|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
I don't know how many of you remember, but before the season I had said JaMarcus Russell would have a better season than Derek Anderson. I also said he is a better QB. You all gave me crap because I put down your "pro bowl" QB, so I said I would come back at the end of the season. Of course, JaMarcus didn't have a great season, but he did fine considering he had 2 coaches and 3 playcallers this season. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/8255 - JaMarcus Russell http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/7389 - Derek Anderson I'm not bragging or gloating by any means - just keeping my promise.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Please don't lump "all" of us together. I have NEVER, EVER, been a DA fan. 
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,558
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,558 |
Don't know how you can say that Russell had a better season when they both averaged the same amount of Yards per game passing. Russell does hold a slight lead in TDs (13 to 9) but he also played in 5 more games.
#gmstrong
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,435
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,435 |
Well snucks let's see,
DA and JR averaged the same amount of yards per game.
JR had about a 10 point better qb average and 3 percent better completion percentage
DA had 10 total turnovers in 10 games, 1 a game avg, and JR 15 in 15 games, 1 a game avg as well.
JR had 14 total tds, little under 1 a game and DA had 9, just under 1 a game for him as well.
JR had over 2 sacks a game, DA had 1.4.
well, looks even to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Quote:
Don't know how you can say that Russell had a better season when they both averaged the same amount of Yards per game passing. Russell does hold a slight lead in TDs (13 to 9) but he also played in 5 more games.
I used the QB rating: Russell had 77.1 and Anderson had 66.5.
And Anderson still had more interceptions than Russell even though he played 5 games less.
I am not saying Russell had a great season. I was talking crap on Anderson before the season and some of you told me to come back at the end of the season, so here I am.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Quote:
Well snucks let's see,
DA and JR averaged the same amount of yards per game.
JR had about a 10 point better qb average and 3 percent better completion percentage
DA had 10 total turnovers in 10 games, 1 a game avg, and JR 15 in 15 games, 1 a game avg as well.
JR had 14 total tds, little under 1 a game and DA had 9, just under 1 a game for him as well.
JR had over 2 sacks a game, DA had 1.4.
well, looks even to me.
So your "pro bowl" QB was even with a guy who was basically a rookie?
Well, Jim lets see...
Cleveland has a better WR group than Oakland
Cleveland has a better O-line than Oakland (one Pro Bowler)
Cleveland has a better TE than Oakland (although I think Zach Miller will be one of the best some day)
I'm not sure how many play callers Cleveland had this season, but Oakland had 3 different ones
Russell's coach was fired during the season and Tom Cable took over
Al Davis doesn't run a great organization (some of you have mentioned this to me before - "senile" was frequently used).
So, Anderson was in a much better situation, yet managed to be terrible. JaMarcus was/is in arguably the worst situation possible for a young QB. Russell has showed, at least to me, that he can be a good quarterback. Russell has grown a lot, especially at the end of the season. You can't deny that.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,284 |
Quote:
Cleveland has a better WR group than Oakland
Not when your ONLY threat leads the league in drops
Quote:
Cleveland has a better O-line than Oakland (one Pro Bowler)
Our entire right side is garbage and got exposed this year.
Quote:
Cleveland has a better TE than Oakland (although I think Zach Miller will be one of the best some day)
Doesnt mean much if hes hurt most of the year
Oh yeah you forgot to mention Oaklands defense is much better then ours so Jamarcus could afford to make mistakes. Dont get me wrong here I wasnt a DA supporter but I didnt want him to fail.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,649 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 194
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 194 |
After this season, I'm more than certain that Anderson isn't the answer for the Browns. I'm also convinced that Russell isn't the answer for the Raiders. Let's be honest, neither of them are ever going to be elite quarterbacks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403 |
Quote:
Quote:
Well snucks let's see,
Cleveland has a better WR group than Oakland
Cleveland has a better O-line than Oakland (one Pro Bowler)
Cleveland has a better TE than Oakland (although I think Zach Miller will be one of the best some day)
I'm not sure how many play callers Cleveland had this season, but Oakland had 3 different ones
Russell's coach was fired during the season and Tom Cable took over
Al Davis doesn't run a great organization (some of you have mentioned this to me before - "senile" was frequently used).
Even if you two losers combined teams, you still couldn't come up with a competitive one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,371
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,371 |
Even if you learned how to post correctly you still couldn't come up with a competent one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403 |
Quote:
Even if you learned how to post correctly you still couldn't come up with a competent one.
A competent post? Oooookay 
Never quite heard it put that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Quote:
Even if you two losers combined teams, you still couldn't come up with a competitive one.
In 2006, when Oakland was 2-14, the Steelers lost to the Raiders.
So, apparently, we don't need a competent team to beat the Steelers. Just any old team will work.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403 |
Quote:
Quote:
Even if you two losers combined teams, you still couldn't come up with a competitive one.
In 2006, when Oakland was 2-14, the Steelers lost to the Raiders.
So, apparently, we don't need a competent team to beat the Steelers. Just any old team will work.
First of all I said competitive, not competent.
