Darren McFadden Trade Rumors: Latest Buzz, Speculation Surrounding Raiders RB
Among a couple other players mentioned, Jason La Canfora of CBS Sports reports "the Raiders might part with Darren McFadden, a former first-round pick in the final year of his deal as well, sources said. But, again, there has not been much of a market for running backs to this point."
Just before the deadline it was reported by ESPN's Adam Schefter that McFadden was staying in Oakland.
From ESPN's Adam Schefter:
Raiders RB Darren McFadden going nowhere before trade deadline. Oakland not expected to make any trades.— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) October 29, 2013
McFadden has shown plenty of ability throughout his career when he is on the field. Since 2008, he has totaled 3,601 rushing yards at 4.3 yards per carry with 20 rushing touchdowns to go with 1,526 receiving yards and five scores.
This season, the former Arkansas star has rushed for 267 yards and two touchdowns.
However, the story of McFadden's career has been injuries. He has never played more than 13 games in a season and has missed a total of 24 games for the Raiders in total. This includes this year's Week 5 game against the San Diego Chargers.
Still, he has usually been productive when healthy, which he appears to be at the moment. According to Steve Corkran of the Contra Costa Times, head coach Dennis Allen said his running back "looks explosive" after the bye week.
If he can prove that he is 100 percent, there would likely be plenty of teams around the league interested in acquiring his services.
The price could be low as well due to the fact that multiple other running backs also sit on the trading block. As La Canfora notes, Mark Ingram, Maurice Jones-Drew and Mikel Leshoure are also available and possibly cheaper.
As far as the 2-4 Raiders are concerned, though, they likely hope to receive anything in return for the player before he becomes a free agent at the end of the season.
Follow Rob Goldberg on Twitter for the latest breaking news and analysis.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?