Oakland Raiders 2011 Offseason: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

« Prev
1 of 11
Next »
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse the slideshow
Oakland Raiders 2011 Offseason: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images
"Action" Jackson isn't interested in simply not being losers; he wants to be great.

After the lockout ended, Raider fans felt it was a matter of time before a few things happened:

1) We'd lose Nnamdi Asomugha and Michael Huff in free agency.

2) We'd re-sign Michael Bush and Zach Miller.

3) We would add a veteran or two to both the offensive line and the wide receiver corps.

Well, much like many things that transpired around the NFL after the lockout ended, some of the speculation was correct, and some was quite far off.

We did lose Nnamdi, but surprisingly we re-signed Michael Huff to a hefty contract.

We did re-sign Michael Bush. But in what I consider to be the biggest blow of the offseason, we lost Zach Miller. I'll expand on this later, but what alarmed me here was how the Raiders prioritized their players, and not necessarily losing Miller per se.

Many people ran for their swords when we lost Aso and Miller, dumped a bunch of money on guys like Stanford Routt, Kamerion Wimbley and Huff, and Darren McFadden and Jacoby Ford were injured early in training camp.

All of the good will fostered by last season's success seemed ready to blow up, and panic has begun to set in for some.

Personally, I don't see it. I'm not going to profess we are better at corner or tight end after losing our two most productive players, but I am also not sticking needles in my eyes either.

There is plenty of good to go with the bad and ugly. Turn the page to find out what I mean.

Begin Slideshow »
Load More Stories

Follow Oakland Raiders from B/R on Facebook

Follow Oakland Raiders from B/R on Facebook and get the latest updates straight to your newsfeed!

Out of Bounds

Oakland Raiders

Subscribe Now

We will never share your email address

Thanks for signing up.