LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Wilson is solid, Hall is outstanding. Of the four gambles, if one pans out well and one pans out decently, you have to consider that a solid off season.Originally Posted by ASUcruz
Considering how notoriously ****ty of a place Oakland is to play, I don't think you can realistically ask for much better of an offseason.
Hall can be outstanding but he can also be a complete idiot. Having 2 outstanding CBs is a great thing but your secondary is only as good as your defensive line. That second round pick could have been used on another dlineman to help our pass rush, I would have been find with a Aso-Washington/Routt secondary if our pass rush was solidified. I don't know if the opportunity cost of trading for Hall is worth that second round pick.
See your thinking of all our off-season moves as gambles. The Wilson move wasn't a gamble, that was more or less a safe play.
If 3 of the low end moves are decent but the Walker move is a disaster than it wasn't a solid off-season, plain and simple, considering all the money that was paid to the guy up front. Anyways, you calling this season "excellent" is far too premature.
See your buying into the hype/propaganda that other teams like to throw onto the Raiders. That no one wants to play there, Al Davis is crazy, etc. While Davis might be a bit off his rocker, NFL players will go where the money is. If we offered Travis Henry more guaranteed money he would have signed with us instead of Denver. It's retarded to believe the theory that "Oakland is a ****ty place to play". NFL players love money, that's the bottom line.
Case in point, the Raiders were thought to be in disarray after Davis traded Gruden away. That off-season we signed Rod Woodson as well as other veteran players(John Parrela being another good example).
Of course players go where the money is... but given the option between two similar paydays, Oakland and anywhere else, anywhere else is the likely choice.
Jerry Porter said it perfectly when he said that it doesn't matter how much talent you have, if you fire your head coach every single year, every year a guy comes in, preaches a new system, everyone has to re-learn it, struggle, coach gets fired, repeat...
Your oversimplification that "NFL players love money" might be true but it doesn't account for players that love to win or players that like to play for good owners/coaches.
Even without buying into the bad place to play belief, the team is still 19 - 61 over the last 5 years. It can't be a fun place to play.
How many teams, in your opinion, have had better off-seasons?
The NFL off-season isn't as active as any other sports. A lot depends on the draft. By free agent moves alone both Cleveland and Philly had better off-seasons than the Raiders.
You seem to think that the Raiders just by being active is considered "excellent". It's not, I'm happy that the Raiders are players in the free agent market but just doling out cash doesn't equal a successful off-season, especially taking into account the huge gambles the Raiders have taken in Javon Walker and Tommy Kelly.
Again, I'm glad the Raiders are active but you can't say this has been an "excellent off-season", certainly not to the point where I would be comfortable giving up draft picks, the jury is still out on basically all our free agent moves with the exception of Gibril Wilson. Active does not equal excellent.
If we plan to draft Dorsey or Ellis to play at UT and move Kelly to DE then I would be upset, Kelly is average at DE. I've never seen anything from him that I liked when he played there, he provides absolutely no pressure and his run defense from there is not good enough that I like him at DE. The only position I would want Kelly to start is UT, that position suits him the best. Ahtyha RubinPat Sims, Marcus Harrison, or Red Bryant are some DT's that I think will be better be looking for in the later rounds. I honestly believe the Raiders payed Kelly all that money to take over Sapps position, so...right now I don't like the chances of us drafting Ellis or Dorsey, until I see I see something were they say Kelly is still a DE, which will piss me off.
If these gambles don't pay off we won't feel the effects till a couple years down the road, when they're still pulling in a massive salary and producing jack ****ing crap.
I do like the Hall trade though. We've really bolstered our secondary with Hall and Wilson. Hopefully Al won't trade away our first round pick, we have a real chance at getting another stud.
I wouldn't mind it. I think the Raiders did pay Kelly all that money to take over Sapp's position but they also did it for his versatility. On running downs, Kelly is a decent RDE to hold up against the run. On passing downs when he moves inside, that gives the Raiders 2 very penetrators provided they draft Dorsey/Ellis. They certainly wouldn't be playing Kelly exclusively at DE, he would be moved around a ton, like he normally is. I don't mind him at DE, he's solid, he's definitely not a a premier DE but he can play at that position and move inside for running downs.
Here's a quote from Bill Bellicek about Kelly.
"Tommy Kelly. is one of the best defensive linemen in the league. He's an outstanding player…Kelly plays everywhere. He's a little bit like Howie Long in that Howie Long was a guy that they would move along on the front. They would take Howie and mismatch him against whoever they thought the other team's worst lineman was. There is a little bit of that with Tommy Kelly., too, find a guy that they want to go after and stick him there because he does have the flexibility to play outside and inside. He can pretty much play across the board. He can do everything. Play the run, rush the passer, he's good in pursuit. He's a very physical player. He's pretty good."
The only potential cap killing contracts are Kelly and Walker. And Walker's deal is heavily front loaded(I believe). He got 11 million up front! So cutting bait with him after 2 years or so wouldn't kill us cap wise.
For all the critisism they get, the Raiders are actually very, very good at managing the cap. We don't have to cheat like the Broncos! So I'm not too worried about "bad deals" killing us, its more the on the field production that gives me pause.
I'm still on the fence with this deal. Reports are the Raiders are willing to give Hall close to what Asante Samuel got. I would rather keep the 2nd round pick and sign Aso a superior player to that deal. The Raiders would be playing with fire if they give Hall that big a deal, I think it would really be hard to re-sign Aso long term.
Source: After trade to Raiders, Hall to get seven-year, $70 million deal
ESPN - Source: After trade to Raiders, Hall to get seven-year, $70 million deal - NFL
A source told ESPN's Chris Mortensen that the deal is for seven years and worth $70 million. The amount of guaranteed money and bonuses in the contract have not been finalized.
The source also told Mortensen the teams are discussing possibly more compensation than just a second-round pick for the Raiders to acquire Hall, a two-time All-Pro.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote