. never looked better than horrible as soon as he left miami. i dont feel that comparison at all.

And he had a top 5 defense and Ricky Williams toting the rock for him...

I think I understand the point HB was trying to make.

[BigPoppaPump]

Some people might laugh, but I would like to see how Walters could look behind a better OL and an offensive scheme that was smashmouth.

I refuse to write him off after last season cause no player could have succeeded here last year.

IOW, I am not so sure QB is as pressing a need as it might seem.

[Seraph24]

I think the counterpoint to that is guys like Joseph Addai, Rudi Johnson, Laurence Maroney etc benefit just as much from the presence of their QB's/passing game...

yep and they all have experienced upper echelon qb's(one of whom is a sixth round pick) behind them. if we were for sure getting that in the draft to immediately do the job no question marks, then great. nothing that immediate is happening imo. but i do recognize what you're hoping for us to have in russell. just dont know how sure a player he is. Natty as recently as pre sugar bowl wasnt really sold on him as a person whose seen more of him that anybody. he's the best qb propect in the draft, but overall the prospects are just ok.

either way i'm not saying that having a franchise qb is a bad thing. just saying that i think we'd do better to nab a franchise rb. but as long as its russell, cant feel too irked about getting a qb. if its not, i'll feel a lil irked.

[Seraph24]

Some people might laugh, but I would like to see how Walters could look behind a better OL and an offensive scheme that was smashmouth.

I refuse to write him off after last season cause no player could have succeeded here last year.

IOW, I am not so sure QB is as pressing a need as it might seem.

careful, you'll get butchered for thinking that. they'd chop you up like one of your best dime bags and smoke you.

[Raider Nation]

Some people might laugh, but I would like to see how Walters could look behind a better OL and an offensive scheme that was smashmouth.

I refuse to write him off after last season cause no player could have succeeded here last year.

IOW, I am not so sure QB is as pressing a need as it might seem.

That's a legitimate point, BPP. Personally, I would just rather put the idea of depending on Walter out of the window. So if Oakland decides to go with Walter and release Brooks, they'll probably bring in another vet QB as a hedge to Walter. Which is making absolutely zero progress at the QB position in the last year.

Hell, if Oakland drafts Russell, I'm still hoping Walter seizes the starting job this year. I support the guy. I would just rather the Raiders not go into the season with an unproven Walter and some schlub vet QB. Bring in a potential game changer and bring the kid along.

My counterpoint here would be... RB is even less of a pressing need than QB, if you ask me. If we're talking pressing needs, then this team should only draft offensive lineman, TE's, and DTs in this entire draft. But the Raiders shouldn't have passed on Leinart last year, IMO. And they shouldn't pass on another franchise-type QB again this year. One day you have to pull the trigger and push all your chips into the middle of the table. Coming off of a 2-14 season with a young coaching staff, what better time to go "franchise" with our QB position?

[hawaiianboy]

Some people might laugh, but I would like to see how Walters could look behind a better OL and an offensive scheme that was smashmouth.

I refuse to write him off after last season cause no player could have succeeded here last year.

IOW, I am not so sure QB is as pressing a need as it might seem.


See I'm actually a huge Peterson fan, but right here is where the logic always escapes me... Couldn't you say this and make the exact same case for not drafting a RB:

"Some people might laugh, but I would like to see how Jordan could look behind a better OL and an offensive scheme that was smashmouth.

I refuse to write him off after last season cause no player could have succeeded here last year.

IOW, I am not so sure RB is as pressing a need as it might seem."


Why wouldn't Jordan get the same bad O-line/bad scheme hedge as Walter?... Jordan at least has a decent season two years ago to point to...

[CrossBones]

Look, the bottom line is we need both a stud quarterback and running back. Not likely we're gonna get both in the same year. Hopefully we're not drafting #1 again. Take the quarterback now --- baby steps. If we suck and get a top five pick next year maybe McFadden is our guy. Then we have the semblance of 2/3 of the trio. If Curry/Porter or Moss finally steps up we're set.

Right now it's the chicken (QB) or the egg (RB) proposition. Don't think there is an easy answer. But, HB makes a good point about RB longevity. Not too many last 10-12 years. QB on the other hand can be around longer.

