Golden State Warriors Message Board - NBA Basketball Discussion Forum • View topic

sfsfsfgiants sfsfsfgiants's Profile Franchise Player Posts: 5756 Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am Location: On the couch watching sports Poster Credit: 0	Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:35 pm Compared to the numbers he put up, he shouldnt even be considered a Raider. That is embarassing. I would NEVER consider Jerry anything other than a Niner. 2007 - GoldenStWarriors.com "Rookie of the Year"
Top

JREED JREED's Profile Moderator Posts: 2350 Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:40 pm Location: Eureka, CA - Humboldt Poster Credit: 16	Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:51 pm sfsfsfgiants wrote:Compared to the numbers he put up, he shouldnt even be considered a Raider. That is embarassing. I would NEVER consider Jerry anything other than a Niner. I know where your coming from sf3, and I agree that he is a 9er not a Raider, but you said he "wasnt really good" in Oakland, but he actually was until 2003 or so.
Top

JOEL JOEL's Profile All Star Posts: 2741 Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm Location: surviving in your world Poster Credit: 3	Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:56 pm think about it raiders let tim brown go and kept jerry i know tim would have wanted more money and jerry was playing for the love of the game( and maybee to pad his numbers)... end of the day jerry is a 49er I had the meaning but missed the experience. T.S. Eliot
Top

Franchise Player

Posts: 5756
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am
Location: On the couch watching sports
Poster Credit: 0

Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:13 pm

JReed23 wrote:
sfsfsfgiants wrote:Compared to the numbers he put up, he shouldnt even be considered a Raider. That is embarassing. I would NEVER consider Jerry anything other than a Niner.
I know where your coming from sf3, and I agree that he is a 9er not a Raider, but you said he "wasnt really good" in Oakland, but he actually was until 2003 or so.

Yeah. I didnt realize that he put up decent numbers there. I thought he had one or two decent years there, at most.

2007 - GoldenStWarriors.com "Rookie of the Year"

Top

Hall of Famer

Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -3

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:55 am

JOEL wrote:think about it raiders let tim brown go and kept jerry

Well, I wouldn't read much into the decision of allowing Tim Brown to leave and keeping Jerry. I mean, the Tim Brown that left the Raiders was a f*cking disaster. His legs had given up and was unable to perform at NFL level. Take that from a Bucs fan... I still remember the "Tim Brown and Charlie Garner as Bucs experience".

http://WWW.WARRIORSROUNDTABLE.COM

Top

JOEL JOEL's Profile All Star Posts: 2741 Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm Location: surviving in your world Poster Credit: 3	Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:15 am TIM was done but you know davis keeps his old timmers around the team....was thinking he could have been a coach along side of fred b I had the meaning but missed the experience. T.S. Eliot
Top

GSW United GSW United's Profile All Star Posts: 1770 Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:59 pm Location: oakland Poster Credit: 3	Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:17 am hey...let's make that fair for comparison... DO NOT INCLUDED the players,coach or whoever ever involved to Raiders and 49ers teams so, in this case.. Bill walsh,Jerry rice and others are disqualified...oke My friends claimed michael jordan from new york KNICKS..hehehe
Top

rslproductions rslproductions's Profile Rookie Posts: 29 Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:46 pm Poster Credit: 0	Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:44 pm xbaywarrior wrote:SF QBs > OAK QBs SF RBs > OAK RBs SF WRs > OAK WRs SF TEs > OAK TEs SF OL < OAK OL SF DEFs > OAK DEFs SF QBs > OAK QBs SF RBs < OAK RBs SF WRs > OAK WRs SF TEs < OAK TEs SF OL < OAK OL SF DEFs < OAK DEFs Never hesitate to dunk on a mofo. -rsl
Top

sfsfsfgiants sfsfsfgiants's Profile Franchise Player Posts: 5756 Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am Location: On the couch watching sports Poster Credit: 0	Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:58 pm I would say: SF QBs > OAK QBs (Russell has done nothing) SF RBs > OAK RBs (Gore>Jordan) SF WRs < OAK WRs (not a whole lot of talent either way) SF TEs > OAK TEs (Davis is a whole lot better than Miller) SF OL < OAK OL (sad, but true) SF DEFs > OAK DEFs (overrated defense for the Raiders) 2007 - GoldenStWarriors.com "Rookie of the Year"
Top

JOEL JOEL's Profile All Star Posts: 2741 Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm Location: surviving in your world Poster Credit: 3	Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:04 pm russell doing nothing makes him a way better than smith based on what smith has done I had the meaning but missed the experience. T.S. Eliot
Top

Franchise Player

Posts: 9202
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:07 pm
Location: Land of the Lacob.
Poster Credit: 0

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:10 pm

JOEL wrote:russell doing nothing makes him a way better than smith based on what smith has done

Uhhh, no. You've got to be freaking kidding me. Russell is about to enter his 2nd season. Smith has been here for 3 years. Seattle is probably the toughest place to play and yet last year, Smith went into Seattle despite the harsh weather conditions and in the second half, won the game. He evaded a sack and through a TD pass to Gore and then faked a run play to Gore and ran it with all the Seahawks defense going after Gore and Smith going untouched for a 15-yd TD run. Has Russell ever shown maturity? No. What about this past disastrous season? The first game against the Cardinals on a 4th down and long, Smith scrambled out of the pocket, evaded tacklers, and got the first down which ultimately led to the winning score.

Russell has proven nothing. Smith has proven something.

Don't hate yourself in the morning... sleep 'til noon.

Top

sfsfsfgiants sfsfsfgiants's Profile Franchise Player Posts: 5756 Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am Location: On the couch watching sports Poster Credit: 0	Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:10 pm Give him some time. He will turn into the same worthless piece of crap as Smith. Russell is an athlete, not a quarterback. 2007 - GoldenStWarriors.com "Rookie of the Year"
Top

All Star

Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm
Location: surviving in your world
Poster Credit: 3

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:06 pm

sfsfsfgiants wrote:Give him some time. He will turn into the same worthless piece of crap as Smith. Russell is an athlete, not a quarterback.

so let me get this correct in your mind ( this will help to see the worth of entertaining your comments) a player who is a proven loser "SMITH"
is better than a player who is just an athlete"RUSSELL"
smith proven loser russell (in your words) who hasnt done anything...

I may be wrong but i think you sid smith over russell few post' back?

I had the meaning but missed the experience.
T.S. Eliot

Top

sfsfsfgiants sfsfsfgiants's Profile Franchise Player Posts: 5756 Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:40 am Location: On the couch watching sports Poster Credit: 0	Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:23 pm Both are utter losers. Neither will make it as a legit NFL player. Right now, though, I would take Smith over Russell, though not by much. Both suck. It is just a matter of Smith sucking less. 2007 - GoldenStWarriors.com "Rookie of the Year"
Top

All Star

Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm
Location: surviving in your world
Poster Credit: 3

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 5:37 pm

sfsfsfgiants wrote:Both are utter losers. Neither will make it as a legit NFL player. Right now, though, I would take Smith over Russell, though not by much. Both suck. It is just a matter of Smith sucking less.

thinking you didnt answer the question but that is typical..
your saying smith is better(a proven loser) than russell (who hasnt done anything)?

I had the meaning but missed the experience.
T.S. Eliot

Top

Raiders VS 49ers

Who is online