OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for

Moderator: HMFFL

Twinkie defense
RealGM
Posts: 18,802
And1: 1,083
Joined: Jul 15, 2005

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1281 » by Twinkie defense » Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:58 pm

FireNellieQuick wrote:Two successful drafts later, the team is poised to make a leap as you graps at straws to convince anyone that Reggie shouldnt get credit. You were wrong with your assessment of the 13 draft, the 14 draft, and Reggie as a whole. Deal with it already and bail on the grasing at straws. We have an elite player on D, a potential franchise QB, a rising defense, a solid coach, and a ton of legitimate opportunities to get better (#4, 50m in cap). We havent been positioned this well to be good in almost 15 years.

I hope so. 4 win, 4 win, 3 win seasons are not a good look. Reggie said this season was the no excuses season, now I suppose that's pushed to next season. I can tell you, if things aren't turned around in year 4, Reggie is gone.
Twinkie defense
RealGM
Posts: 18,802
And1: 1,083
Joined: Jul 15, 2005

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1282 » by Twinkie defense » Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:06 pm

RoyalMajesty wrote:
RoyalMajesty wrote:Broncos LB Coach this past season Richard Smith is going to be the new defensive coordinator for the Atlanta Falcons.

So, what other teams that still don't have a defensive coordinator besides the Raiders and Broncos?

Did I imagine hearing that Raiders were reaching out to Wade Phillips? Also, Mike Smith off the board over contract dispute with Raiders - apparently not enough money or (more likely?) years? So he's sitting out. Or saying he's going to sit out until Raiders up their offer.

Other teams in need of DCs... the Washington football team, Broncos, Jets, Seahawks?
User avatar
FNQ
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 62,963
And1: 20,007
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Location: EOL 6/23
   

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1283 » by FNQ » Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:22 pm

There was an unsourced rumor about Phillips coming here. He has always been waiting for Kubiak. Smith is taking a year off coaching, presumably to take over an underachieving defense - by some accounts, the Raiders D overachieved last year. Has nothing to do with money. Maybe years - Mark will not sign a 3 year coordinator. With Reggie being on a 2 year deal - which, BTW, they will honor - it makes little sense to contract coordinators beyond that.

Ken Norton Jr, maybe?
User avatar
FNQ
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 62,963
And1: 20,007
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Location: EOL 6/23
   

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1284 » by FNQ » Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:25 pm

Twinkie defense wrote:
FireNellieQuick wrote:Two successful drafts later, the team is poised to make a leap as you graps at straws to convince anyone that Reggie shouldnt get credit. You were wrong with your assessment of the 13 draft, the 14 draft, and Reggie as a whole. Deal with it already and bail on the grasing at straws. We have an elite player on D, a potential franchise QB, a rising defense, a solid coach, and a ton of legitimate opportunities to get better (#4, 50m in cap). We havent been positioned this well to be good in almost 15 years.

I hope so. 4 win, 4 win, 3 win seasons are not a good look. Reggie said this season was the no excuses season, now I suppose that's pushed to next season. I can tell you, if things aren't turned around in year 4, Reggie is gone.


I doubt that. But if we dont have a turnaround of some sort (X amount of wins isnt the end all be all, at least right now), Reggie will have few fans. We're poised to be around .500, even in a tough division.

2016 is when we should be peaking, as Peyton retires and the Chargers/Chiefs start getting old at key spots.
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 15,417
And1: 4,640
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1285 » by Quake Griffin » Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:58 pm

LMFAO at John Schneider for signing Matt Flynn to a 3 year/ $20 million deal with $9 million guaranteed in 2012.

There's no way he could have expected Russell Wilson to out play him in training camp. He didn't plan for Russell Wilson.

ha ha ha ha ha Schneider.

-______-
“I’ve always felt that drafting is the life blood of any organization.” - Jerome Alan West.
Twinkie defense
RealGM
Posts: 18,802
And1: 1,083
Joined: Jul 15, 2005

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1286 » by Twinkie defense » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:18 pm

Yeah I knew you weren't done talking about Reggie's QB decisions, you just wanted to have the last word. Difference is, Seattle was able to unload Flynn's contract plus get a couple draft picks in return for their bad signing. If Reggie can do that with Matt Schaub I will be impressed.

BTW this is what Reggie said about Flynn when the Seahawks traded him to Oakland:

"Matt is a tough football player, and a talented quarterback," McKenzie said. "He will get the opportunity to compete to be a starter with the Raiders. I believe Matt has that potential, but I also know he hasn't had enough experience. We're going to let him compete and battle, and see what happens."

In contrast, here is what the Raiders said about trading for Matt Schaub:

"Coach Dennis Allen said Schaub comes in as the starter after Terrelle Pryor and Matt McGloin were inconsistent last year in Oakland's second straight four-win season.

'The quarterback position is the most important position on the football field,' Allen said. 'We feel very confident that Matt Schaub is the guy that can come in and lead this football team. And he's proven that he can do it in this league.'"

"'We weren't going to let last season deter us from the player and the track record that he has shown over his career,' offensive coordinator Greg Olson said. 'He was our No. 1 target from day one, and it was just a matter of getting the deal done.'"

That's a very different picture. You can say "don't believe the PR," "Schaub was brought here to keep a seat warm for Carr," etc. etc. But the Raiders brought Schaub in to be the unquestioned starter. Of course they were going to draft a QB again (they've had a rookie QB every season under Reggie McKenzie), but they never would have signed Schaub (a very questionable move even at the time) if they understood how horrid he would be - why would Reggie put his job on the line for Matt Schaub?
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 15,417
And1: 4,640
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1287 » by Quake Griffin » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:26 pm

Post was more about your bias than the QB situation.

you don't see a Raider mentioned anywhere in the post.
“I’ve always felt that drafting is the life blood of any organization.” - Jerome Alan West.
Twinkie defense
RealGM
Posts: 18,802
And1: 1,083
Joined: Jul 15, 2005

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1288 » by Twinkie defense » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:43 pm

FireNellieQuick wrote:by some accounts, the Raiders D overachieved last year.

You said earlier something about the Raiders defense being on the rise. And now that some think they overachieved. Help me understand this - I know there are a few good young players on the defensive side of the ball, but by most typical defensive measures this Raiders D is one of their worst defenses in franchise history. The number of points given up, the franchise-worse losses, the 50-point beatdowns. Why do you think they are on the rise and overachieving? I thought the defense was bad under Bresnehan but the defensive-minded Reggie McKenzie/Dennis Allen/Jason Tarver era seems to be much worse. There have been times when teams have scored on most every possession they've had, starting with the opening kick.
Twinkie defense
RealGM
Posts: 18,802
And1: 1,083
Joined: Jul 15, 2005

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1289 » by Twinkie defense » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:46 pm

FireNellieQuick wrote:Reggie being on a 2 year deal - which, BTW, they will honor

Mark Davis will honor Reggie's contract, meaning Reggie will get paid for two more seasons. I would put good money on the fact that, if the Raiders have another 3- or 4-win season next year, Reggie is gone. Mark Davis came close to firing Reggie already, and his endorsements now are lukewarm - he says "Reggie is under contract for two more years." Yeah no kidding.
User avatar
FNQ
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 62,963
And1: 20,007
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Location: EOL 6/23
   

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1290 » by FNQ » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:01 am

Twinkie defense wrote:
FireNellieQuick wrote:by some accounts, the Raiders D overachieved last year.

You said earlier something about the Raiders defense being on the rise. And now that some think they overachieved. Help me understand this - I know there are a few good young players on the defensive side of the ball, but by most typical defensive measures this Raiders D is one of their worst defenses in franchise history. The number of points given up, the franchise-worse losses, the 50-point beatdowns. Why do you think they are on the rise and overachieving? I thought the defense was bad under Bresnehan but the defensive-minded Reggie McKenzie/Dennis Allen/Jason Tarver era seems to be much worse. There have been times when teams have scored on most every possession they've had, starting with the opening kick.


I have no idea how me saying that the defense is on the rise and mentioning how certain outlets, when referencing Jason Tarver, believe the defense overachieved are at all related. Waste of time addressing. Take your beef to rotoworld.
Twinkie defense wrote:
FireNellieQuick wrote:Reggie being on a 2 year deal - which, BTW, they will honor

Mark Davis will honor Reggie's contract, meaning Reggie will get paid for two more seasons. I would put good money on the fact that, if the Raiders have another 3- or 4-win season next year, Reggie is gone. Mark Davis came close to firing Reggie already, and his endorsements now are lukewarm - he says "Reggie is under contract for two more years." Yeah no kidding.

Its generally considered bad gambling to lose then continually say 'double or nothing'. He was so close to being fired, yet Mark insisted he had retain roster control - the reason Scott McDrunk isnt our VP of football ops. Forgot that already?
User avatar
Neddy
RealGM
Posts: 15,865
And1: 3,908
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
     

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1291 » by Neddy » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:50 am

FireNellieQuick wrote:
Quake Griffin wrote:95.7 The GAME @957thegame
Follow
.@Julius_Thomas says becoming a #Raiders TE next season is a possibility. He'll wait and see if they reach out. Grew up a Raiders fan.
4:06 PM - 26 Jan 2015 Surprise, AZ, United States

and things like this will always help me move on from such lame conversations.


