Richard Seymour Exiled To The Raiders... - Page 2

3kings · #21 09-10-2009, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docicu3

So what would happen here in 12 months or so when Seymour's contract would be up? I can't believe he would be allowed free agency, assuming there isn't a lock out next year. It seems bizarre that the Pats would get the pick if he never showed up in Oakland...

If he refuses to report, the Raiders retain his rights for another year.

2 Dollar Bill · #22 09-10-2009, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If the Raiders win more than 4 games this year there should be an investigation.

Hello they play Denver & KC ...twice each year !!!!

Cannon Shell · #23 09-10-2009, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Dollar Bill

Hello they play Denver & KC ...twice each year !!!!

They will split at best. Who else do they play that they can beat? Maybe the Jets? Maybe Cincy? Maybe at Cleveland? If they have 7 winnable games, they split 4-3 or 3-4 at best. I dont see them winning any more than that. They may only win 2, at home against Denver and KC.

docicu3 · #24 09-15-2009, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They will split at best. Who else do they play that they can beat? Maybe the Jets? Maybe Cincy? Maybe at Cleveland? If they have 7 winnable games, they split 4-3 or 3-4 at best. I dont see them winning any more than that. They may only win 2, at home against Denver and KC.

Over 4 is looking pretty damn good regardless of how this game with San Diego comes out. It is amazing how well Seymour has played so far even though he will probably have his first practice with the Silver and Black next week. He might have had 3 sacks already in this game if credited with all of them he deserved.

Cannon Shell · #25 09-15-2009, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docicu3

Over 4 is looking pretty damn good regardless of how this game with San Diego comes out. It is amazing how well Seymour has played so far even though he will probably have his first practice with the Silver and Black next week. He might have had 3 sacks already in this game if credited with all of them he deserved.

A mirage

docicu3 · #26 09-15-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A mirage

Because.....?

They played reasonably well....

dagolfer33 · #27 09-15-2009, 08:22 PM

If any other mediocre QB plays in that game last night, OAK wins by 10. I am a lifelong Raiders fan, and being an LSU homer, I am telling you that Russell sucked last night big time.

Cannon Shell · #28 09-15-2009, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dagolfer33

If any other mediocre QB plays in that game last night, OAK wins by 10. I am a lifelong Raiders fan, and being an LSU homer, I am telling you that Russell sucked last night big time.

That was as good as it gets with him

Cannon Shell · #29 09-15-2009, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docicu3

Because.....?

They played reasonably well....

Do I have to explain everything???

SniperSB23 · #30 09-16-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dagolfer33

If any other mediocre QB plays in that game last night, OAK wins by 10. I am a lifelong Raiders fan, and being an LSU homer, I am telling you that Russell sucked last night big time.

I've been saying Russell sucks for a long time but you can't place any blame on him for Monday night. Not even Peyton Manning would look good with two rookies starting at WR. Russell hit the big deep ball and did a good job of checking down to Zach Miller. He actually showed me more in that game then I thought he ever would.

Raiders will win 8 games this year and could even win 10 with some luck.

The Indomitable DrugS · #31 09-16-2009, 04:29 PM

10?

Thats as crazy as Cannon thinking they might win just 2.

SniperSB23 · #32 09-16-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

10?

Thats as crazy as Cannon thinking they might win just 2.

Look at their schedule. They have 2 games they can't win (@NYG, @Pit) and 3 games they are doubtful to win (@SD, @Dal, vs Phil). The rest of their schedule is quite winnable. To have won 10 games they really needed to win Monday night so 9-7 is probably more realistic at this point as their upside but they are not a terrible team and have a schedule that could produce a lot more wins than most people are suggesting.

Antitrust32 · #33 09-16-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Look at their schedule. They have 2 games they can't win (@NYG, @Pit) and 3 games they are doubtful to win (@SD, @Dal, vs Phil). The rest of their schedule is quite winnable. To have won 10 games they really needed to win Monday night so 9-7 is probably more realistic at this point as their upside but they are not a terrible team and have a schedule that could produce a lot more wins than most people are suggesting.

you may as well put philly in the cant win category. They are every bit as good as the Giants.

