Oakland Raiders' Late-Season Success Yields More Questions Than Answers

It would have been easy had the Raiders closed the season as they had started it.  Take a 2-7 Raiders team, end with three or four wins and the real work could begin. 

A housecleaning that would see the team shopping for a coach, a quarterback, and possibly looking for another guy to earn the featured back role. 

Essentially, it would be a full purge and reset of an underachieving squad that has disappointed for seven years straight.

Instead, the team showed signs of life under Bruce Gradkowski.  The hard-working quarterback sparked wins over the Bengals and Steelers over a three-game span to bring the Raiders to life.

After he got hurt against Washington, two things became clear- the team’s second half winning ways were likely over, and JaMarcus Russell was irredeemable at quarterback.

Then the team went into Denver starting third stringer Charlie Frye at quarterback while Russell was sidelined by incompetence.

Frye put up a third-stringer’s stats (9-for-17, 68 yards and a pick), and then he was injured.  Russell entered the game and put up another sub-50 percent passing game (5-of-11), but he led the team to a game-winning touchdown.

It was obviously not enough to endear Russell to redemption yet, as Frye was announced as the starter for Cleveland barring health concerns.  Yet it would have been much simpler had he flubbed that drive.

His multiple chances would have been blown and the team could move on without him.  A starting gig is certainly not warranted, but you have to now consider one more year on the roster.

While Russell did both poor and well enough to throw out an array of questions, Bruce Gradkowski’s brief time as a starter incurred even more. 

The team can no longer rely on Russell evolving into a starting quarterback, though he may have done just enough to stay on the roster.  

With that said, how does the team go about in its pursuit of a future quarterback?

Gradkowski’s success has likely been enough to warrant at least an opportunity to compete for the 2010 starter’s role.  Does the team spend a high (first- or second-round) draft pick on a quarterback? 

Should they put money into an available veteran?  It will be difficult to truly ascribe one choice as the ideal, though another first-round quarterback is fairly unlikely given the open sore that is Jamarcus Russell’s drafting (both the size contract, the waste of such a high pick, and the forestalled progress of the team).

If the team places its faith in Gradkowski for 2010, does he have an entire season of magic in him, or was the three-game spurt a flash in the pan? 

Where to go with the third quarterback? Is Frye or JP Losman kept around as insurance, or is that job going to a Chad Henne-type second- or third-rounder to develop?  With four quarterbacks on the roster, this team has an infinite number of possibilities.

Questions reach beyond one position, however.  A 2-7 Raiders team can easily lay blame on the distractions following head coach Tom Cable and call for his ouster.

A 4-3 close to the year (assuming a split in the remaining games) muddies that notion as well.  If the Raiders end the year at 6-10, it will be their best record across their current seven-year sub-.500 skid.

The second-half result will be especially telling because three wins have come against legitimate teams (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Denver), it was not an end-of-the-year Lions/Buccaneers/Rams-style schedule that resulted in their improved record. 

Cable is not built to handle coaching and coordinating duties.  He may have peaked in his potential with the team’s current level of improvement. 

If he can take at least one more win away, though, he has most likely assured himself of the 2010 position to start the year.  He may have done enough with that Denver win to be retained without another win.

From leading the huddle to leading the team, we now look to who is leading the backfield.  With poor quarterback play and multiple deficits, the running game has been up and down all season.  

Whether they look to alter personnel at the running back position is as big a question as whether they should alter the rotation just among current running backs.

Michael Bush had been slipping off the radar with a mere eight carries over a four-game span.  He came alive against Denver to reach 133 yards on a mere 18 carries (7.4 yards per carry).

Can he be the player who has over 250 yards in two games (the other a 119-yard, 8.5-YPC effort), or is he the back who in a seven week span never reached four yards a carry or 40 yards?

Darren McFadden finally showed life after a disappointing second season that had seen his rushing average drop by over a yard a carry from his rookie year (his 74-yard 6.2 YPC performance managed to raise his season average to 3.5 yards per carry, or only .9 below last year’s 4.4). Like Russell, he was an expensive and disappointing high draft pick.

As the smallest, fastest running back on Oakland’s roster, it would possible to develop him into a Reggie Bush-esque Swiss army knife player. 

This seems more likely than his evolving into a true feature back.  What brings this into question would be his limited receiving stats (17 receptions across 10 games) and the price tag relative to his role (an issue the Saints can speak to with Bush).  He has the potential for value, but is that value worth the overall price tag?

Justin Fargas is another wild card in this debate.  He is technically the first running back on the team’s depth chart.  He is a hard-nosed, hard working guy who fights for every yard. 

What he lacks are the physical attributes to earn big yards.  Just over six-feet and weighing in at 220, he is not big enough to run over opponents, nor fast enough to break big open field runs.

He has earned a place on the team through hard work and dedication, but is not the guy you want as your sixteen game starter.  Playing in twelve of the team’s games this season, he has yet to eclipse 500 yards rushing total, and is no particular threat catching the ball out of the backfield.

Just like head coach and Quarterback, the teams has to question where to go at running back.  When Bush has played well, he has shown the greatest potential as the only back with a 100 (or even ninety) yard game.  His big frame should make him durable and low price tag make him appealing.  Yet he has failed to secure the lead back role this year, when the spot was up for grabs.

Fargas is a hard working, blue-collar type of player, but has essentially shown his peak.  He is a respectable committee back but has the most mileage (almost twice as many seasons as Bush and McFadden combined), a solid price tag (foxsports.com has him listed for a $6.1 million salary) and not much potential for growth.  If the team elects to try and find a more concrete number one, could he be vulnerable?  With his hard-nosed style, could he be asked to put on a little more bulk and try and be developed into a lead blocker who can take some carries?  Where does he fit in the team’s overall scheme?

Do they retain all three?  If they cut one who goes?  Is McFadden worth the price tag to be a change of pace back?  Can he evolve into more?  Should the team look at drafting a mid-round back to compete with these guys, possibly holding four backs on the roster? The running back position has grounds for optimism, but many question marks.

The same analytical good and bad can go towards nearly all positions.  Across the receiving position the stat lines for the year are 26 catches (Louis Murphy), 17 catches (Chaz Schilens), 14 catches (Johnny Lee Higgins, and 9 catches (Darrius Heyward Bey).  Those 66 catches by four receivers fall below most team’s number one guy.

 Do you put faith that more than half a season by Schilens and the development of rookies is enough?  Do you risk going for your next guy in the draft, or try to sign someone who has caught the ball more times in year than anyone current wideout has in their career (for those of you playing the home game that number is only 43 at present).

Personnel decisions are always up in the air with an Al Davis offseason, but the success in this year’s second half increases those questions tenfold.  The key to 2010 will be deciding which areas of improvement to count on continuing into the next season while identifying weaker areas that should be addressed in spite of what a few games say.  Not every player can be counted on to maintain or improve, but not all players will decline either.  Figuring out who will fall into what category will be the headache-inducing job for this offseason made tougher by so many players suddenly making cases for the former.