The Silver and Black Lining.

Are you tired of reading this?
Because I'm tired of writing it.
I tried breaking it down.
I tried giving you hope.
But that's not enough.
That's just not enough.
So now I've gotta spell it out.

There's a really fun statistic.
A really, really fun statistic.
If Derek Carr throws for at least 207 yards and a touchdown, and Michael Crabtree manages to rack up 112 yards against the Chiefs in week 17, the Raiders will have accomplished something truly incredible.
They'll have a 4,000 yard passer, a 1,000 yard passer, and two 1,000 yard receivers.
This is a feat that rarely happens.
The New England Patriots have never done it.
The New Orleans Saints have never done it.
In fact! It's something that only the most prolific offenses in NFL history have been able to do.
Dan Fouts and the Chargers pulled it off only once, in 1981 at the peak of Air Coryell's dominance.
The Greatest Show on Turf pulled it off in 1999, 2001, and 2006.
And in Peyton Manning's best years, his teams were able to do it. In fact, in both years that he set the record for most passing touchdowns in a season, he had multiple 1,000 yard receivers and a 1,000 yard rusher.
Hell, people compare (pro bowl alternates) Derek Carr, Latavius Murray, and Amari Cooper to Dallas' triplets, but even they never came close to pulling off what the Raiders have a shot at doing in Kansas City in Week 17.
Derek Carr is 24, Latavius Murray is 25, and Amari Cooper is only 21 years old.
They're so young, and they are just getting started.
People try to discredit this achievement by noting the evolution of the passing game and quarterback statistics in the NFL today, but with one more touchdown pass, Carr will move into second place all time behind Dan Marino with the most touchdown passes through two seasons.
Oh, and also?
24 year old Khalil Mack is only in his second season... and he currently leads the NFL in sacks by 2.5.

I saw this on Facebook the other day,and I had to chuckle.
Some people are impossible to please!
If the Raiders really bring it to a good team and fall short, they grunt that "morale victories don't exist. We need wins!"
But if the Raiders squeeze out a close win, they still aren't satisfied.
"What an ugly win, you shouldn't feel good about it."

First off, at the very most, I'll only ever see the Raiders play twenty meaningful games in a season, so I'm not going to take any wins for granted.
Secondly, what would you prefer have happened?
"Well, it's late in the third quarter and we aren't blowing them out, we should just pack it up and go home".
People complain that the Raiders don't finish games, and then they do just that and it still isn't enough!

The Raiders aren't going to the playoffs.
Next week, at Kansas City, for better or for worse, that's the end.
Then the season is over.
The Raiders might be 8-8, they might be 7-9, but they swept the San Diego Chargers, and I'm not going to discredit the grit it took to give Charles Woodson a retirement win for Christmas.

Plus!
If we're going to discredit wins because they were close, I'm going to do the same for losses.
All those close losses?
Yup. They're wins now.
The Raiders totally swept the Broncos, beat the Packers, Lions, Vikings, Steelers, and Bears.
The Raiders are 13-3.
They're first in the AFC West and will likely get a first round bye.
Sound stupid?
Well... Remember that next time you change a W to a L because a game wasn't a blowout.

Yeah, can we talk about how many close games the Raiders lost this year?
What if Seth Roberts catches that late pass against the Broncos, and it isn't taken back for six?
What if Carr doesn't throw those costly early interceptions against the Packers?
What if they tackle Antonio Brown or Adrian Peterson late in games?
What if Latavius doesn't totally blow that catch or Seabass doesn't miss that kick against the Bears?
What if the Raiders didn't completely fall apart against the Chiefs in the fourth quarter?

The Bengals game wasn't pretty.
You know... the first game of the season?
In a game where the team was just figuring out who they were and where we basically didn't have Derek Carr?

The Raiders weren't just competitive in those games, they could've won those games.
The Raiders could have won any and all of those close games.
The Oakland Raiders do need to get better.
They need some help in the secondary, some depth on the offensive line, and a little more consistency on offense.
But outside of that, this team is good.
Not great, but good.
Certainly better than any team lead by a Pryor or a McGloin.