Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Jerry Porter

mike florio from profootballtalk.com is reporting that the raiders are shopping jerry porter.

RAIDERS DANGLING PORTER

We've heard from two different sources that the Oakland Raiders are willing to trade receiver Jerry Porter, if an interested partner can be identified. One source said that the Raiders discreetly have been shopping Porter for several months.

Porter was a second-round pick of the Raiders in 2000. He received a $7 million signing bonus in 2005, only a day or two before word broke of a trade that sent Randy Moss to the Bay Area.

Porter is scheduled to earn base salaries of $1 million in 2006 and 2007.

Teams that might be interested include the Eagles, Packers, Bears, Patriots, Jaguars, Saints, and 49ers.

i'm a firm believer that you do not need a "number 1" wideout to win a superbowl, but adding porter would certainly address the need for one more guy who can "stretch the field" for the birds. question is what are the birds willing to give up for him? i'm guessing the raiders are looking for a second... the birds were willing to give up a second for javon walker coming off an injury, would they do the same for jerry porter? keeping my fingers crossed.

Labels:

26 Comments:

Anonymous Phil said...

If it's only a pick, then they should do it. Not sure they should do it if it's gonna cost them Cole or another lineman. There's also a question of how effective any WR can be coming in this late into the system.

9:46 PM EDT  
Blogger The Mean Guy said...

There's also a question of how effective any WR can be coming in this late into the system.

that's a great point that i forgot to mention, phil. like walker, porter is familiar with the west coast offense (john gruden flavor so it's even off the same mike holmgren tree).

agree with you about not giving up a promising young player. maybe they'd give him up for honeybuns!

9:52 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If he's better than what they have, I hope they go after him. Owens showed me how important it is to have a guy who can get open, catch the ball, run with it, and most important, draw attention from defenders, especially in this offense (50 passes per game).

I'm not saying the Yuck Coast Offense can't work without a star, only that it works a lot better.

Ben

10:30 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From CNNSI:

What Went Right: They dumped Terrell Owens; that move alone should make it easier for them to focus on football. The best additions, however, were on defense. End Darren Howard should be a nice complement to Jevon Kearse, and tackle Broderick Bunkley, Philadelphia's first-round pick, should be a perfect fit in a rotation that will include Darwin Walker and Mike Patterson.

What Went Wrong: They still think they have enough offensive weapons around quarterback Donovan McNabb. They don't. Unless wide receiver Reggie Brown makes a huge leap in his second year -- which is something most young receivers don't do -- McNabb will be relying on Todd Pinkston, Greg Lewis and Jabar Gaffney to get things done on the outside. That's not a pretty picture.

Grade: C

How is this worse than Trash and Pinkston or some of the other terrible WR the Eagles have had. Plus they still have WB, who is there #1 receiver anyway. How do these people get jobs?

5:04 AM EDT  
Blogger The Mean Guy said...

among the various major sports media outlets, the guys at cnnsi (with the exception of dr z) are clearly the least knowledgeable about football, imo. take everything they write with a grain of salt. it often seems to me that they write based on conventional wisdom and conventional wisdom alone. i am skeptical that most of the football writers actually watch games let alone understand the sport.

7:22 AM EDT  
Anonymous Phil said...

footballoutsiders.com have done some good analysis and showed that TO didn't really improve the Eagles O. Yes he got more yards and TDs than the other WRs, but total points per game were about the same.

Looks like LeCharles just went down for the year. Whew. Looks like we dodged a bullet there. Maybe our luck is turning.

5:04 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phil -

For me, it's all about entertainment. TO dramatically improved the entertainment value of the offense. The most worthwhile Eagle to watch since Randall.

I realize you guys like to win - and so do I - but when I invest 3 hours on a Sunday, I want it to be fun. And yes, I loved Buddy Ryan!

Ben

8:20 PM EDT  
Blogger The Mean Guy said...

