The Raiders may win the division if they end up playing in a seniors league. I seriously don't see them going very far this year. The Chiefs will be good again (you said that the Raiders could win *if* people found a way to stop Holmes and Gonzales...good luck with that), the Broncos play tough every year, and the Raiders are simply too old to go anywhere. I think the Raiders will play well, but in the end, their legs will give out halfway through the season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>The Raiders may win the division if they end up playing in a seniors league. I seriously don't see them going very far this year. The Chiefs will be good again (you said that the Raiders could win *if* people found a way to stop Holmes and Gonzales...good luck with that), the Broncos play tough every year, and the Raiders are simply too old to go anywhere. I think the Raiders will play well, but in the end, their legs will give out halfway through the season.</div> That's the same old cliche that every talking head keeps saying about the Raiders, even right up to the day of the AFC Championship two years ago. They were fortunate to escape injuries that year, even with their alleged "senior citizen" age roster. Since then, most of the "old" guys are no longer on this team, and we've seen an infusion of young, high-draft-pick talent come on board. Now, anywhere that you might see an old starter, the Raiders have sufficient depth at that position to withstand injuries. Cases-in-point, Collins backing up Gannon, and the depth at WR that surrounds Jerry Rice (who really doesn't need to carry the burden whatsoever anyway). Tim Brown, Rod Woodson, and Bill Romonowski were expendable, and the world will soon see that.
the problem i see is unecessary signings! Philip Buchanon WILL BE A STAR in this league if given a chance but then u sign a 80 yr old ray buchanon and then u sign Ted Washington who is a 3-4 specialist and install him into a 4-3. PLus the signing of Zeroiue and Hambrick plus the addition of already having Fargas, Wheately(is he still there?), and Crockett>>>.... IT ALL JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE
I actually like the Raiders this year just cause they are attempting their own version of our defense and with big Ted in the middle you know they can stop Priest....I really think if Rob Ryan can get this defense to gel and get aclimated to their new style I think they could easily contend for the division because the cheifs D picked up right where it left off last season and the broncos have some question marks as well. Another key on defense is getting Woodson to show up every game. He could be great but as a trash attitude and it keeps him from relizing his full potential. I think the division is hardly going to be handed to the cheifs this year as it was last year though they are still the favorite. We all know the raiders will make themselves intresting one way or the other so lets hope they make it intresting by contending.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Giantsfan12004)</div><div class='quotemain'>the problem i see is unecessary signings! Philip Buchanon WILL BE A STAR in this league if given a chance but then u sign a 80 yr old ray buchanon and then u sign Ted Washington who is a 3-4 specialist and install him into a 4-3. PLus the signing of Zeroiue and Hambrick plus the addition of already having Fargas, Wheately(is he still there?), and Crockett>>>.... IT ALL JUST DOESNT MAKE SENSE</div> Are you aware that teams will be trimming their roster sizes before the regular season starts? They're all competeing for jobs right now. Nearly every position is up for grabs right now except for maybe kicker and punter. Ray Buchanon is playing in Rod Woodson's old role at free safety while Phillip Buchanon is a cornerback. The Raiders *are* using a 3-4 scheme this year. As of right now, the starters are John Parrella, Warren Sapp, and Ted Washington. Rob Ryan even took a couple of DE's from last season and have converted them to OLB's. Yes, Wheatley is still there, is still the #1 HB, and gained 6.6 yards per carry against the 49er's first team last Saturday. Granted, the 9ers are playing without Ahmed Plummer and Julian Peterson, he still broke one into the secondary and leveled Tony Parrish. Now, what doesn't make sense to you?
At least I have Mr.ROTR on my side. Wheatley, plows into KC this yr, and the Wr burst out of the secondary and score everytime like Rice did last yr. Chiefs were not all hot shit last year.Like I said, Barely edged Raiders twice, barely beat SD of all teams, and lost to the Bengals. HELLLOOOOOOO, the Bengals!? And they barely beat the Steelers. So answer that, and sorry nothing about the O-line and 6 pro bowl crap will answer that Q.
cmon! the bengals are a good team and will be this year.... if i were to make a list of favorite teams of all 32....itd be: 1. eagles 2. chiefs 3. bengals 4. colts and so on so thats why i root for some of those teams more often than not
Remember the longest run from Dayne (60+ yds.) was not against our starters. I thought they showed some improvement (with the exception of that waste of a #1 pick Ryan Sims). Eric Hicks was in the backfield several times, disrupting plays. Dayne only broke a 27 tarder off against the starters. Not that that's good, but take out that one play and the first team performed ok. I think the Raiders will be better than last year, but I don't believe they are ready to contend for the division just yet. It is about time for the AFC West animosity to return though. I was getting kinda tired of being nice to you guys in the off-season. lol!
