PDA

View Full Version : Fatass Gretz says Raiders will be good next year


SNR
12-27-2004, 03:24 PM
Some holiday tidbits found under the Christmas tree after the Chiefs victory over the Raiders and then their elimination from the playoffs when Denver beat Tennessee later that night.



DANTEíS WORLD

While driving around last week trying to finish up the Christmas shopping I punched up a couple of the local sports talk shows. One day, the subject of discussion centered on how the Chiefs were going to improve their defense in 2005. Certainly, thatís a valid area for plenty of give and take. One of the tin-throat hosts suggested that offensive talent needs to be traded away to get defensive help. One of his suggestions was to deal away Dante Hall.

Iíve heard lame-brain ideas before, but that has to rank among the worst. First, trading player-for-player rarely happens in the NFL and itís even more unusual for it to happen at a level where the players are considered top talents. Secondly, Dante Hall is one of the NFLís greatest weapons as a kick and punt returner. The Chiefs can continue attempts to involve him more in the offense, but thatís really not as important as having him back returning punts and kickoffs.

In any given game, there are going to be anywhere from a half-dozen to a dozen return opportunities. On every single one of those plays, Hall could end up in the end zone. Heís a game-breaker and thatís not something every franchise has. Should you be one of those teams fortunate enough to have a guy like Dante Hall, you donít get rid of him.

COVERING TONY G.

Sometimes, coaches out-coach themselves. Thatís what the Raiders defensive staff did when it came to covering Tony Gonzalez. The first time the teams met, Oakland double teamed Gonzalez on nearly every snap. Sometimes, they did that with cornerback Charles Woodson. Always, they had bracket coverage, somebody short and somebody deep on the Chiefs tight end. Thatís why he caught just three passes for 32 yards.

On Christmas Day, Woodson did not play. Also out was the other starting cornerback Philip Buchanon, so the Raiders were at a disadvantage from the start. But then they tried to cover Gonzalez with linebackers, including their hybrid defensive end-outside linebacker Tyler Brayton. Thatís not ever going to work against a guy with Gonzalezís ability, which is why he was over 100 yards receiving in the first half alone.

HERE COME THE RAIDERS

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for 2005 but understand this: Oakland will finish at best 6-10, which will give them a draft position somewhere in the top 10.

If the Raiders add a few talented players to what they already have, they are going to be a handful for everybody in the AFC West. They have gotten younger this year and taken their lumps, but they have offensive talent, with a young group of blockers and a stunning receiving group. Defensively, they have added some athletic players in recent seasons. They are solid at both kicking positions.

If Oakland finds a feature running back and some young interior defensive linemen this spring, they will not be under .500 very much longer.

The opinions offered in this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Kansas City Chiefs.

HC_Chief
12-27-2004, 03:27 PM
I guess he forgot who the HC and OC are out in chOakland. :D

Deberg_1990
12-27-2004, 03:36 PM
I guess he forgot who the HC and OC are out in chOakland. :D




Exactly, Someone forgot to tell Gretz that Norv Turner is still the coach out there in Oakland. Go ask any Redskin fan what they think of this turd. He had 8 years in DC to prove what a crappy HC he was.

HC_Chief
12-27-2004, 03:37 PM
And, of course, we KC fans already know about Jimmy Raye (aka 'Stooge Number One') :D

htismaqe
12-27-2004, 03:44 PM
The team got younger every except up front on defense. They have nothing at DT. And good defenses start and end with good DT's.

TheNextStep
12-27-2004, 03:48 PM
In two games against Oakland this season, the #1 offense in the NFL beat them by a combined total of 4 points... but this writer is insane for suggesting that they will be better next year?

Homer on, fellas...

htismaqe
12-27-2004, 04:08 PM
In two games against Oakland this season, the #1 offense in the NFL beat them by a combined total of 4 points... but this writer is insane for suggesting that they will be better next year?

Homer on, fellas...

That's an absolutely stupid statement.

The reason we beat you by a combined two points has NOTHING to do with the #1 offense in the NFL.

It has everything to do with the #32 defense in the NFL.

The Bad Guy
12-27-2004, 04:11 PM
If most of the bad teams in the NFL added a good RB and some young interior lineman then they would be good too.

Way to go out on a limb Gretz.

HC_Chief
12-27-2004, 04:14 PM
Way to go out on a limb Gretz.

