PDA

View Full Version : Football Oakland only has 3 active WR's


recxjake
09-20-2009, 10:56 AM
1

Bane
09-20-2009, 10:58 AM
Damn!!! Maybe there is a god....

Mr. Laz
09-20-2009, 10:58 AM
4-4-3

SPchief
09-20-2009, 10:59 AM
Stack the box

kstater
09-20-2009, 10:59 AM
They wern't going to need them anyway. Every team's gameplan will be pound the rock up the middle. And it will work.

DeezNutz
09-20-2009, 11:00 AM
Is their TE inactive, too?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-20-2009, 11:01 AM
You don't need WRs to beat the Chiefs in the passing game. You need RBs who can catch the ball in the flat and a good TE

Lonewolf Ed
09-20-2009, 11:06 AM
As far as I am concerned, Fargas being inactive is the best news of the morning!

redhed
09-20-2009, 11:08 AM
They way they run the ball, they prolly only need TE and 1 wideout.

Reerun_KC
09-20-2009, 11:15 AM
You don't need WRs to beat the Chiefs in the passing game. You need RBs who can catch the ball in the flat and a good TE

This...

old_geezer
09-20-2009, 11:43 AM
It's no secret even to the Raiders. To beat the Chiefs they are going to have to pound the ball down our throats. If they need a passing game they're screwed anyway and they know it.

KCtotheSB
09-20-2009, 11:45 AM
Only 3 active WRs?
Wonder what Oakland plans on doing today...hmmmm....:spock:

Mr. Laz
09-20-2009, 11:50 AM
Only 3 active WRs?
Wonder what Oakland plans on doing today...hmmmm....:spock:
No hindsight excuse, if Haley and Co don't have a plan in place for dealing with the Faider running game then they should be kicked in their collective daddy bags.

KC kid
09-20-2009, 11:57 AM
How about all you offensive line lovers that were craving the Khalif Barnes?

Garcia Bronco
09-20-2009, 12:01 PM
That means they'll run the ball. And they can. Should be interesting