And the idea that John Elway did nothing before he had Terrell Davis is nonsense. The dude was a friggin' monster and kicked our ass for 15 years. He went to 3 Super Bowls before Davis and had two hundred and fifty thousand fourth quarter comebacks. Dude was friggin' great. Somewhere along the line you have to have a stud QB to be a power house in this league for more than one-two years. I say now is the time to git'r done. Draft the QB. I'm not gonna be unhappy with Quinn or Russell. I like Quinn because he looks to be more ready with his ability to read defenses etc. I think his arm is more than adequate. Nobody is gonna dis Russell's physical skills. The question is only whether or not he can beat Vince Young's Wonderlic score. :eek:

[Madturk]

Why wouldn't Jordan get the same bad O-line/bad scheme hedge as Walter?... Jordan at least has a decent season two years ago to point to...

That's a valid point. I'm all for Walter getting a shot at winning the starting job but who is available in FA that we can bring in to compete with him in the event that we draft our "franchise rb" ? Jeff Garthia?

I guess my point is that we've passed on the last few QB's in the draft. If this is 2-3 year re-building process then why not just bring in a freak who could be a mainstay for the next 10 years or so and be done with it?

[Seraph24]

he wasnt as good as we needed imo. he ran about as good as a one dimensional rb can run though and made good on his short yardage receiving(though he didnt stretch the field much after his catches.. i'd prefer more out of my lead rb. someone comparable to Larry johnson and LT in dynamic skill set. I do think that's AP.

[CrossBones]

What's wrong with drafting Russell/Quinn, letting Walter start the first 5-6 games and if appropriate put the rookie in after he's had a while to survey the lay of the land? This is now called the Tennessee, Denver and Arizona plan! ;)

[Seraph24]

What's wrong with drafting Russell/Quinn, letting Walter start the first 5-6 games and if appropriate put the rookie in after he's had a while to survey the lay of the land? This is now called the Tennessee, Denver and Arizona plan! ;)

the scary risk of a double crash and burn with two qb's shaken in the confidence department. honestly i think a vet has to be in the mix, which cancels out Walter of Russell to 3rd string. in fact if we drafted russell, the worst thing that could happen is Walter outplaying him imo. runs the risk of your first round pick at 3rd string because your vet will be no lower than 2nd string for proper safety valve.

i just realized you said quinn, totally forgot he existed. :D

[CrossBones]

in fact if we drafted russell, the worst thing that could happen is Walter outplaying him imo. runs the risk of your first round pick at 3rd string because your vet will be no lower than 2nd string for proper safety valve.
You mean the way Barry Fuckin' Sims bitch slapped our can't miss second round "safe" pick Gallery?

Oh the shame of it.

No guts no glory I say. We need to pull the trigger on the QB.

BTW, Seraph, any chance that you could lose that flashing sig? Kind of distracting. I mean animated sigs are OK but that one is just a little too quick. Just sayin'. :)

[R4Life]

the scary risk of a double crash and burn with two qb's shaken in the confidence department. honestly i think a vet has to be in the mix, which cancels out Walter of Russell to 3rd string. in fact if we drafted russell, the worst thing that could happen is Walter outplaying him imo. runs the risk of your first round pick at 3rd string because your vet will be no lower than 2nd string for proper safety valve.

i just realized you said quinn, totally forgot he existed. :D

This is what happened in San Diego with Brees and Rivers and it's worked out well for them. They lost Brees, true, but made a fairly seemless transition. Also, I think Brees is a ton better than Rivers and think losing Brees may have cost the Bolts a Super Bowl. Also, I think that one of the two - Walter or Russell - would significantly outplay the other and win the starting position.
Also, (this may hurt), Why not re-do Brooks' contract and keep him for a year? Sure, he may not want to do it and then see-ya, but he could start as the #2 behind whichever young buck established himself giving us a veteren presence and then if and when a switch occurs mid-year, put him as #2 or #3 depending upon how poorly the starter had played.

[R4Life]

BTW, Seraph, any chance that you could lose that flashing sig? Kind of distracting. I mean animated sigs are OK but that one is just a little too quick. Just sayin'. :)

My vote too.

[BigTron]

You mean the way Barry Fuckin' Sims bitch slapped our can't miss second round "safe" pick Gallery?

Oh the shame of it.

No guts no glory I say. We need to pull the trigger on the QB.

