Saturday, May 20, 2006

News You Can't Use: Idiot Edition

According to this petulant little article, the Oakland Raiders are “idiots” for choosing Michael Huff over Matt Leinart. It’s fitting that the author uses a simpleton’s term to match his simple-minded analysis.

Now, I am on the record as saying that I thought Leinart would have been a good choice. I’m anxious for our QB position to settle down a bit. However, I’m also anxious for our defense to add some pop, and Michael Huff does just that. To suggest that the selection of Huff makes the Raiders idiots is…well, to borrow a phrase, idiotic.

Leading up to the draft, what the Raiders knew that I (and a lot of people) didn’t know was their own internal comfort level with Andrew Walter as either a strong backup or challenger to Aaron Brooks in 2006. It now seems that their comfort level is pretty high, and if that’s the case, then selecting Huff over Leinart makes even more sense.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter: our author states that the Raiders are “anointing Brooks as their quarterback of the future.” I must have missed that press conference. Conveniently, our author doesn’t make one single mention of Andrew Walter anywhere in his piece.

It’s the same old Raiders Haters tactic: begin with your premise (I hate the Raiders) and selectively backfill your information accordingly. How can you write an article about the Raiders' QB situation and not mention Andrew Walter?

For the Raiders Haters, a keyboard and an internet connection is the intellectual equivalent of running with scissors. They get most of the way down the hall before tripping and hurting themselves, impaled by illogic and bias. It’s quite sad, really. If they didn’t hate us, I might even feel sorry for them.

And that, Raiders fans, is news you can’t use.


Blogger Calico Jack said...

Nice post RT. Here are a couple other points that D.W. O'Dell attempted to convey but don't stand up to logic

1) O'Dell attempts to make the point that Brooks would be a good caretaker for Leinart (if the Raiders drafted Leinart).

Question O'Dell: Couldn't Brooks be filling this same role for Walter?

2) O'Dell attempts to make the point that the Raiders didn't draft Leinart because of his "up-standing" image.

Question O'Dell: Did you ever take a look at Huff's image & reputation? By all accounts Huff is known as a mature, up-standing, professional with absolutely no charcter issues whatsoever.

3) O'Dell ends his tripe piece by implying that Leinart could have been the one to return the Raiders to the vertical game.

Question O'Dell: Do you read any scouting reports or watch any games? Did you ever consider that Brooks AND Walter have strong arms and are more capable of throwing the deep ball than Leinart ever will be? Any novice fan knows that one of Leinart's weakness is his lack of arm strength yet O'Dwell makes this mickey-mouse statement about Leinart being the one to return the Raiders to the vertical game. Huh? Am I missing something?

2:19 PM  
Blogger Raider Take said...

Great takes, Calico Jack! The only one missing something is the author (research and brain cells, for starters).

10:21 PM  
Blogger Roy said...

Where did you find that piece of crap. I am ashamed that I actually gave this idiot a visit to hiWhoever wrote that article knows nothing about football. Just for the record, Eric Crouch was drafted in the third round as a WR. It is safe to assume that the closest he gets to watching football is watching Sports Center.

6:05 AM  
Blogger Roy said...

Sorry for the quick departure. But this guy sounds like the typical niner fan who only watches highlights and then fronts like he watched the entire game.

6:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is why I am so greatful the Raiders did not draft Matt Leinart.

11:43 AM  
Blogger JP said...

Knowing our history at drafting safties... Yes, they are idiotic for picking Huff. Last time I checked, a saftey has never made a significant impact in getting a team to the SuperBowl. Idiotic? Time will prove it to be so.

4:26 PM  
Blogger Gray Flannel Suit said...

Far be it from me to tell another blogger how to run his ship, but why even give these morons attention?

4:49 PM  
Blogger Calico Jack said...

Gibberish - I would argue that Troy Polamalu played a HUGE role in getting the Steelers to the SB this past season. Polamalu has been been an All-Pro his last 2 years. In those 2 years the Steelers reached the AFC Championship and won a SB. Is this not an impact player?

4:51 PM  
Blogger Raider Take said...

CJ, here's why:

Media coverage of the Raiders is too often guided by negative bias, both in the mainstream media and in the new media, such as internet-only outlets. Anyone who doubts this conclusion is invited to scroll through my many News You Can't Use entries and tell me where I'm wrong.

I believe that years of ongoing and unchecked unfair negative Raiders reporting (in contrast to fair negative reporting, which is acceptable) has impacted the team's potential viability in Oakland. The worst fans in the NFL! The most dangerous place to watch a game! A team that hasn't done anything since the Eighties (despite going to the Super Bowl four years ago)! Idiots!

Such is the unfair negative drumbeat that I have chosen to document. Do you not think that this slander might have an impact on potential fans and ticket purchasers? I do. I want this team to stay in Oakland, and I don't think we can afford to lose any potential fans to this nonsense.

