Of course even more deceptive... look at how many offensive skill positiions are being held by players 31 and older.....
We're not talking about putting a body out there, we're talking about the ability to win a division. And if most rookies aren't "worhless" in a relative sense, then the Raiders would have more of a chance of winning the division. But it's veteran experience and ability that wins divisions.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steelerfan_2004)</div><div class='quotemain'>But it's veteran experience and ability that wins divisions.</div> Uh, SF.... I was going to say that veterans usually have spent a few years in the league, hence the handle of veteren, but I'm sure that it wouldn't make sense. Which side of the slice of toast do you want buttered? I'm having a hard time keeping up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steelerfan_2004)</div><div class='quotemain'>Of course even more deceptive... look at how many offensive skill positiions are being held by players 31 and older.....</div> Let's break it down even further. Tyrone Wheatley is in much better shape than other RB's at his age. Since Gruden and Callahan came and left, Wheatey's role in the offense was severely diminished in favor of Charlie Garner. In fact, he's only started 38 of the 119 NFL games that he's played. My point is that his body has not received the punishment that other active RB's his age have accumulated. So we could conclude that he's more like someone 5 years younger in terms of durability, which has been what this discussion was about. Also, how can anyone put Jerry Rice into a bell curve of any kind in terms of durability? The guy is a freak of nature. Aside from that nasty season-ending injury back in '97, the guy never misses a game due to injury. Even at 41, I would consider him an exception, and really shouldn't be in this discussion. As far as Gannon's durability, that's why we signed a capable backup in Kerry Collins. Out of all the skilled positions, Gannon is probably the most likely to go down to injury. With this new, high-dollar offensive line, we shouldn't have to worry about that too much this year. <knock on wood>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Send Em Back Al)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steelerfan_2004)</div><div class='quotemain'>But it's veteran experience and ability that wins divisions.</div> Uh, SF.... I was going to say that veterans usually have spent a few years in the league, hence the handle of veteren, but I'm sure that it wouldn't make sense. Which side of the slice of toast do you want buttered? I'm having a hard time keeping up.</div> Yes, but veteran can be 28, not 23.... but when you talk about 38, fragility comes to mind. Stop twisting Chip.... You won't confuse me with your tricky words!
When does age become a hindrance? It's just a matter of time... Why do you think Pittsburgh let Gildon go? Because he had tons of veteran experience? No, he was slowing down... was a liability. What's the problem here? Are you guys afraid to admit that there is high risk in having old players?
The other issue is not just the average age, but whether or not you are putting individuals out on the field that are simply not going to be able to keep up towards the end of the season. By putting a man who won't last the entire season in a skill position, it is often like not manning that position at all or worse. In my opinion, the following people are getting to the point where I wouldn't want to rely on them: Gannon Rice Wheatley Crockett Washington Sapp I would say that two linemen, a QB, and two running back's who are on the back end of their career is quite a bit to put on the field and hope to have last the entire season.
Whoa Viking fan lets think about this, Corners are more the skill position on defence and we have younger and much better corners then the Vikes (woodson will sign the postons need their crack money) Gannon gets hurt one year removed from MVP and all of a sudden he's worthless? Ok... I'd rather have him then your QB who turns the ball over and gets hurt as well. Gus is great though I love that guy. Rice, I don't know what to say about this guy he's still amazing. Wheatley will start....hmmm....I'm almost positive.....well....sorta....Fargus is a great talent and Al Davis will make Turner see that just watch. Vikes are a young talented team and very fun to watch however, Mike Tice has never made the playoffs since taking the team over from Green, I'm not sure what that means but the Vikes sure made the playoffs 7/10 years green coached then all of a sudden the best offensive team in the leage misses the playoffs three years straight. Those in glass houses should not throw stones.
Whoa whoa whoa...quite a response here. Let's see.... You would take Gannon over Culpepper? Let's look at last years stats: Culpepper CMP% - 65.0 TD - 25 INT - 11 RATING - 96.4 Gannon CMP% - 55.6 TD - 6 INT - 4 RATING - 73.5 Gannon in his MVP Year CMP% - 67.6 TD - 26 INT - 10 RATING - 97.3 Now I understand Gannon was hurt most of the year, but his stats weren't as good. And if you look at Gannon's stats from his MVP year, they are strikingly similar to what Culpepper did last year, except Culpepper also rushed for 422 yards and 4 TD's while Gannon picked up only 156 yards and 3 TD's. Don't get me wrong...I really like Gannon (he was formed by the Vikings). But just looking at the stats, Culpepper is just as good as Gannon, just younger and beginning to enter into the prime of his career, while Gannon is obviously on his way out. Rice is awesome and always will be, but he's old and has lost a step. He is not the threat he once used to be, plain and simple. Every football fan has respect for him, as do I, but you have to admit when a guy gets old. The running back situation is a question for the raiders. The CB position is a skill position, but I would say having a solid D-Line is more important. You really need both. The Raiders are manning a good defense, but I question whether the D-Line will hold up throughout the whole year. I don't know what to think about your comments on the Vikings making the playoffs 7 years out of 10. To me that is a compliment and a testament to the quality of team that they are. We haven't been to the playoffs in three years...that's not uncommon in the world of the NFL. Overall, I am just commenting on whether the Raiders can take the division. That is the question of this thread. The answer, IMO, is not with the personell they are putting on the field...I think there are too many skill positions that are too old to last all season long.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>...we got rid of the pass happy Bill.</div> Raiders W/L/T, I always thought Al was the big proponent of the "vertical passing game". Broncos offense seems to be stumbling in the preseason a little though, so maybe 2nd place? Nah! I will stay with 3rd place in the division for this year. That's the great thing about football. The Raiders will have every opportunity to prove me wrong. Just don't let SD catch you. They rolled up 30-some points on somebody today.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kcgsc)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>...we got rid of the pass happy Bill.</div> Raiders W/L/T, I always thought Al was the big proponent of the "vertical passing game". </div> I went to the game last night. I must say, we all got our money's worth for this "exhibition game" that came down to the final drive. Regarding the vertical passing game, it seemed like we didn't run the ball at all in the entire 2nd half, even though we were leading the entire game!
