Chris Chambers cut

[Raidermania12]

The wide receiver who made the best catch of the game Sunday against the Raiders has suddenly become available.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports veteran wide receiver Chris Chambers, who reached up and grabbed a 20-yard pass from Philip Rivers while looking directly into the sun and being tightly covered by Nnamdi Asomugha, was cut Tuesday.

It was the only completion Asomugha surrendered all day.

“Chambers said that he couldn’t even see the ball,” Asomugha told reporters afterward. That’s what Philip does. Every time I play him, if he throws one ball at me, it’s going to be that back-shoulder fade because he knows it’s the toughest to cover of any route that you could possibly give a man-to-man corner.

“He throws it with the best of them. He told me after the game, it’s always that route that he’s looking for. So, it was tough. And it just missed my hand, too. You don’t have time to look back for it, all you have to do is put a hand there. But it happens.”

Chambers is subject to waivers because he was let go after the trade deadline. It would cost the Raiders $2.4 million to sign him for the rest of the season, making it unlikely they’d make a move until they could sign him to a new contract.

In his 10th season, Chambers has 482 career receptions for 6,827 yards (14.2 yards per catch) and 53 touchdowns. He has nine catches for 122 yards this season _ which would place him second among Raiders wideouts _ but lost his starting job to Malcom Floyd.

More to come following Tom Cable press conference . . .
http://www.ibabuzz.com/oaklandraiders/2009/11/02/chambers-available/
Though I know we won't, damnit we should!! He can at least run crossing routes.

[RaiderJF]

Yes, he would immediately become our best receiver.

No, we won't sign him.

Remember Al already has one veteran receiver that he won't let have any snaps for fear that he might outplay one of his prized rookies.

[boknowsvt]

When asked if the Raiders might consider veteran Chris Chambers, released by San Diego, Cable said, “I don’t think so at this point with who we have.”

Seriously? Does he think DHB and Murphy are better? Cable is pissing me off more and more each day.

[poptart]

“I don’t think so at this point with who we have.”

Murphy - 16 catches, 232 yds, 1 TD
Bey - 5 catches, 74 yds, 0 TDs
Watkins - 5 catches, 59 yds, 0 TDs
Higgins - 2 catches, 8 yds, 0 TDs
Walker - 0, 0, 0


Looks like unadulterated dogshit to me, "coach" Cable.

You suck fat horsecock.

[TheMadStork]

I'm sure Cable would love to have Chambers, but he's parrotting the company line. Contradict the Great and Powerful Wizard of Alameda and you get the overhead projector treatment.

[Madturk]

I'm sure there are a lot of things Cable would like to change but towing the company line will be his only chance of returning next year. It probably wouldn't hurt if he handed over the play calling duties to someone else either.

[Rupert]

Yes, he would immediately become our best receiver.

No, we won't sign him.

Remember Al already has one veteran receiver that he won't let have any snaps for fear that he might outplay one of his prized rookies.

We will not sign him, but not because we're worried about the prized rookies being outplayed. That's just ridiculous. We're rebuilding. When you rebuild you put the kids on the field and suffer through their struggles.

I know Raiders fans have never dealt with this, but if you follow any other sports, you've probably had to deal with it at one time or another. Lakers with Valde Divac, Eldon Campbell, and Nick Van Excel (not to mention Dull Harris). How about those Celtics in the 90's? Brutal. Pick a team, most of them have gone through a rebuild. Some of them several. Florida Marlins anyone? The Cleveland Browns seem to do it every two or three seasons. Arizona Cardinals and Diamondbacks. The list goes on and on.

[hawaiianboy]

Do we really want to pick up the 2+ million owed to him this year when he hasn't been able to get open or catch the ball consistently the past two years with coverages rolled to Vincent Jackson and Gates and with Rivers slinging it?... Do we really want another guy whose personal life has become an issue?...

Maybe you pay the money and roll the dice on Chambers revisiting 2005-06 if you have a shot at something, but at 2-6?...

