Question: The coaching staff and players have been quoted as saying, we just need to execute. But it seems to me that the coaches are the ones not executing. One definition of crazy is when you keep doing the same thing expecting somethine different will happen. I don't call it crazy, just imcompetent. What do you think?
-- Dale Stemple, Weaverville
Answer: Incompetent is one way to put it. Thatís the label pointed at offensive coordinator Tom Walsh after two games, not unexpected after two games and six points scored.
To be fair, an incompetent offensive line has handicapped Walsh, but it is his job to come up with something to accommodate that. Why Aaron Brooks wasnít rolling out against San Diego made no sense. Also running sweeps at the Baltimore Ravens, who are possibly the fastest defense in the NFL, made little sense.
The Raiders have two weeks to come up with something different or be labeled crazy. If fans come to the Cleveland game and see that sweep that hasnít worked or the offense that canít score, theyíd be crazy to stick around expecting a win.
Question: Hi Jason, what do you think about Andrew Walter? From what I have seen so far he seems to have the poise and confidence. If we have to sacrifice the season, let him start for the rest of the year to learn and gain that experience. Thanks.
-- Rick, Roseville
Answer: I like Andrewís game. Iíve liked it since he was at Arizona State. Heís big, has a strong arm and while not extremely athletic, he can move around enough to buy himself time in the pocket, provided there is blocking up front.
The problem with giving him this year to learn is the Raiders donít believe in sacrificing a season for a young quarterback, because they believe they are contenders every season. Coach Art Shell has said Aaron Brooks will start once heís healthy, but I donít think it would be an easy decision if Walter is playing well.
I think if Walter is going good, you have to leave him out there and let him build toward next season.
Question: Do you see Randy Moss and Lamont Jordan bouncing back at all after the bye week, from a statistical standpoint? Their schedule, outside of Pittsburgh and maybe 1 or 2 other games, is relatively soft. Thanks
-- David A. Spohn, Roseville
Answer: Moss and Jordanís stats are almost entirely dependent on the offensive line, so I would say no to bouncing back statistically until the line shows major improvement.
As for the schedule being soft, that is relative when you consider how bad the Raiders have looked. An easy schedule means little if your team might be one of the worst in the NFL.
Though Cleveland isnít good, the Browns did beat the Raiders last season and have to believe if they lose this week, next week will be a chance for a win. The 49ers look a lot better than the Raiders.
Thereís also Seattle, Denver twice (you know Mike Shanahan loves beating the Raiders), Kansas City twice, Cincinnati and San Diego again.
Based on early results, Cleveland, Houston and the Jets are ďwinnableĒ games, though all three have shown more this season than Oakland.
Question:Dear Sir, I have been a Raiders fan for many years. The last 3 years, the Raiders have sucked!! I was hoping that finally this year we would win some games, but here we go again!! I am ready to change teams. Is it Al Davis' fault that they are losers? Thank you.
-- Ron Curtis, Woodbridge
Answer: A lot of the fault for this has to go to Davis, because he does oversee so much of the operations. If the Raiders were 2-0 and scoring 30 points per game, heíd deserve credit for the success.