BTW, Seraph, any chance that you could lose that flashing sig? Kind of distracting. I mean animated sigs are OK but that one is just a little too quick. Just sayin'. :)

It reminds me of that 80's song. "take on me.... take on me....blah balh blaaaaaahhhhhh, ill beeee gooone"

[hawaiianboy]

I guess my point is that we've passed on the last few QB's in the draft. If this is 2-3 year re-building process then why not just bring in a freak who could be a mainstay for the next 10 years or so and be done with it?


That's my point as well... Why we would put anymore faith in 3rd round pick Andrew Walter developing than we would put in 3rd round pick Justin Fargas is beyond me.... Yeah Andrew Walter could conceivably keep Jamarcus Russell on the bench the way Brees kept Rivers... but how is that any different than Thomas Jones keeping Cedrick Benson on the bench?...

[007]

It reminds me of that 80's song. "take on me.... take on me....blah balh blaaaaaahhhhhh, ill beeee gooone"

Homo.

;)

[Madturk]

Also, (this may hurt), Why not re-do Brooks' contract and keep him for a year? Sure, he may not want to do it and then see-ya, but he could start as the #2 behind whichever young buck established himself giving us a veteren presence and then if and when a switch occurs mid-year, put him as #2 or #3 depending upon how poorly the starter had played.

Thanks but no thanks. It would just pain me to see him with that dumb look on his face on the sidelines and besides, I don't think he'd be a very good mentor to these young guns.:rolleyes: I think I'd rather bring Kerry Collins back.

[BigTron]

Homo.

;)

You dont type that without expecting some flack, haha. act like you dont love that shitty song!

[007]

You dont type that without expecting some flack, haha. act like you dont love that shitty song!

I kid, I kid.

Great song.

A-Ha rocks.





No they dont.

[Seraph24]

This is what happened in San Diego with Brees and Rivers and it's worked out well for them. .

two letters that keep san diego from EVER being comparable..




LT
i get your theory, but see nothing in that situation i'd apply to ours. if we already had AP or Larry Johnson, then i'd see the linear format.

[BigTron]

I kid, I kid.

Great song.

A-Ha rocks.





No they dont.

haha i feel better that you knew their name, I actually was trying to guess. Ahh the days when MTV wasnt a pile-o shit.

[Madturk]

Wasn't Bones sporting his Flock of Seagulls do when that video came out?

[BigPoppaPump]

HBoy, the reason the theory does not work in reverse for a RB, is our RB is a heavy, power runner coming off knee surgery. I guess I am more than a little skeptical on how LJ is going to come back.

I get where peeps might think Andrew is not the answer. I am just not sold at all on either of these QB prospects. I think they both have bust written on them. I do not mind the idea of drafting a QB at the top, but would prefer one I am comfy using that pick on. AP makes me more than comfy at that level.

It is funny too that a franchise that has two SB's won with Jim Plunkett at the helm thinks that QB is such a requirement. Remeber how good we were with Marcus? I see AP being able to be our next Marcus (minus the BS off field jazz).

And for the record, I was speaking of it taking 3 years if we go QB route. I honestly think we could be competitive in 2 years max with a stud RB and rebuilt ol. Heck, we might even be able to make waves next year. I know that is most certainly not the case with either of these QB's being drafted.

[Ghost To The Post]

Lamonica / Stabler with Hubbard & Smith or Van Eeghen & Davis

OR

Plunkett with King or Allen

Those groups had one thing in common, great Offensive Lines anchored by HOF centers in Otto and Dalby

There are many ways to build an offense. The main thing in my mind is continuity of both parts and philosophy.

[Seraph24]

Yea GTP it starts in the trenches. Hopefully we wont lose sight of that. But you touched on what the problem is: Subjective philosophy. Neither philosophy is the wrong one if executed properly. What we are truly discussing is preference. Which is why I hate when the conversation turns into "You're crazy if you think thats gonna work. It never does". The truth is that both philosophies have plenty of historic proof. I'd prefer a rb myself. Our offense did our defense no favors last year. I feel you start off safe and get a rb who changes the requirements of your qb and gives him time to get acclimated whether vet or younger. .

With that said i reiterate that as long as Russell is the qb we draft, i wont bitch about us drafting him. But I'd rather have AP by a long shot. Quinn would be a mistake from a prospect standpoint to me. He's not bad. But not worth a #1 pick IMO.

[Limee]

There is a lot of good discussion in this one. I think Seraph24 has covered most of my thoughts in that either approach is capable of being successful. If you look at most of the superbowl teams then nearly all units are playing at a high level.