You call it giving these "morons" attention. I call it promoting fairness, accuracy and intellectual rigor in coverage of the Raiders. They can keeping writing this junk, but I believe we have a duty, as Raiders fans, to make sure it doesn't go unchecked.

I'm not delusional enough to think that I'll have a big impact, but that won't keep me from trying. Call me naive, but together we can move mountains--which to me includes making sure that Mt. Davis never leaves Oakland.

5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This Here's a decent rebuttal on the idjiot.

So I don't have to bother.

There are journalists who don't whistle, "If I only had a brain" while they write...

O'Dell ain't one of 'em.

7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I, for one, do not read much of what the "media" says about the Raiders. Al Davis may not always make the best moves, choices, etc; but who does? Who makes a solid pick on a player year in and out?
Davis has been a successful guy. He is not afraid of taking chances if he sees they can be successful, even if we are not. You won't know, until you try was the theme of the rebuttal stick em posted. Davis would rather know, than not try.
Gibberish, you said the Raiders were idiots for picking Huff, from the recent past Safeties we've drafted. There are a few things I have to disagree with you on.
First, we've drafted more CB's not Safeties the past few years. Fabian Washington is going to be a good CB as he gains experience. He's got heighth, and he's got speed. Stuart Schweigert is a safety that is doing well with the Raiders, the last safety we drafted until Bing (Huff was drafted as a CB, being moved to Safety, Bing was a Safety being moved to OLB). Asomugha is going to be a decent CB, if he can get his head in the game, and he showed signs of that a little last season.
Secondly, I would disagree with your take simply because of what wins championships. Not offense, but DEFENSE! Don't believe me, go ask the Colts how many SB's they've won with Peyton Wo-Manning. Look back a few years ago, when we went to the SB with the #1 offense, against the #1 defense.
Leinart fell because scouts are questioning his heart to play football. He is caught up in the glamore of Hollywood that surrounded him at USC, not football. His relationship with Paris Hilton is proving that. If he can shift his focus back to football, then he can be a good QB; but his downfall is going to be his growing ego.
Huff wants to be a football player. Huff has the makings of being the next Ronnie Lott, who was a CB at USC turned Safety. Same type of scouting report too. Too short to be a NFL CB, but has the speed and hitting ability to be an excellent Safety. I think Lott worked out well for the 49ers, don't you?
Finally, Safeties play a huge role on defense for teams. The Safety and Middle Linebacker are the QB and RB of the defense. They call the shots, they bring balance to the defense; without them, defenses don't work. That is why the Raiders' defense has suffered the past few years. We haven't had the Safety and Middle Linebacker we've needed to disrupt the offense. Now we do with Huff, and Morrison. What ever happened to Greg Biekert?

6:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some safeties that did ok as far as getting teams to SB-the already mentioned Ronnie Lott and Polamalu, Rod Woodson, John Lynch, and of course our own Jack Tatum and Mike Davis....

7:34 AM  
Blogger Calico Jack said...

Impact safeties; Most recent SBs winners:

2006 - Troy Polamalu
2005 - Rodney Harrison
2004 - Rodney Harrison
2003 - John Lynch/Dexter Jackson
2002 - Lawyer Milloy
2001 - Rod Woodson

2:52 PM  
Blogger Calico Jack said...

One more note:

If you don't think Lawyer Milloy was an impact player for the Patriots SB run, you are sadly mistaken. Milloy was the ONLY member of the D who was selected to the Pro-Bowl in 2002.

You can check this at:

It is clear that the past 6 SB winners ALL had an impact Safety.

6:33 PM  
Blogger THN said...

Dexter Jackson and John Lynch are both overrated. If Callahan had bothered to change the playbook, they would have been null and void.

I had feared that Leinart would go to the Raiders because they could be unpredictable. Andrew Walter is a solid quarterback. The Raiders had so many holes, they needed to go defense.

9:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you know what i find most amusing about these articles and comments of the raiders' being idiots for not selecting a qb? it is the fact that they are willing to depart the unproven qb's we have. tui has played a few games, and at best has been shaky; but in 2003 was the only time he played consistently, and showed improvements. he hasn't played on a consistent basis since gannon went down the first time with a shoulder injury.
walter has never taken a snap. and they are willing to judge brooks on his tenure with the saints, and under a coach that was just as laughable as callahan and turner. all that to say, i'd give brooks a legitimate shot any day over kfc.
how can you say it will not work? and how can you say the raiders need someone, who is just as unproven in the nfl as 2 of the 3 afore-mentioned qb's, to win? also say this with the knowledge that time after time, al davis has proven that a change of scenary with a qb could be the missing factor that makes him shine (gannon, plunkett, hostettler, and yes, even jeff george)? at least, give them a chance to succeed.

1:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home