The word on the street is that Ocho Cinco will be on the trading block

Not unless it's a fart.

 

If true, great pickup for the Cincinnati Bengals. Michael Bush is a good player in this league and in my opinion, he was the best back on the Raiders roster. He finally brings Cincinnati a running back and a duo of him and Benson could be a good one if they improve the interior of the offensive line. This knocks off RB at the top of the draft for them, as many felt they would take Beanie Wells.

For the Raiders, this is an OK deal. Chad Johnson is a good player and has been for a while now but he comes to a team that has a struggling QB. Their offense will be given some respect now because of Chad but Russell still needs to learn how to get rid off the ball early and put some touch on the deep balls. The positive that may come out of this is that Russell is prepared this season. I know Tom Cable has been on his *** about reporting to work and working hard.

I think Al's waste of draft choices may end this season. I think they go LT this year and I could very well see it being Michael Oher, assuming he slips past Cincinnati at six.

 

Do you honestly believe Al? I don't. When you have Khalif Barnes playing LT on a one year deal, you can't be comfortable and I dont' think they are.

If you don't have a 40 time, Al isn't going to pick you. Scratch Crabtree off the list and then you look at Jeremy Maclin and he's a deep threat and only a deep threat. Chad Johnson solves that for them, if the trade is true. That leaves them with DT and LT. I expect Raji or Oher.

 

Is Travis overly obsessed with wide receivers?

This is a question that I or you can't answer.

On a serious note, it could be Crabtree. I doubt it if this report is true.

 

Haha.

Staying on the Raiders, I know they are heavily linked with Alex Mack. Former Cal offensive line coach is now in Oakland. Cable and the OL coach were at Mack's pro day and he impressed them a lot reportedly. I know they have Satele at C right now but I think they could take Mack in the second and move him to RG.

 

I think Mack could do it well, I mentioned him simply because I know they have a lot of interest in him.

Re: Satele - They could. I believe there current LG is Robert Gallery so they may look to move him to RG and then Satele at LG. I may have Gallery's spot confused though.

 

I think this also falls under the, "Bringing in nut-jobs could hinder the psycological development of your younger players."

 

i could do without Ocho-stinko smelling up our locker room with selfish media attention.

 

can you see Tony's face if one of "his" players put on a hall of fame jacket during a game and grandstanded on the sidelines... hahaha

 

Especially in this case.

 

Not a chance.

 

LOL! Yeah! That amazes me! I remember in that draft that I dreamed of us getting him, though we had no chance because of where we were picking. I thought he would dominate and would be a sure fire, perennial pro-bowler.

 

not if we have to give up a first for him....we would be better to just draft Nicks, more physical and younger

 

I wouldnt, but I would a 2nd and maybe a player(Ginn?).

 

im exploring options, i was saying we should draft nicks and trade for boldin. if we trade a player and a 2nd rounder for him, we should grab a DE or LB with the first pick.

 

then Draft Nicks....why....Nicks is a young stud.

Now if it was 2010 or 2011's #1 I would consider it.

Better yet could you imagine Boldin and Nicks and Ginn....holly sh*t....lookout!!!

Hey don't let me forget about Camafreakingrillo!!!!!

We'd be loaded!!!!!!

 

defense wins superbowls, we don't need to use our number one on a receiver.. IMO.

 

it depends on whos available. If Sintim/English/V.Davis are gone, then we should look at Nicks or Harvin.

 

Nicks DOES have appeal...

 

to me the guy looks like he has Pro Bowl written all over him.

 

Pettigrew.

 

disagree about the ginn part

 

I still have the nagging feeling that we could see Ted Ginn traded either before or during the draft.

1. He's not their cup of tea, they like more physical Wr.

2. Greg C will be ready to go along with D Bess and maybe London or "whomever" they may believe they can get more value out of the draft then Ginn offers.

3. P Cobbs taking Ginn's spot on kick offs may be more important then any of us realize, if Mr. "Explosive Scoring" doesn't return kicks, that removes half of his value from a scoring standpoint.

The Bears are in the market for a Wr.

 

Moving Ted Ginn makes zero sense to me. I'm not his biggest fan but he's a good player and if you trade him, you are taking away a productive receiver from an already questionable WR core.

 

Neither did moving Samson S for a hot dog wrapper and a Al Davis autograph.

Recall "not the "best" players but the ones who fit our system"?

 

Right but do you recall Bill Parcells saying he wants more explosiveness on offense? Eliminating Ginn from this team makes that area of the team even weaker.

Look at it this way. If you take a wide receiver, such as Hakeem Nicks, in this class or trade for one like Boldin, and then you move Ginn, your not doing yourself a favor. A wide receiver like Boldin or even Holt would take less coverage away from Ted Ginn and make him more free, and more of a threat.

As for Samson, he was on the way out. He lacked bulk and struggled against interior defensive linemen.

 

That assumes he would not be replaced by "their' guy at Wr.

Unless "they" like Greg C or London as much as they like Ginn, if we bring in a #1 Wr type, Greg C moves to the possesion receiver role instead of the #1 Wr role he is currently in.

So we would have Nicks, Greg C and Bess as our Wr corps with London as the #4.

Ginn lacks bulk and lacks explosive type plays himself Alen, and once he flammed out as a Kr his value diminished to us.

I'm not down on Ginn, but after watching Ireland and Sparano and even Tuna for awhile now, I believe he is on the trading block, we may even move him to move up in the draft, they just do not value Wr that highly.

 

re: moving ginn, satele.

we moved satele for a decent trade IMO. Obviously Grove is the center they are looking for because the money they gave him shows it. grove started at center and guard for oakland (Aggressive, versatile lineman who has started games at guard and center for the Raiders… http://www.raiders.com/Team/PlayerBio.aspx?id=552). which means that not only does he fit our system but he can fit at either spot (just like satele) which we need. there is a good article elsewhere (it's on phinsider but I can't find it) on grove that mentions that jake grove and the raiders played the AFCE this year (meaning he played the NTs from our division) and the YPC that game were pretty impressive up the middle. somewhere around 4/5 YPC. stats aren't everything and attitude may be a part of it as well. I don't know either guy personally so obviously i can't make a call here. that and we got a pick.

re: ginn. in jeff irelands presser it definitely came across to me that WR is a position of need.. and also it is the only position of need that we haven't added someone. we've got linemen in berger and grove, a safety in gibril wilson, a CB in eric green and a LBer in wake. i think part of this is to make sure that if the guy we want at 25 isn't there we're not screwed but what else does it tell you? i think moving ginn (as alen said) makes no sense because our WRers are already questionable and IMO ginn is not the problem. IMO at this point you can't make an argument based on his play for where he was drafted because that was a previous regime. do any of you get the hint that this regime would take a WR that high? i don't. but it would be dumb to throw away a pick that was taken that high recently.

we do need a WR and I just don't think moving ginn helps that. we know he can stretch the field he just needs help along side him and on offense (ie. the run game, the other WRers, everything).

 

I mentioned something like this before and people thought I was crazy. I mentioned it in one of the Anquan Boldin threads a couple of weeks ago. Just for instance, swapping Ginn and pick/s for Boldin. We get the more physical, proven WR and Ginn gets a qb that can get the ball to him. I know, Pennington isn't going to be our main guy for much longer but you never know what the future holds and playing to win today even if you know there are better teams only makes sense. Just my opinion though.

 

I just don't see us landing Boldin D1, the reason why is our youth, if we are to compete for the next 6-7 years, Boldin would be the high point in our salary cap bell curve, his salary would be a hinderance to resigning guys such as Merling or J Long.