The most worthwhile Eagle to watch since Randall.

that's an interesting point, ben. i too loved buddy ryan and that era of eagles football is still my favorite (even though the vermeil and reid eras have been significantly more successful), however, now that you mention it, how much of that was due to randall and how much was due to buddy?

would buddy ryan have been as beloved had he not inherited randall?

still, even though i enjoyed buddy ball better than the worst coast offense, i'd rather win. if there was some history of championships for our woeful pro franchises, i'd probably side with entertainment. given what we were dealt... i'd watch paint dry if it meant i'd get to see a parade.

8:34 PM EDT  
Blogger The Big Dog said...

Because I am jonesing for football so much....I went to the Eagles website and looked at the Eagles rosters from 1972 (about the earliest that I remember the Birds onward) to today. I think that the reason the Eagles struggled offensively so much during the Ryan era (outside of the fact that Buddy was so defeno-centric) was that they had an ever-changing rotation of offensive-line slop. I mean it almost rotated from game to game and definitely season to season. Go to the Eagles website and look at history....names that I remember of the top of my head....Matt Darwin, Mike Schaad, Joe Conwell, Ron Heller, et all

8:51 AM EDT  
Anonymous Phil said...

PFT reporting that Bunkley was busted for a loaded handgun in DE about a week ago. Great. There I go talking about karma again and - SLAM! Back it swings.

I disagree on the entertainment vs. winning discussion. I'd rather see 16 straight 3-0 wins than suffer (yes, suffer) the Cunningham years again. Ya'll romantasize that period waaaaaay too much. You keep forgetting we had Randall "3 INT" Cunningham, not Randall "Successful Viking" Cunningham. Huge difference. He was always as much frustration as he was excitement. Those days were great vs. the prior decade of losing because the Eagles had a CHANCE to win which was different.

10:02 AM EDT  
Anonymous Phil said...

Here's a good article on those 1980s o-lines: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/05/12/ramblings/too-deep-zone/3698/

10:16 AM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will absolutely take a year of 3-0 wins and get a parade, than "excitement".

So if he was busted, does that increase or decrease his chances of signing faster?
At least he isn't at a position where he'll have to learn as much as a WR or LB....

- Joe

11:11 AM EDT  
Blogger The Big Dog said...

Here's the deal, Bunkley didn't get pulled over for the gun, it was Gaffney. And it was a little screwy....he was weaving on the Walt Whitman and got pulled over by a DRPA cop...there was a gun in the glove compartment that was licensed to a relative in the car, but it was licensed in Texas, not Jersey. Check it out on www.courierpostonline.com.

1:25 PM EDT  
Anonymous Phil said...

Whew.

1:34 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And apparently, PA recognizes CCW licenses from Texas. Not sure why there'd be an issue, except that NJ does not and he was in or going to Joisey...

- Joe

2:48 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You keep forgetting we had Randall "3 INT" Cunningham, not Randall "Successful Viking" Cunningham. Huge difference. He was always as much frustration as he was excitement."

Hey Phil, let's be a little fair here:

1986: 8 TD, 7 INT
1987: 23 TD, 12 INT
1988: 24 TD, 16 INT
1989: 21 TD, 15 INT
1990: 30 TD, 13 INT
1991: prime interupted by injury
1992: 19 TD, 11 INT

Do I really need to comment on these statistics achieved with no offensive line support?

Had Randall sniffed the protection Don's enjoyed for the majority of his tenure, his passing statistics would have been off the charts. Please tell me you remember the perfect spirals? Oh, and he didn't mind running a little bit either.

Don's a better quarterback because he is smarter, stays more control, and knows how to win. But Randall was MAGIC. A way better passer and runner than 5. What offensive system was he working in, anyway?

Ben

9:20 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Go to the Eagles website and look at history....names that I remember of the top of my head....Matt Darwin, Mike Schaad, Joe Conwell, Ron Heller, et all"

Big Dog,

Not that I expect you or anyone else to care, but I once partied with Joe Conwell's skinny brother, Tommy, a 1980's (minor) Rock Star. I bring this up only because you brought back some found formative years memories for me.

Ben

9:27 PM EDT  
Blogger The Mean Guy said...

