Oakland Raiders: Darren McFadden's Success vs. Broncos Sure to Ignite Raiders
Doug Pensinger/Getty Images
Darren McFadden's most notable nickname is Run DMC, but there could also be a case made that it should be changed to "Bronco killer."
McFadden has had great success whenever he's faced the Broncos, and Sunday's matchup shouldn't be any different. Since he broke out of his shell in 2010, McFadden has ran for 434 yards and three touchdowns against Denver.
When the Raiders destroyed the Broncos 59-14 in Denver back in 2010, McFadden rushed for 165 yards and scored three times without even playing in the fourth quarter.
Now Oakland will travel to Denver in a critical matchup where both teams come in at 1-2. The Raiders have a bye the following week, and a meeting with the Atlanta Falcons awaits them in Week 6.
Which is why a win in Denver is a critical point to the Raiders' young season.
McFadden struggled early this season and only managed 54 yards on the ground in Oakland's first two games, but he redeemed himself against Pittsburgh last week when he rushed for 113 yards and scored on a 64-yard run.
He was key to Oakland's 34-31 win last week when he scored an early touchdown to get the crowd into the game, and the Raiders are hoping he'll continue that success against the Broncos.
Denver comes in with the league's 13th-best run defense, but gave up 152 yards on the ground to Houston last week. The Texans did a solid job of using the play-action pass to torch Denver's secondary, something the Raiders have the ability to do.
If McFadden gets into a groove early, Carson Palmer will have opportunities to fake the hand-off and hit one of his speedy receivers deep down the sideline for a momentum-shifting catch.
For Oakland to steal one against the Broncos, McFadden must play like he has every time he's faced them in the past. Judging by his past, scoring three touchdowns against them on Sunday is a strong possibility, and so is Oakland leaving Mile High with its second win of the season.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?