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. 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?