You've seen the man... you know damn well why he won't venture too far out onto the limb ;)

Calcountry
12-27-2004, 04:15 PM
The team got younger every except up front on defense. They have nothing at DT. And good defenses start and end with good DT's.
The team needs to get younger at Owner.

SoCalRaider
12-27-2004, 05:21 PM
If most of the bad teams in the NFL added a good RB and some young interior lineman then they would be good too.

Way to go out on a limb Gretz.
Too bad that doesn't really apply to the Chiefs considering they've got a good RB, some young interior lineman... yet they're getting worse. ROFL

SoCalRaider
12-27-2004, 05:22 PM
The team needs to get younger at Owner.
ROFL So true.

ChiefsFire
12-27-2004, 05:27 PM
Some holiday tidbits found under the Christmas tree after the Chiefs victory over the Raiders and then their elimination from the playoffs when Denver beat Tennessee later that night.



DANTEíS WORLD

While driving around last week trying to finish up the Christmas shopping I punched up a couple of the local sports talk shows. One day, the subject of discussion centered on how the Chiefs were going to improve their defense in 2005. Certainly, thatís a valid area for plenty of give and take. One of the tin-throat hosts suggested that offensive talent needs to be traded away to get defensive help. One of his suggestions was to deal away Dante Hall.

Iíve heard lame-brain ideas before, but that has to rank among the worst. First, trading player-for-player rarely happens in the NFL and itís even more unusual for it to happen at a level where the players are considered top talents. Secondly, Dante Hall is one of the NFLís greatest weapons as a kick and punt returner. The Chiefs can continue attempts to involve him more in the offense, but thatís really not as important as having him back returning punts and kickoffs.

In any given game, there are going to be anywhere from a half-dozen to a dozen return opportunities. On every single one of those plays, Hall could end up in the end zone. Heís a game-breaker and thatís not something every franchise has. Should you be one of those teams fortunate enough to have a guy like Dante Hall, you donít get rid of him.

COVERING TONY G.

Sometimes, coaches out-coach themselves. Thatís what the Raiders defensive staff did when it came to covering Tony Gonzalez. The first time the teams met, Oakland double teamed Gonzalez on nearly every snap. Sometimes, they did that with cornerback Charles Woodson. Always, they had bracket coverage, somebody short and somebody deep on the Chiefs tight end. Thatís why he caught just three passes for 32 yards.

On Christmas Day, Woodson did not play. Also out was the other starting cornerback Philip Buchanon, so the Raiders were at a disadvantage from the start. But then they tried to cover Gonzalez with linebackers, including their hybrid defensive end-outside linebacker Tyler Brayton. Thatís not ever going to work against a guy with Gonzalezís ability, which is why he was over 100 yards receiving in the first half alone.

HERE COME THE RAIDERS

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for 2005 but understand this: Oakland will finish at best 6-10, which will give them a draft position somewhere in the top 10.

If the Raiders add a few talented players to what they already have, they are going to be a handful for everybody in the AFC West. They have gotten younger this year and taken their lumps, but they have offensive talent, with a young group of blockers and a stunning receiving group. Defensively, they have added some athletic players in recent seasons. They are solid at both kicking positions.

If Oakland finds a feature running back and some young interior defensive linemen this spring, they will not be under .500 very much longer.

The opinions offered in this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Kansas City Chiefs.




hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


sounds like something the great Rufus Dawes would have wrote

TheNextStep
12-27-2004, 05:39 PM
That's an absolutely stupid statement.

The reason we beat you by a combined two points has NOTHING to do with the #1 offense in the NFL.

It has everything to do with the #32 defense in the NFL.

That's an absolutely stupid response... first off, you are currently the #30 defense, not hte #32. Secondly, who is ranked even WORSE on defense than your squad? Yeah... at #31, the Oakland Raiders. Last in the league in sacks, turnovers, and run defense. Or does that excuse only work when you're applying it FOR the Chiefs and not when you're applying it AGAINST them?

#1 Offense in the NFL vs #31 Defense in the NFL = 31 points
#16 Offense in the NFL vs #30 Defense in the NFL = 30 points

Bear in mind, too, that we're talking about a #16 overall offense with no running game. Oakland is dead last in rushing attempts, rushing yards, rushing yards per game, and tied for last in runs of over 20 yards. Additionally, we're 27th in the league in yards per carry.