I agree with BPP's view on the prospects. I am convinced by AP, but not completely by either QB.

I honestly can't remember, but what was Jordan's injury and how affected by it is he likely to be in 2007? He has failed to finish out both years that he has been with us. This combined with Fargas checkered history means that we certainly need to pick up another viable option. Peterson seems like a good fit for the one cut and go zone blocking scheme that we will probably look to be employing. That said Denver has had great success with lower round picks being slotted into the same scheme. There are some backs from 2nd round onwards who I could see being worth picking up.

Walter while convincing nobody has been in an incredibly difficult situation. He has also suffered from injuries both years he has been in the league. It again seems obvious to me that we need another viable option. Draftwise I don't really like the look of any of the QBs outside the top 2.

I think if we are truly going to go the attacking route on offense as seems to be the case then that says to me we are going to be looking for a strong passing attack. We are going to want to place a higher priority on the QB position than if we take the smashmouth run the football don't make mistakes in the passing game approach that would seem to fit this defense, especially if we could upgrade the run stopping.

[R4Life]

I honestly can't remember, but what was Jordan's injury and how affected by it is he likely to be in 2007? .

Jordon has torn his MCL.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/category?blogid=11&cat=169

No surgery is needed so it's not as bad as Carson Palmers's acl/mcl tear so he should be fine by training camp unless there are complications.

Jordon tore his MCL, which is better than his ACL.

Here is a list of NFL running backs who came back from torn knee ligaments. It includes their current team, type of injury and their comeback year production.

Robert Edwards, Miami
Torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), medial collateral ligament (MCL) and frayed lateral collateral ligament (LCL), nerve, artery damage, Jan. ‘99
2002: 12 games, 20 rushes, 107 yards, one TD; 18 catches, 126 yards, one TD

Jamal Lewis, Baltimore
Torn ACL, sprained MCL, Aug. 2001
2002: 16 games, 308 rushes, 1,327 yards, six TDs; 47 catches, 442 yards, one TD

Edgerrin James, Indianapolis
Torn ACL, Oct. 2001 2002: 14 games, 277 rushes, 989 yards, two TDs; 61 catches, 354 yards, one TD

Olandis Gary, Buffalo
Torn ACL, Sept. 2000
2001: Nine games [suffered unrelated broken leg], 57 rushes, 228 yards, one TD

Jamal Anderson, out of NFL
Torn right ACL, Sept. 1999; torn left ACL, Sept. 2001
2000: 16 games, 282 rushes, 1,024 yards, six TDs; 42 catches, 382 yards, 0 TDs; 2002: No comeback attempted Terrell Davis, Denver
Torn ACL, partially torn MCL, cartilage damage, Oct. 1999
2000: Five games [suffered unrelated ankle, lower leg problems], 78 rushes, 282 yards, two TDs

and...
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/11-30-2006/0004482537&EDATE=THU+Nov+30+2006,+12:01+AM


The American Journal of Sports Medicine has conducted the first study to measure an NFL player's performance before and after an ACL injury. The news is, for the most part, not good.

In nine to twelve months, 79% of players that sustain ACL injuries will return to compete in the NFL. That's the good news. But of those who do come back, they're going to see a decline in production by about one-third. Now, I'm not exactly sure how the American Journal of Sports Medicine measures NFL performance, but I'm guessing that their method isn't as intricate or accurate as, say, DPAR or DVOA. They went by measuring touchdowns and yardage ... not the most scientific of methods, but I suppose it will do. And what they found is a decrease in production of about one-third.

The reasons for this, they say, could include knee pain, stiffness, loss of strength, deconditioning and reduced proprioception (the sense of knowing where your leg is). I'm sure that proprioception is a concept that John Madden will cover in-depth on the next Sunday Night broadcast.

Obviously, there are exceptions, and there are players that have come back from ACL injuries to excel. Edgerrin James, Jamal Lewis and Willis McGahee come immediately to mind, but I'm sure there are more. But for every one of those, there's a handful of others that never got close to where they were before. Like Terrell Davis, for example.

[Limee]

Cheers for that. I thought it was the MCL, but then I thought that would have made him more of a question mark for this season so I started to think it must have been something else.

Too late for that much thinking.:confused:

[R4Life]

Cheers for that. I thought it was the MCL, but then I thought that would have made him more of a question mark for this season so I started to think it must have been something else.

