Peter Aiken - Getty Images
The Oakland Raiders made a very interesting move on Thursday and released CB Stanford Routt one year into a five-year deal. As the San Francisco Chronicle notes, this is a change in how the Raiders used to operate under the late Al Davis.
Routt was released one year into a $54.5 million, five-year contract, ending his seven-year tenure in Oakland.
The move by new general manager Reggie McKenzie and coach Dennis Allen signifies a change of approach from when Davis ran the team and was fiercely loyal to players he drafted.
There's a new sheriff in town, apparently.
Cutting Routt would be like the Chiefs releasing CB Brandon Flowers today -- both received five-year, $50-plus million deals last year. And there's a zero percent chance Flowers would ever be cut. Could you even imagine?
But that's the difference between how the Raiders used to be run and how they're now run under new GM Reggie McKenzie. Unfortunately, the latter seems a little too competent for my tastes.
0 recs | 55 comments
Pick up Routt and run a 3-3-5 as our base D
They’d never see it coming.
Whoever “they” are.
TRSChief - February 10, 2012
Opponents in Madden? :)
KSU-Chief - February 10, 2012
Hey, it's a pass-happy league. That's the conventional wisdom right?
Hali / DJ / Houston behind the 3 man front we run on the D Line anyway.
Flowers tackles like a safety.
No huge liability there really, and a leg up vs the pass.
TRSChief - February 10, 2012
Flowers in a rover type position? CB/S ala Woodson?
BAMFSpecialOps - February 10, 2012
Is Hali THAT good of a LB?
SCKSChief - February 10, 2012
He's on the field in base and sub packages anyway.
Main difference is swapping out Belcher w/ a CB
Like BAMF suggested, Flowers could run that cleanup rover / CB type position. Leaving Routt / Carr for more straight up man to man type roles.
Berry and Lewis cleaning up everything behind.
It’s all just purely academic and food for thought, since there’s zero chance of it actually happening anyway.
But as good as DJ and Berry are at cleaning up the run, if the D Line stays stout, it could work in kind of a new and interesting way.
TRSChief - February 10, 2012
Or someone like Allen as the 5th DB
BAMFSpecialOps - February 10, 2012
Not a bad thought at all.
TRSChief - February 10, 2012
Then swap out a Dlinemen for CB
BAMFSpecialOps - February 10, 2012
screw it just come out with 10 dbs and tamba
Rupert Daniels - February 10, 2012 via mobile
9 Tamba and Houston
BAMFSpecialOps - February 10, 2012
This is great for us b/c it dilutes the market for Carr.
Keyser Sose - February 10, 2012
I was thinking the same thing...
some teams may be more interested in Routt and Carr is no longer their #1 priority…I would much rather have Carr but here’s to hoping not every team feels that way…
OnlyKCFanNVA - February 10, 2012
Doubtful.
The league consensus was that Stanford Routt wasn’t worth the money the raiders were paying him. Carr is definitely a better player than Routt.
The name I’m watching is Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie in Philly. The Eagles will release one of their DBs, and he’s the most likely. He would dilute the market.
citadelchief - February 10, 2012
I think Samuels will get the axe since he is the oldest out the bunch
KingChief - February 10, 2012
That's a definite possibility.
I was surprised that Samuels was the starter all season. Makes me wonder if they didn’t feel comfortable with DRC in their defense.
citadelchief - February 10, 2012
Even so
Having another decent to good CB on the market still helps us when it comes to Carr.
Scaryclouds - February 10, 2012 via mobile
It also prevents Carr's agent
From using Routt’s contract as a base.
“Routt got this. Carr is better. Therefore, Carr should get at least what Routt got.”
That argument just went POOF for him. GREAT news for us.
MNchiefsfan - February 10, 2012
"The Oakland Raiders made a very interesting move"
Where have I heard this before????
Brad-KC - February 10, 2012
Except in this case
It was a good move
MNchiefsfan - February 10, 2012
Cant tell if something like this
will have a negative/positive/no effect on the Carr deal?
-
Negative because it just goes to show how hard it is to play CB in the NFL
-
Positive because last year Routt and Carr were both right up there in key stats for CB play. Look what happened when Asamoah left(no I dont think Flowers is on the level of Asamoah but he is damn good)
-
None because it isnt KC it was the Raiders!
KSU-Chief - February 10, 2012
Reggie McKenzie is working hard to erase the "Crazy Old Al" stigma from Oakland.
Routt was majorly overpaid, and everyone knew it. With the raiders cap situation, and his less than spectacular playing, this move made plenty of sense. It probably won’t be the last surprising move either. I’m already predicting that Darren McFadden will be released as well.
citadelchief - February 10, 2012
McFadden could be a top 10 RB in the whole leage...
You’re probably right…
OnlyKCFanNVA - February 10, 2012
league
OnlyKCFanNVA - February 10, 2012
Except he's missed 11 games in the last two seasons.
McFadden is a very talented guy.
He’s just always hurt.
TRSChief - February 10, 2012
Amen to that
I’d love for them to cut him so we could sign him as a complementary back, but only if we had enough backs to keep going if/when he got hurt.
MNchiefsfan - February 10, 2012
That could get crazy.
Run a 2-back set. Send them out into the flats on opposite sides with WR’s going deep / clearing out.
One of those two is going to be covered by a LB in space.
Off to the races, heh.
TRSChief - February 10, 2012
Be a good way to keep them from taking much abuse
I don’t see it happening, but it’d be awesome.