I think that the Raiders will compete and will return to top form over the next few seasons, but this year they won't quite reach Division Champs. Kansas City should win the division, and Denver should follow. If Oakland can beat out Denver for the second spot, I'd be very impressed....
kcgsc, EcoDaddy, I had to create an account on these forums just so I could set you both straight, Gannon was hurt all but 4 games last year, and our 2nd string QB went down in the same game. That being said Trent Green is the most underated QB in the NFL, however, he's recievers are subpar. Holmes is not great, make no mistake here, he benefits from one of the best Olines in football and a great system. The Raiders also vastly improved their O-line and D-Line. The weapons are still there on offence and we got rid of the pass happy Bill. vikingfan, Accirding to ESPN.com the average age of your team is Average Age: 28.4 The Raiders after losing Brown, Romo, Woodson, Robbins, Kennedy, now are Average Age: 28.6 And Rice and Gannon are bringing both of those up so, you have no clue. Can the Raiders win the division, you better believe it. O-Line and D-line mean everything in the NFL.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaidersW/L/TUntilIDIE)</div><div class='quotemain'> vikingfan, Accirding to ESPN.com the average age of your team is Average Age: 28.4 The Raiders after losing Brown, Romo, Woodson, Robbins, Kennedy, now are Average Age: 28.6 And Rice and Gannon are bringing both of those up so, you have no clue. Can the Raiders win the division, you better believe it. O-Line and D-line mean everything in the NFL.</div> Welcome to the forums...I'm glad to see you posting! Regarding your statistic, it is bad statistical analysis, simply put. If you take the average age of any team you are assuming that all players are of equal value. For example, Gannon is one of the most important members of the team as he touches the ball on every offensive play. Tyrone Wheately is extremely important as he is going to get a lot of touches. Rice is extremely important as well. Just look at your starters and tell me that there is barely any age difference between the Raiders and the Vikings. If you still insist on that, then, my friend, it is you who have no clue.
Good call VF... He's definitely got a point New Raider fan. It should be the average age of the starters, not the whole team. A bunch of worthless rookie backups shouldn't really count in the average...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RaidersW/L/TUntilIDIE)</div><div class='quotemain'> vikingfan, Accirding to ESPN.com the average age of your team is Average Age: 28.4 The Raiders after losing Brown, Romo, Woodson, Robbins, Kennedy, now are Average Age: 28.6 And Rice and Gannon are bringing both of those up so, you have no clue. Can the Raiders win the division, you better believe it. O-Line and D-line mean everything in the NFL.</div> Welcome to the forums...I'm glad to see you posting! Regarding your statistic, it is bad statistical analysis, simply put. If you take the average age of any team you are assuming that all players are of equal value. For example, Gannon is one of the most important members of the team as he touches the ball on every offensive play. Tyrone Wheately is extremely important as he is going to get a lot of touches. Rice is extremely important as well. Just look at your starters and tell me that there is barely any age difference between the Raiders and the Vikings. If you still insist on that, then, my friend, it is you who have no clue.</div> Guys, you're changing the subject. This has never been about who's team is younger. Here is the original response: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'> The Raiders may win the division if they end up playing in a seniors league. I seriously don't see them going very far this year. The Chiefs will be good again (you said that the Raiders could win *if* people found a way to stop Holmes and Gonzales...good luck with that), the Broncos play tough every year, and the Raiders are simply too old to go anywhere. I think the Raiders will play well, but in the end, their legs will give out halfway through the season..</div> The topic is not how close the the Raiders avg age is to the Vikings, but instead, whether or not the Raiders legs will fall off halfway through the season and that they can only win the seniors league. Upon further review, when removing all the backups and only including the two starting teams : wheatley 32 crockett 31 gannon 38 rice 41 porter 26 l walker 24 r stone 33 j grove 24 b sims 29 r gallery 24 d jolley 25 29.72 avg age offense w sapp 31 t washington 36 j parrella 33 t brayton 25 d rudd 28 n harris 25 s williams 24 c woodson 27 [contract holdout] / n asomugha 23 r buchanan 33 d gibson 25 p buchanon 23 28.18 [with Woodson] / 27.81 [without Woodson] avg age defense 28.9545 [with Woodson] / 28.7727 [without woodson] offense and defense combined avg age So assuming that Charles Woodson will sign on sometime soon, The Raiders starters' average age (removing all backups from this equation) is 28.9545 RaidersW/L/TUntilIDIE's whole team fgure 28.6 The difference between the two numbers : 0.3545 years or 4.254 months The wheels are not going to fall off, the Raiders are young enough to compete, and contrary to what you believe, RaidersW/L/TUntilIDIE knows exactly what he's talking about.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steelerfan_2004)</div><div class='quotemain'>Good call VF... He's definitely got a point New Raider fan. It should be the average age of the starters, not the whole team. A bunch of worthless rookie backups shouldn't really count in the average...</div> Hyperbole from SF? Say it ain't so... Based on his personna, I'd say that the most recent Silver and Black devotee (on this site) is not a "new RAIDER fan." The issue of age is either more or less important depending on the position in question. In general, all things being equal, ould you rather have: 1. A 24 year-old QB or RB? 2. A 23, 27, or 30 year-old center? 3. A 41 year-old WR or a 41 year-old head coach? I guess that numbers and statistics don't mean much until you put them in perspective. And my perspective may not be yours (duh)... So the average age of starters is something than can have a value based upon it because of perspective, and is not an absolute answer to anything anymore than the average age of all players on a team. BTW VF, I guess we can add "bad statistics" to the list of kinds there are. BTW SF, worthless rookies? They're worth at least the league minimum... Wish I was that worthless.