I agree with Cable on this one...

[RaiderJF]

We will not sign him, but not because we're worried about the prized rookies being outplayed. That's just ridiculous. We're rebuilding. When you rebuild you put the kids on the field and suffer through their struggles.



Yes, I agree with you that this would be ridculous. But if you think "ridiculous" is outside of how this organization functions, then you haven't been watching with your eyes open.

[Raider Nation]

Do we really want to pick up the 2+ million owed to him this year when he hasn't been able to get open or catch the ball consistently the past two years with coverages rolled to Vincent Jackson and Gates and with Rivers slinging it?... Do we really want another guy whose personal life has become an issue?...

Maybe you pay the money and roll the dice on Chambers revisiting 2005-06 if you have a shot at something, but at 2-6?...

I agree with Cable on this one...

Considering San Diego gave up a 2nd round pick to get this guy 2 years ago, it looks pretty foolish in hindsight. We already have 1 veteran WR who will not be released from the bench. The only value Chambers would add given the organization's blind commitment to Murphy & DHB would be to give Walker a buddy to swap Vegas stories on the bench with.

[Sabers]

You pick up a Chris Chambers if you're just one or two players away from really going somewhere this season. Is there anyone, other than Al Davis, who really believes that about the Raiders?

G.
'09 for COOP and 'CANE!

[Raider Bill]

You pick up a Chris Chambers if you're just one or two players away from really going somewhere this season. Is there anyone, other than Al Davis, who really believes that about the Raiders?

G.
'09 for COOP and 'CANE!

The same could be said about Seymour and Gregg Ellis

[Stanny]

I think the Chefs picked him up already.

[raiderdog]

Chiefs claim Chris Chambers
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on November 3, 2009 4:38 PM ET
Chris Chambers didn't stay out of work for long.

In a minor upset, Chambers was claimed by the Chiefs Tuesday off waivers, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter. Chambers is due roughly $2.4 million for the second half of this season, and many folks thought that no one would pay that kind of money for a declining receiver. (It's not like the Chargers couldn't use a consistent wideout.)

Of course, there is no rule that the Chiefs have to keep Chambers for long. They can get an up close look at him for a while before deciding how to use him.

Kansas City's wide receiver group is thin after Dwayne Bowe, with Mark Bradley, Bobby Wade, and Bobby Engram all fighting for snaps.

[hawaiianboy]

The same could be said about Seymour and Gregg Ellis

That doesn't make any sense... Both those guys were coming off productive seasons and acquired in the off season... Chambers hasn't done dick in two years... The same could be said of Jovan Walker sure, but I don't see why anyone should have problems with the Seymour or Ellis pick ups...

[Raider Bill]

That doesn't make any sense... Both those guys were coming off productive seasons and acquired in the off season... Chambers hasn't done dick in two years... The same could be said of Jovan Walker sure, but I don't see why anyone should have problems with the Seymour or Ellis pick ups...

By the time we get any good, neither of them will be here.

Or another way of looking at it, we would be 3-13 with or without those guys.

I don't give a rats ass either way about Chambers. It really doesnt matter unitl the owner stops fawning over his players like some benevolent grandfather and allows the coach to start breaking his foot off in some asses and demanding some accountability

[Angry Pope]

We are carrying $28 million dollars in dead cap money this year. In the past, we tended to keep our checkbooks in our pockets and go with what we have...unless we were contenders. We aren't contenders and Chambers doesn't make us one at this point of the season. As always, just my opinion.

[poptart]

I'm not high on Chambers, but I am LOW (VERY low) on Cable saying, "With who we have at receiver."

What a useless fuckin' tool.

[Rupert]

Yes, I agree with you that this would be ridculous. But if you think "ridiculous" is outside of how this organization functions, then you haven't been watching with your eyes open.

No, I just don't think it makes sense to shit on the girl I brought to the dance because she's got a headache. I can wait until it clears up. I'm sensitive like that. :pound: