Raiders heading toward a QB controversy thread ~merged~

[Raiders40]

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9602884

[Imasmashu]

I like Shefter. Good article.

[HollandRobbie]

You know this would happen, but he competition is good for every player. Shell doesn't have to (re)name his starter until the first regular game

[CHAMPION316]

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9602884

[speedkills]

what i found funny early in the pre season was that everyone when talking about the raiders would j ust talk about brooks at qb and i would think is you know what there is a good chance he doesnt even start

[RighteousRayda]

Part of the problem for both quarterbacks is that some around the league believe the Raiders are running an archaic offense. There are questions about whether offensive coordinator Tom Walsh, who had been out of football running a bed and breakfast since 1994, is qualified to run Oakland's offense. The Raiders think yes; others around the league are a lot more skeptical.

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/9602884

[RighteousRayda]

Is the problem Brooks, or is it the O-line, or is it the "archaic" offensive system?

Could any quarterback succeed here at this time?

Just questions - no answers from me.

[raiderArt]

they dont really know what system the Raiders are gonna run, well because they havent ran it yet!!

[Chiefhater]

At this point it doesn't matter, Walter is our future, may as well let him get the experience. I only hope that our O line doesn't get him injured though.

[raiderArt]

They "believe" meaning they think but dont know for sure. They're making an assumption because we hired Walsh that he's gonna walk in the door and do the same exact thing he did in 94 (we had a winning record that season too). Last time I checked, back in 94 they still played with 11 on offense and 11 on defense and you still gotta run the ball to be successful.

[speedkills]

this is just crap that reports like to write,

[speedkills]

Originally Posted by raiderArt

They "believe" meaning they think but dont know for sure. They're making an assumption because we hired Walsh that he's gonna walk in the door and do the same exact thing he did in 94 (we had a winning record that season too). Last time I checked, back in 94 they still played with 11 on offense and 11 on defense and you still gotta run the ball to be successful.

correct the one thing i like to note about the 1994 year was that in the first 4 games we didnt really decide on a feature back, and were 1-3 then in week 5 the team decided to start harvey williams and he ran for about 900 yards in the last 12 weeks (which projects to about 1200 over a full season) and the team went 8-4,

[RighteousRayda]

They "believe" meaning they think but dont know for sure. They're making an assumption because we hired Walsh that he's gonna walk in the door and do the same exact thing he did in 94

Well, "they" have had two preseason games to see some of Walsh's system.

This is not an old article that I quoted from - it is very current - after the second preseason game.

I don't know beans about offensive systems so I can't pick a side on this discussion. Just pointing out what others are saying.

[jwyatt42]

Yea and Adam also use to work for the Doncos, so you know he's going to be bias.

[SlowLane]

This is getting crazy - you run, you pass, you do what you must at any given time.
Strip away the drama, it's the same game as 1960.