A Look Back: Raider Nation's Thoughts On JaMarcus Russell Seven Months Ago
Seven months ago I posed the question, Are You A JaMarcus Russell Hater, Or Are You A JaMarcus Russell Supporter?
Go back and read the comments.
In the article, I tried my best not to sway the vote one way or the other. I attempted to be fair and see what the Raider Nation felt about him, at the time Oakland Raiders were 1-1, fresh off an ugly 13-10 win vs. the Kansas City Chiefs.
At that time there was a slim hope for JaMarcus Russell to have a good season, even though he hadn't played well thus far.
What happened over the next three weeks was a compete joke, the Raiders came back to Oakland and JaMarcus once again played like garbage as the Broncos beat us 23-3. This game was a perfect example of what went on in the Russell era.
The offense couldn't stay on the field, the defense was forced to play from behind.
You can also blame it on Tom Cable's play calling, however Russell's performance after the K.C. win, was a joke.
Week Four (1-2), the Raiders go on the road and get beat by the Houston Texans 29-6. The Raiders looked lost, the offense couldn't put anything together, it was just ugly.
For 2010, we can't have ANY games like this one. You would think after getting beat by Denver the Raiders would put together a better effort. Houston is a team that, in 2008, we beat in Oakland, I look forward to playing Houston in 2010, it will be our fourth game of the season.
Week Five (1-3), The Raiders go on the road to New York and give zero effort, the offense struggles once again, JaMarcus fumbles left and right, there was no leadership and bad play calling. Our defense had no chance with the way our offense performed.
In weeks Three, Four, and Five the Oakland Raiders only score 13 points. JaMarcus Russell is on the brink of the Raiders Nation turning their back on him forever after three hard losses, with the last two being on the road.
After the Raiders starting the season 1-4, no one expected Oakland to beat Philadelphia, shocking enough we did 13-10. It was our defense that won that game, just like in Kansas City. JaMarcus never won us games, it was more of him not messing up than out right winning.
Our biggest weakness was JaMarcus playing QB, and you can also say Tom Cable calling plays.
After the win the Raiders sat at 2-4. Beating Philly gave the Nation hope but what happened next was JaMarcus's second worst game of the season. In came the New York Jets, JaMarcus fumbled, threw interceptions, and got booed to the bench, the Raiders lost 38-0. Insert Bruce Gradkowski.
Week Eight saw the Raiders go into San Diego for the rematch with the Chargers, the Raiders lost 24-16. Once again JaMarcus failed, the defense kept us in it, and the Raiders lost.
Week Nine was the bye week and many Raiders fans asked for JaMarcus to be benched.
Tom Cable stuck with Russell the following week.
Week 10, the Raiders hosted the Kansas City Chiefs and our record stood at 2-6. Kansas City was a team that we had beat earlier in the season. Our defense played well once again, but JaMarcus failed to lead the offense and the Raiders where only able to put up 10 points. It got so bad for Russell he was finally benched for good, as Bruce Gradkowski took over as starting QB.
The Raiders were 2-7 when JaMarcus Russell started.
With Bruce Gradkowski and Charlie Fyre as the starting QB the Raiders went 3-4 in weeks 11-17.
Last, but not least, I would want to point out the game vs. the Washington Redskins.
I believe the Raiders were in a tight game with the Redskins, as the score was 17-10 Redskins, at halftime. It was a close game. At the time I was so hyped up I didn't even know Bruce had gotten hurt.
I remember hearing the boos while he was warming up. Everyone in that stadium knew that JaMarcus couldn't lead us back for the win. And we were right. Play after play was bad. Nothing but boos came pouring down. In my lifetime of going to Oakland Raiders games I have never heard a player like that get booed that bad.
Nobody wanted JaMarcus Russell out there, I don't even think Russell wanted to be out there. The final score was 34-13, the Raiders didn't score a single point with Russell in the game.
It was ugly, and I believe that this game was the all-time low in JaMarcus Russell's career. I believe that the game vs. Washington was the day he became the No. 1 all time bust in the history of the NFL. Like I said, I've never heard someone get booed that bad like the Raider Nation did him that day.
In the final three games, with a hurt Bruce and a JaMarcus Russell that looked lost, Charlie Fyre was set to be the new starter. In a game against the Broncos week 14, Charlie Fyre got hurt late in the game and Russell had to come back in on the road at Denver. Shocking enough Russell came though for Oakland leading us on a game winning drive to win 20-19.
However, that little Russell could do, his fate was already set.
The point I'm trying to make on JaMarcus Russell is that I believe the Raider Nation wanted to see this guy succeed.
The Raiders and Al Davis have spent so much money on him it's crazy. If you look at this picture in the article you see JaMarcus Russell in a fur coat behind a jet plane trying to stunt his money, power, and fame, as if he is a proven champion.
The Oakland Raiders don't need that. We need a hard worker and a wise leader as our quarterback. Someone who will come early and leave late. A quarterback that will be in shape and act like a pro.
We gave the world to JaMarcus Russell and in return he didn't work hard enough to be an Oakland Raider.
The Raiders fans take this game serious, we pay good money to watch the Sliver and Black on Sundays and for you to preform like you did, you need to be CUT!
Russell has all the talent in the world to be great: size, power, and a huge arm. But the will to be great, he doesn't have. To be overweight season after season and to fumble and throw picks, I'm sorry dude but you gotta go!
So with that I ask you to reread some of the comments that you posted on this article.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?