Oakland Raiders: Why the AFC West doesn't like history....

In a few articles, around the Bleacher Report, you'll get some feedback from people, claiming the Raiders' only defense to greatness, is buried in the past.

To this argument, I must ask then: is all history moot? And when does it become moot?

For example, if all history is moot, then why would we care if the Giants won the Super Bowl? Or the Patriots won 3 titles in the last 10 years? it's history, it's moot, right?

As well, while some clubs have been around since the 1920s, some of the younger generation have no idea who people like Jim Brown, Daryle Lamonica, or even Bart Starr were, unless you followed the browns, Raiders and Packers.

But, then, do a little research, and you learn why some of these clubs, wouldn't want to refer to a history, that is embarrassing.

For the first topic, I recently finished an article on the Chargers.....needless to say, I don't know what's more embarrassing, the lack of an overall .500 average, or that they haven't won a title in 44 years.

Sure, the Chargers fans will claim, oh, we're great, oh we're dominant.....this is a club, with a track record of having 4-6 good seasons, then going dormant for about 10 years from the playoffs.

Next up, is the Kansas City Chiefs. Another case of long-suffering, they won a title in the AFL, and in the Super bowl, back in 1969. The closest since? 1993, when they lost out to the Bills.

Here's a club, that has a jeckyl and hyde pattern. Some seasons, they're doing well, flying along, and then one thing will end their season. One year, it was the thriller against the Colts in the playoffs, the next, it was having the best offense in the NFL....and the worst Defense, in the NFL.

After last year, the Chiefs retooled, dropped a Pro Bowler in Jared Allen....and are still sticking with Brodie Croyle.

Denver, for it's history, actually stands close, as far as Super Bowls go. We have 3, they have 2. We've lost 2, they've lost 4. We outnumber them in appearances, winning percentage, Hall of Famers, among other issues.

You might also run a line, considering we had our super bowl appearances from 1967 to 2002....in our drought from 1983 to 2002, they had their two wins....ironically, it now looks like their high water mark.

So, looking at the Oakland Raiders, and their history.....which would you rather have, Super Bowls in 4 out of 5 Decades, or 44 years of drought?

Waiting until the late 90's to finally win your first Super Bowl, or win your first in 1976?

And would you rather have an erratic, spotty team that is up and down, or one that has stood the test of time....and is the number 2 team in winning percentage from 1960 on?

I'll stick with the Raiders.....good times, or bad....we're still loyal.

RCA