Secondly, what do both you losers combining teams to form one good one have to do with the Steelers anyway?
Since you mention beating the Steelers, I'm sure you've heard the old " even a blind squirrel finds the acorn once in a while" adage haven't you?
Well, that applies here.
You might be too young, but the Raiders/Steeler battles of the 70's were awesome. Our teams were the bad boys of the NFL. These two teams engaged in a lot of extra-curricular activities, and were accused of playing dirty, not only against each other, but with whomever they played. Those defenses beat the snot out of everybody. Yes those were the days. Too bad the Raiders' "Just Win Baby" slogan has kinda gone down the toilet. The Raiders have failed in keeping their winning tradition going and have pretty much become big time losers, and I know that's why you are here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Quote:
First of all I said competitive, not competent.
Secondly, what do both you losers combining teams to form one good one have to do with the Steelers anyway?
Since you mention beating the Steelers, I'm sure you've heard the old " even a blind squirrel finds the acorn once in a while" adage haven't you?
Well, that applies here.
You might be too young, but the Raiders/Steeler battles of the 70's were awesome. Our teams were the bad boys of the NFL. These two teams engaged in a lot of extra-curricular activities, and were accused of playing dirty, not only against each other, but with whomever they played. Those defenses beat the snot out of everybody. Yes those were the days. Too bad the Raiders' "Just Win Baby" slogan has kinda gone down the toilet. The Raiders have failed in keeping their winning tradition going and have pretty much become big time losers, and I know that's why you are here.
Since competitive teams are competent, I figured changing the word wasn't a big deal. Weren't you just telling me to be more "original"?
What does combining the teams have to do with the steelers? Nothing, really. I was just saying that a team doesn't need to be competitive to beat the steelers.
And since your adage implies that Oakland beats Pittsburgh "once in a while", I would like to let you know that Oakland is 9-8 against Pittsburgh all time. Although, I don't think that includes playoffs.
Yes, it was a great rivalry and I am too young to remember it (unfortunately). Oakland has dropped off recently, but our 2006 encounter shows that Oakland still has what it takes to beat the Steelers. You'll have to wait until next season to say otherwise.
And if "losers" do truly gather here, then that also explains why you never seem to leave.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,691
Raven
|
|
Raven
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,691 |
Quote:
Quote:
First of all I said competitive, not competent.
Secondly, what do both you losers combining teams to form one good one have to do with the Steelers anyway?
Since you mention beating the Steelers, I'm sure you've heard the old " even a blind squirrel finds the acorn once in a while" adage haven't you?
Well, that applies here.
You might be too young, but the Raiders/Steeler battles of the 70's were awesome. Our teams were the bad boys of the NFL. These two teams engaged in a lot of extra-curricular activities, and were accused of playing dirty, not only against each other, but with whomever they played. Those defenses beat the snot out of everybody. Yes those were the days. Too bad the Raiders' "Just Win Baby" slogan has kinda gone down the toilet. The Raiders have failed in keeping their winning tradition going and have pretty much become big time losers, and I know that's why you are here.
Since competitive teams are competent, I figured changing the word wasn't a big deal. Weren't you just telling me to be more "original"?
What does combining the teams have to do with the steelers? Nothing, really. I was just saying that a team doesn't need to be competitive to beat the steelers.
And since your adage implies that Oakland beats Pittsburgh "once in a while", I would like to let you know that Oakland is 9-8 against Pittsburgh all time. Although, I don't think that includes playoffs.
Yes, it was a great rivalry and I am too young to remember it (unfortunately). Oakland has dropped off recently, but our 2006 encounter shows that Oakland still has what it takes to beat the Steelers. You'll have to wait until next season to say otherwise.
And if "losers" do truly gather here, then that also explains why you never seem to leave.
  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,027 |
russell is a rookie, yet DA is supposed to be this seasoned veteran? sounds like you're twisting things there.
besides, like i mentioned in the turner post, we play in a divsion where we have to face the best defenses twice.
DA would have put up monster numbers if he was allowed to see any of those defenses in the west, twice a year. no doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Quote:
russell is a rookie, yet DA is supposed to be this seasoned veteran? sounds like you're twisting things there.
besides, like i mentioned in the turner post, we play in a divsion where we have to face the best defenses twice.
DA would have put up monster numbers if he was allowed to see any of those defenses in the west, twice a year. no doubt.
Before the season, some fans here were convinced that their "probowl QB" was seasoned and very talented. Maybe you do have to play tougher defenses, but if he truly was as good as some of you thought, he would have done better.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403 |
Quote:
Quote:
First of all I said competitive, not competent.
Secondly, what do both you losers combining teams to form one good one have to do with the Steelers anyway?
Since you mention beating the Steelers, I'm sure you've heard the old " even a blind squirrel finds the acorn once in a while" adage haven't you?
Well, that applies here.