MNchiefsfan - February 10, 2012
I can't see them outright releasing McFadden
They can get a mid pick for him easily, and they need all the picks they can get
BAMFSpecialOps - February 10, 2012
They can try, but finishing the last couple of seasons on IR hurts his price tag.
And on top of that, they’re hurting with the salary cap. They will certainly try to trade him, but why trade for a guy that is likely to be released?
The raiders are just so far in the red that they’re going to have to make a lot of hard choices. And if they want to keep Bush, they have to find cap room as quickly as possible.
citadelchief - February 10, 2012
I would give a 4th for him and have him back up Charles
BAMFSpecialOps - February 10, 2012
I would openly talk to Michael Bush...and then offer the raiders a 6th.
Put pressure on them to do something before Bush is gone.
citadelchief - February 10, 2012
That's IF I'm inclined to trade for him.
I really think they’ll have to act on McFadden way before they want to.
citadelchief - February 10, 2012
As would I
Perhaps they should’ve given him the “JC” treatment and kept his carries down per game.
We could afford to do that and still have far and away the best backfield in the NFL.
MNchiefsfan - February 10, 2012
Exactly both are dangerous and both would keep eachother healthy
BAMFSpecialOps - February 10, 2012
Although very different styles and types of backs to
the Okoye/Word tandem that I first grew to love as a young Chiefs fan. Having a 1-2 punch (as Okoye/Word were) of JC and McFadden would make me so happy.
Eastcoastransplant - February 10, 2012
Would be a step in the right direction
No need for a ’’thunder’’ back, need another ’’lightning’’ back to go with Charles
BAMFSpecialOps - February 10, 2012
Exactly.
I’m not saying a thunder and lightning complimentary back system as much as two backs that can be out there simultaneously which are interchangeable. Fast, agile, quick cutters that would force the D to chose, do I cover the backs that can burn us or the receivers? “whadoido whadoido? whadoido?”
Eastcoastransplant - February 10, 2012
I would say trade well before released
He is only owed right around $5.5mil in each of the next two years. For what he brings when actually healthy, that number isnt too bad with RB contracts today.
Henderson will be cut, Seymour will probably be asked to rework his deal and maybe even Huff. He has a big roster bonus do soon.
KSU-Chief - February 10, 2012
They'll try to trade him, but they don't really have much room to maneuver with.
It’s not about what they want to do, it’s about what they might HAVE to do. Crazy Old Al really put their backs up against the wall.
citadelchief - February 10, 2012
I agree...
I think they could easily find a team willing to give up a conditional 6th with yards/games incentives… If I am a team like Det, NYJ or about 4 other teams I would jump at the chance. His money is an issue and I wonder if that will keep some teams away from him.
KSU-Chief - February 10, 2012
Michael Bush is the X factor here.
If they had him under contract, then it would be easier to trade McFadden. But as the situation is, they’re going to be racing against Free Agency to make sure they have at least one of their RBs, and Bush is the safer choice.
citadelchief - February 10, 2012
And Seymour will be asked to restructure, but why should he?
If they cut him, he’ll get a huge contract from someone else. And he isn’t as replaceable to them as McFadden is.
citadelchief - February 10, 2012
Dont get me wrong
I agree that he wouldnt. He has no reason too. That is why he had the contract in the first place, he had all the chips on the table. He would jump at the chance to add years to the deal though. He is in the last year and is turning 33 this year. You add two years on his deal, give his $10mil signing bonus, $2.5mil base this year and $7.5mil and $10mil the following years. He gets $30mil over 3 years. You drop his cap from $15mil to $5.8… Everyone wins.
KSU-Chief - February 10, 2012
Or he can finish his contract and push for another huge deal next year in an open market.
Seymour is holding all 4 aces right now. He can play this year and get another front loaded contract next year (maybe not from the raiders).
citadelchief - February 10, 2012
Yeah
it is a gamble for him if he just wanted to play it out. I think he would push for more guaranteed money in the contract but he would be 34 at the start of the 2013 season. That is getting up there for a DL… I dont think many teams would give him much signing bonus or guaranteed money at that point in his career. If I was him adding $15mil for two years is pretty damn solid. I doubt he would get that on the open market. Funny part is you never know in the NFL lol
KSU-Chief - February 10, 2012
That'd be sick to have both
JC and McFadden in our backfield.
Brad-KC - February 10, 2012
Trade Dorsey for McFadden...
7chiefs7 - February 10, 2012
Trade Dorsey for McFadden and Seymour
groundedchevy - February 10, 2012
Well could this be?
Maybe they are making a move to sign carr,wouldnt that piss off a few fans.at least their not afraid to take chances.
chiefsfool - February 10, 2012
You need
money to do that. They dont have draft picks this year, they dont have cap room and are going to probably release two or three more guys who were starters for that team. It is going to take two years to fix what Al did to this team…
KSU-Chief - February 10, 2012
This was probably more true under Uncle Al than it is now.
I don’t see them being half as loony as they were in the past, which, could ultimately spell bad news for us. Then again, I always like a Raiders team that isn’t the butt of jokes, makes our games more enjoyable.
severn58 - February 10, 2012
I find it very enjoyable when they're the butt of jokes.
Tarkus - February 10, 2012
Not Me...I enjoy seeing the Rayduh's Nuts Perennially in the Vise ...
Oh Waiter…Two turns to the Right Please…
KCChef - February 10, 2012
This
More power to this guy!
TheScootness - February 10, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Arrowhead Pride to post a comment.