But you're here arguing that it is somehow ridiculous for a writer to say that the Raiders could be a lot better next season if they get a running game?

Come on... I know you're a homer's homer but even you can't be serious on this one...

ROYC75
12-27-2004, 09:14 PM
Truth be know, Oakland does have a chance to be much better. Even with the coachingthey have, ( barring Davis and a possible coaching change) the second year should produce better results.

Facts are facts.......Just like if KC does do some upgrading on defense, they should be better.

Bowser
12-27-2004, 09:17 PM
Gretz says alot.

He mostly says "Pass the gravy."

alanm
12-27-2004, 10:02 PM
That's an absolutely stupid response... first off, you are currently the #30 defense, not hte #32. Secondly, who is ranked even WORSE on defense than your squad? Yeah... at #31, the Oakland Raiders. Last in the league in sacks, turnovers, and run defense. Or does that excuse only work when you're applying it FOR the Chiefs and not when you're applying it AGAINST them?

#1 Offense in the NFL vs #31 Defense in the NFL = 31 points
#16 Offense in the NFL vs #30 Defense in the NFL = 30 points

Bear in mind, too, that we're talking about a #16 overall offense with no running game. Oakland is dead last in rushing attempts, rushing yards, rushing yards per game, and tied for last in runs of over 20 yards. Additionally, we're 27th in the league in yards per carry.

But you're here arguing that it is somehow ridiculous for a writer to say that the Raiders could be a lot better next season if they get a running game?

Come on... I know you're a homer's homer but even you can't be serious on this one...Statistics are for losers. :)

TEX
12-27-2004, 10:20 PM
IMO, everyone in the West, except the Bolts, will be better next year. And I'll change my opinion of the Bolts if they sign Brees, however, I don't think the Bolts will be better record -wise.

TheNextStep
12-27-2004, 10:22 PM
Statistics are for losers. :)
As your #1 offense/7-8 record attests, right? ;)

Logical
12-27-2004, 10:27 PM
I expect the Raiders to use their #1 on a stud RB and then take a solid d-lineman with their high number 2. I would not be at all suprised to see them turn it around next year.

tommykat
12-27-2004, 10:29 PM
I expect the Raiders to use their #1 on a stud RB and then take a solid d-lineman with their high number 2. I would not be at all suprised to see them turn it around next year.

:hmmm: Excuse me all...........wtfaulk? I agree........Someone hit me now, fast and painless!!!!

2bikemike
12-27-2004, 10:30 PM
I expect the Raiders to use their #1 on a stud RB and then take a solid d-lineman with their high number 2. I would not be at all suprised to see them turn it around next year.

Well it would be hard for them to get much worse! :D

WHScenter
12-27-2004, 10:38 PM
It seems that the Oakland Raiders are a better Defense if they do not use the 3-5 fromation. They seemed to stop the RUN offense against the chiefs by not using the 3-5 formation.

Rausch
12-27-2004, 10:55 PM
I expect the Raiders to use their #1 on a stud RB and then take a solid d-lineman with their high number 2. I would not be at all suprised to see them turn it around next year.

I wouldn't either, but I think it depends more on Collins playing like he has for the last 6 games and not like the first 10...

TheNextStep
12-27-2004, 11:00 PM
Although I would be happy to hear the name Cedric Benson on draft day, I truly doubt that it happens. My money is on the Raiders signing LaMont Jordan in free agency and then drafting a RB in the second or third round.

Rausch
12-27-2004, 11:04 PM
Although I would be happy to hear the name Cedric Benson on draft day, I truly doubt that it happens. My money is on the Raiders signing LaMont Jordan in free agency and then drafting a RB in the second or third round.

There are going to be a lot more talented backs than Jordan out there...

TheNextStep
12-27-2004, 11:17 PM
Yeah, at quite a price, too. I'd love to entertain the notion of a Shawn Alexander or Edgerrin James in Silver and Black but I just don't see it happening.

Jordan, meanwhile, has looked like a guy who is a very good runner who had the bad damned luck to be drafted by a team that already had Curtis Martin. The Raiders supposedly tried to swing a trade for Jordan in the off-season and again before the trade deadline. It wouldn't shock me at all if Jordan was one of those "3 minutes after the opening of free agency" signings...