Cannon Shell · #34 09-16-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I've been saying Russell sucks for a long time but you can't place any blame on him for Monday night. Not even Peyton Manning would look good with two rookies starting at WR. Russell hit the big deep ball and did a good job of checking down to Zach Miller. He actually showed me more in that game then I thought he ever would.

Raiders will win 8 games this year and could even win 10 with some luck.

State empolyees arent supposed to drink during the day

Cannon Shell · #35 09-16-2009, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Look at their schedule. They have 2 games they can't win (@NYG, @Pit) and 3 games they are doubtful to win (@SD, @Dal, vs Phil). The rest of their schedule is quite winnable. To have won 10 games they really needed to win Monday night so 9-7 is probably more realistic at this point as their upside but they are not a terrible team and have a schedule that could produce a lot more wins than most people are suggesting.

They were awful on Monday. The only reason they were in the game was SD had 5 turnovers. As it was the Raiders had 4 turnovers, their QB was 12 for 30 with 2 picks. How many NFL teams does that beat? They arent going to create 5 to's every week. SD was embarrasingly bad the other night and won on the road. Oakland will be lucky to win 4 games.

3kings · #36 09-16-2009, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I've been saying Russell sucks for a long time but you can't place any blame on him for Monday night. Not even Peyton Manning would look good with two rookies starting at WR. Russell hit the big deep ball and did a good job of checking down to Zach Miller. He actually showed me more in that game then I thought he ever would.

Raiders will win 8 games this year and could even win 10 with some luck.

Scott,
I'll take under 8 with 8 being a push for any denomination you are comfortable with. Post it here or send me a PM.

Tom

dalakhani · #37 09-16-2009, 09:57 PM

I would like some of that action as well sniper. 50 dollars 8 is push and I will take the under.

Do we have a wager?

declansharbor · #38 09-16-2009, 10:24 PM

I would think that Russel would be in higher regard here if he didnt have GPK and I as his receivers. Zach Miller is obviously his favorite target, for good reason, but that offense will continue to be inept until they surround him with more legitmate playmakers. I think it's unfair to lump him into the 'he stinks' category just yet. Was he worth that high of a pick? Probably not, but there is no denying that he has talent. His potential would be through the roof if he had half decent receivers on the other end of his ROCKET arm.

dalakhani · #39 09-16-2009, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by declansharbor

I would think that Russel would be in higher regard here if he didnt have GPK and I as his receivers. Zach Miller is obviously his favorite target, for good reason, but that offense will continue to be inept until they surround him with more legitmate playmakers. I think it's unfair to lump him into the 'he stinks' category just yet. Was he worth that high of a pick? Probably not, but there is no denying that he has talent. His potential would be through the roof if he had half decent receivers on the other end of his ROCKET arm.

History is littered with one dimensional Rocket armed QB's that lacked the necessary tools to be a succesful NFL QB i.e accuracy, descision making, ability to read, etc. The funny part is many have played for the raiders. Vince Evans? Jay Schroeder?

The book is certainly still out on Russell but there are things about him that just make you wonder. He certainly made a nice throw for the go ahead td the other night. At the same time, what NFL QB couldnt make that throw? I guess he gets points for not blowing it and he certainly showed a nice touch.

The question I have with Russell is...what are you hoping he turns into?

docicu3 · #40 09-21-2009, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalakhani

History is littered with one dimensional Rocket armed QB's that lacked the necessary tools to be a succesful NFL QB i.e accuracy, descision making, ability to read, etc. The funny part is many have played for the raiders. Vince Evans? Jay Schroeder?

The book is certainly still out on Russell but there are things about him that just make you wonder. He certainly made a nice throw for the go ahead td the other night. At the same time, what NFL QB couldnt make that throw? I guess he gets points for not blowing it and he certainly showed a nice touch.

The question I have with Russell is...what are you hoping he turns into?

Shaq...