You might be too young, but the Raiders/Steeler battles of the 70's were awesome. Our teams were the bad boys of the NFL. These two teams engaged in a lot of extra-curricular activities, and were accused of playing dirty, not only against each other, but with whomever they played. Those defenses beat the snot out of everybody. Yes those were the days. Too bad the Raiders' "Just Win Baby" slogan has kinda gone down the toilet. The Raiders have failed in keeping their winning tradition going and have pretty much become big time losers, and I know that's why you are here.
Since competitive teams are competent, I figured changing the word wasn't a big deal. Weren't you just telling me to be more "original"?
What does combining the teams have to do with the steelers? Nothing, really. I was just saying that a team doesn't need to be competitive to beat the steelers.
And since your adage implies that Oakland beats Pittsburgh "once in a while", I would like to let you know that Oakland is 9-8 against Pittsburgh all time. Although, I don't think that includes playoffs.
Yes, it was a great rivalry and I am too young to remember it (unfortunately). Oakland has dropped off recently, but our 2006 encounter shows that Oakland still has what it takes to beat the Steelers. You'll have to wait until next season to say otherwise.
And if "losers" do truly gather here, then that also explains why you never seem to leave.
Psst... "losers" as in fans of losing teams.
Yes, I realize the Steelers vs. Raiders are 8-8 (according to a Raider site).
My blind squirrel adage pertains to Oakland getting lucky once in a while, not neccessarily beating the Steelers once in a while.
Damn kids...ya gotta explain everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Quote:
Psst... "losers" as in fans of losing teams.
Yes, I realize the Steelers vs. Raiders are 8-8 (according to a Raider site).
My blind squirrel adage pertains to Oakland getting lucky once in a while, not neccessarily beating the Steelers once in a while.
Damn kids...ya gotta explain everything.
They are 9-8 (not 8-8). And Oakland is above .500 against 26 of the 31 other teams in the NFL (according to the Raider website). If you call it "lucky", it happens more often than once in a while. And you did mean against the Steelers, but you tried to change it when I proved you wrong.
You aren't doing a very good job of "explaining" everything to the kid.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403 |
Quote:
Quote:
Psst... "losers" as in fans of losing teams.
Yes, I realize the Steelers vs. Raiders are 8-8 (according to a Raider site).
My blind squirrel adage pertains to Oakland getting lucky once in a while, not neccessarily beating the Steelers once in a while.
Damn kids...ya gotta explain everything.
They are 9-8 (not 8-8). And Oakland is above .500 against 26 of the 31 other teams in the NFL (according to the Raider website). If you call it "lucky", it happens more often than once in a while. And you did mean against the Steelers, but you tried to change it when I proved you wrong.
You aren't doing a very good job of "explaining" everything to the kid.
It's not my fault that you're a little slow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Quote:
It's not my fault that you're a little slow.
It is not my fault you couldn't think of any response. You called me stupid because you didn't have a good response. Go upstairs and ask your mom if she can help you talk smack. It is obvious that you are much more than "a little" slow.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's not my fault that you're a little slow.
It is not my fault you couldn't think of any response. You called me stupid because you didn't have a good response. Go upstairs and ask your mom if she can help you talk smack. It is obvious that you are much more than "a little" slow.
It's not your fault either that you're a little slow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Wow, yet again you fail to have a comeback.
Why do you even bother replying?
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403 |
Quote:
Wow, yet again you fail to have a comeback.
Why do you even bother replying?
Because I like to humor you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Wow, I wasn't expecting that. I'm glad to see you enjoy making yourself look mental just to humor me.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403 |
Quote:
Wow, I wasn't expecting that. I'm glad to see you enjoy making yourself look mental just to humor me.
Sometimes you gotta go down to ones level.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Quote:
Quote:
Wow, I wasn't expecting that. I'm glad to see you enjoy making yourself look mental just to humor me.
Sometimes you gotta go down to ones level.
I didn't realize you could go down any further than you already have. Your mother's basement is already subterranean; there is nowhere to go but up.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Wow, I wasn't expecting that. I'm glad to see you enjoy making yourself look mental just to humor me.
Sometimes you gotta go down to ones level.
I didn't realize you could go down any further than you already have. Your mother's basement is already subterranean; there is nowhere to go but up.
Are you related to a guy named GM? Or is he with you right now? Your 3rd grade smack is almost identical to his.
By the way, the Steelers are going to the Super Bowl and both your teams suck
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260
2nd String
|
|
OP
2nd String
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 260 |
Quote:
Are you related to a guy named GM? Or is he with you right now? Your 3rd grade smack is almost identical to his.
By the way, the Steelers are going to the Super Bowl and both your teams suck
Actually, the Steelers are going to the AFC Championship. Your smack is so bad it isn't even true.
Win, lose, or tie, Raiders 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 403 |
Quote:
Quote:
Are you related to a guy named GM? Or is he with you right now? Your 3rd grade smack is almost identical to his.
By the way, the Steelers are going to the Super Bowl and both your teams suck
Actually, the Steelers are going to the AFC Championship. Your smack is so bad it isn't even true.
Actually, the Steelers are going to the Super Bowl. Wait and see.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk The Smack Shack JaMarcus Russell... I promised
|
|