Too late for that much thinking.:confused:

I hope he has a grade one tear. I would hate to see Lamont even drop off 10% much less 33%. He has the potential to be a great WC offense back - he catches well and runs hard, but his durability is in question. He doesn't have great speed and his blocking skills are mediocre, but he runs good routes and he's a smart player.

Also I found this from a fantasy football perspective
For 2006 they had LJ ranked at 9-12 out of available running backs.
For 2007 he's ranked 29 - 33 depending on where you look.

and more from the FF folks:

Jordan didn't need a season-ending injury to be considered a major fantasy bust. This guy was drafted in the late first or early second round of most fantasy drafts this season, and has plagued his fantasy owners all year. After posting nearly 1,600 all purpose yards and 11 total touchdowns in 2005, Lamont finished with only 434 rushing yards and two scores this year. It sounds like this is only an MCL injury as opposed to being an ACL injury, so keeper league owners should feel reasonably safe in assuming that Jordan will be healthy to start the beginning of next year.

[SoCalRaider]

4. While I think Peterson is a great player, I just don't think you pass up a franchise QB if you have the chance for a RB. Furthermore, why not take Russell at #1 and a guy like Kenny Irons in round 2? Then both problems are solved... franchise QB acquired and another quality RB added to the mix at a cost that isn't prohibitive at the position.



This is where the Pro - QB argument fails in my opinion. This whole argument is based on the invalid premise that JRuss is already a "franchise QB" while Peterson is just "a RB". Don't buy it... not for a second. If JRuss is a franchise QB, then Peterson is LaDanian Tomlinson... and for those of us living within shouting distance of San Diego, we are fully aware that Tomlinson has more than outlived his 3 year expiration date. I'll take 10 years of Tomlinson right now over waiting 3 or 4 years for 10 years of Elway.

[gst8]

At this point I just want the player that will be the best pro. Hopefully one of these guys will separate himself from the pack in the next few weeks and make it a clear cut choice. I'm just glad it's not me that has to make the decision.

[Crow]

I'm the biggest Andrew Walter supporter out there, but I'm warming to the idea of a quarterback, truth be told.

Sorry to dig up such an old post/thread, but I had to re-read this just to make sure I read it right.

Teeg is waivering in her support of AWAL? Oh my. I think that leaves me as damn near the only one left.

[TommyGirl]

Sorry to dig up such an old post/thread, but I had to re-read this just to make sure I read it right.

Teeg is waivering in her support of AWAL? Oh my. I think that leaves me as damn near the only one left.

Warming to the idea doesn't mean that I'm prepared to say Quinn or Russell is the "one." Who I would pick changes from day to day, all the way from saying Russell is good, to Johnson, to Peterson, to trading down and picking up a DT.

So much was wrong with the offense last year that I find myself thinking, "It simply cannot be as bad as it looked." Those thoughts automatically translate into me wanting another year to evaluate what's there before there's a knee-jerk reaction. That's all.

[BigPoppaPump]

Crow, if you are behind Walter, than I am with ya'. I am not sold on him being bad yet.

[TheNextStep]

I'm not sold on Walter being bad yet either... but I'm also not sold on him being good enough to put all of our eggs in that basket just yet either...

[Turo]

Agreed. Not sold on having one QB on our roster, either.

[BigPoppaPump]

Don't get me wrong, just cause I have not given up on Andrew does not make me a total fool. I want a legit vet in here that does not look like a washed up actor in a stoopid motorcycle road trip movie.

[Langlier]

I think if nothing else the signings today really reinforce the smashmouth football aspect

we just picked up 4 guys to supplement it.

[BigPoppaPump]

Hmmmm.....maybe I was onto something here, no?

[Jack's sore libido]

I don't think you have to draft Peterson to become a smashmouth team.

How about Joe Thomas?

[SoCalRaider]

I don't think you have to draft Peterson to become a smashmouth team.

How about Joe Thomas?

Agreed... I remember those Giants teams under Parcells... 3 yards and a pile of dust... I thought Joe Morris and Otis Anderson were very mediocre backs... Goes to show how under-rated game management and time of possession have become.

With our defense, I could live with the 3-deep backup RB by committee we've put together... IF we had an established QB that knew how to hang onto the ball.

[Limee]

I concur. We need a QB that can manage the game and not give the ball away to the opposition and we should be able to get back to some sort of respectability. We would still need to strengthen the Oline.