Don's a better quarterback because he is smarter, stays more control, and knows how to win. But Randall was MAGIC. A way better passer and runner than 5. What offensive system was he working in, anyway?

randall was the most physically gifted qb ever. i don't think anyone is even close. not only was he incredibly accurate, but he had the strongest arm in the nfl -- people always talk about elway's gun, but remember that randall won the long throw in the qb competition every year. there were guys who were more accurate and there are now guys who run a little faster, but i've never seen anyone with the full physical package (remember that he was also 6' 4").

it's a shame he was such a pea brain.

every year the playoff opponent played a mush rush and dropped back into a zone and poor randall's eyes would literally glaze over. sigh.

and the two teams of that era with the best chance to win were killed by a) fog bowl and b) bryce paup. sigh.

it's nice to have company to commiserate with though. minnesota met the same playoffs randall as we did.

10:51 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it's nice to have company to commiserate with though. minnesota met the same playoffs randall as we did."

In general, I agree with what you're saying, but let's be fair, Ping.

Randall was 29 for 48 in the Atlanta game for 266 yards. He threw two touchdowns and NO interceptions. Gary Anderson missed a 38 yard field goal that would have won the game, and the Vikings lost 30-27 in overtime.

Randall didn't really hurt the Vikings in that game, did he?

Ben

9:59 PM EDT  
Blogger The Mean Guy said...

Randall didn't really hurt the Vikings in that game, did he?

from a purely statistical standpoint, you could argue that. if you watched the game, the vikings were clearly the better team and randall was a big reason why they didn't blow the falcons out.

the stat that you didn't break down was 266 yds/48 attempts = a paltry 5.5 yds per attempt. randall threw underneath and came up with "5 yards on 3rd and 6" all game. he certainly handled the playoff confusion better than in past seasons, but he was afraid to chuck it downfield even with cris carter and randy moss as his pass catchers.

10:08 PM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I watched the game with interest and thought Randall took what the defense gave him. He put 27 points on the board and clearly played well enough to give his team a win. My point was not that he played like Superman in the game; merely that he wasn't the same "playoff Randall" that you imply (in a bad way).

I'll stipulate that my greyhound's name is Randall (no coincidence) and that I'm incredibly biased, even if this sets up inevitable "dog" jokes.

Ben

10:17 AM EDT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting trivia...

Since 1970, only 3 teams besides the Vikings have scored 27 or more points and lost the NFC Championship Game.

1995 Dallas 38 Green Bay 27
1994 SF 38 Dallas 28
1981 SF 28 DA 27

No team has scored 30 and lost. I'll give Randall's Vikings 30 since Gary Anderson only missed one field goal the entire year - the 38 yarders that lost the game.

Ben

12:24 PM EDT  
Blogger The Mean Guy said...

Interesting trivia...

didn't know that, but i don't think it will change my opinion that he did not play very well. i don't blame him for the loss entirely, but there was a definite drop in his play from the regular season (when they were one of the most dynamic offenses i've ever seen) and the post season.

the vikings did score points, and they should have won the game, but randall became a different player in the playoffs. maybe you are right and they were just taking what the defense was giving them, but isn't it reasonable to think that they would have faced similar defenses at some point in the regular season? in the regular season, i recall randall chucking the ball at randy moss regardless of down, distance, and coverage.

2:05 PM EDT  
Anonymous Phil said...

But I thought Vick was the best athlete QB of all time? Thanks for the stats, Ben. I remember him being much more NT prone than that. Maybe it was a timing thing. Very frustrating that we couldn't win a SB with him as I agree that he was a physical freak. And fun to watch in a frustrating kinda way.

6:37 PM EDT  
Blogger The Mean Guy said...

But I thought Vick was the best athlete QB of all time?

vick is the best running qb of all-time, i don't consider him among the best as an overall physical package. his arm is not in the same class as randall's was. vick may throw the ball just as far as randall could, but he has no idea where it's headed.

9:33 PM EDT  
Anonymous Phil said...

I was being sarcastic about Vick. Frankly, I think 5's even got a better arm than him.

7:06 PM EDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home