Either Broncos TE is appealing, though for value's sake, I'd prefer Virgil Green. Julius is a red zone mavens, but we need chain movers more


a guy turning down a 1 year 8 million dollar deal from the broncos isn't someone we need at TE. sure he is a great redone target but we need a heck of a lot more at different positions. I don't know enough about Virgil Green and I will have to take your word on him but so far I like the progress Mychal Rivera has made and he sure is cheap. is Virgil a blocking first TE? we can use a great blocking TE who can be decent with his catching. we don't need a pair of good to great catching TEs who can't block worth a damn.
ehhhhh f it.
User avatar
Neddy
RealGM
Posts: 15,865
And1: 3,908
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
     

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1292 » by Neddy » Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:17 am

Twinkie defense wrote:
FireNellieQuick wrote:Reggie being on a 2 year deal - which, BTW, they will honor

Mark Davis will honor Reggie's contract, meaning Reggie will get paid for two more seasons. I would put good money on the fact that, if the Raiders have another 3- or 4-win season next year, Reggie is gone. Mark Davis came close to firing Reggie already, and his endorsements now are lukewarm - he says "Reggie is under contract for two more years." Yeah no kidding.


christ, if you didn't know that a bad franchise takes typically about 3 years to turn around, you haven't lived long enough. i have been fortunate enough to be alive and living for all three raiders championship years, although was too young to remember much other than Marcus Allen going off on the last one.

as much as I loved and respected the old man Al, he did put us in a grand canyon sized hole that i personally thought it may take 5 or 6 years to be competitive, minimum, when he passed. RIP for his true raider-ness but all of us also - well, most of us, knew going into this season that we had by far the toughest schedule in all of NFL, with one of the weakest if not the weakest collection of talents before a single snap was played. when i paid for my subscription for directv' NFL sunday ticket, i even told my wife that i didn't even know why i was paying to watch games this season when i know we would probably lose all of them. well we didn't, and every game we won or came close was a pure bliss at least for me.

Reggie has done 3 major things that i didn't think could happen easily.

#1, no more Al Davis Scholarship Program. this means no more average to above average talents getting paid as if they were a top superstars in this league. God bless Al, but my goodness, he was not seeing things right when he signed Standford Routt to that deal to replace Nnamdi, going all in on Tommy Kelly's deal, trading away a fortune to get washed up Randy Moss or Richard Seymour, wasting a pick after a pick to draft mediocre players like Mike Mitchell, or head cases like McClain or Russell.

#2, building this young inexperienced team with mentors by signing cheap, seasoned vets who have won it all that can show them the ropes like Justin Tuck and Charles Woodson. I am especially happy to see the old heisman trophy touting Woodson back in Black. I was a big fan of him since his Michigan days, and even nearly chose to go to Michigan for my grad school simply to enjoy games at that stadium. getting young guys with talent and promise and giving them playing time is one thing, but having guys to teach them how to do it right from players perspective is priceless.

#3. he did it in a relatively short amount of time. as i said before, because of all the crippling contracts Al had given out, I didn't think we could clean the house as quickly as we did. i honestly thought we would resign Veldheer and Houston. turned out they too were very wise decisions as neither are better than our current options. Penn > Jared and anybody we have at DL > injured Lamaar.

we already have a QB that almost all the experts around the NFL phrases, whether you like him or not, and we have a ton of flexibility, whether you approve of it or not, and frankly, for the first time since Chucky left, i actually feel good about our chances in the next two three years to make the playoffs and make some noise.

remember, we have won the Super Bowl as a wildcard. once you make it into the playoffs, anything is possible.
ehhhhh f it.
Twinkie defense
RealGM
Posts: 18,802
And1: 1,083
Joined: Jul 15, 2005

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1293 » by Twinkie defense » Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:27 pm

I appreciate your take Neddy. With the Raiders I am in a place where they need to show me some improvement. I like Carr, Mack, a few others, but not a lot else to inspire confidence - not in free agent signings, not in coaching, not in choosing coaches, not in using the team's cap space or keeping promising young players around. The draft has been one bright spot but (to be charitable) that is maybe 70% good, 30% bad. If they were trending upwards that would inspire confidence - but in number of wins, margin of losses, growing losing streaks, they seem to be trending downwards, not upwards. I have been a member of Raider Nation since the 1970s, through good times and bad times. I'm not going anywhere. But the franchise needs to reciprocate here - they need to prove they are headed in the right direction, and they just haven't done that yet. Until they do you can color me skeptical.
User avatar
FNQ
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 62,963
And1: 20,007
Joined: Jul 16, 2006
Location: EOL 6/23
   

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1294 » by FNQ » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:08 pm

Neddy wrote:
FireNellieQuick wrote:
Quake Griffin wrote:95.7 The GAME @957thegame
Follow
.@Julius_Thomas says becoming a #Raiders TE next season is a possibility. He'll wait and see if they reach out. Grew up a Raiders fan.
4:06 PM - 26 Jan 2015 Surprise, AZ, United States

and things like this will always help me move on from such lame conversations.


Either Broncos TE is appealing, though for value's sake, I'd prefer Virgil Green. Julius is a red zone mavens, but we need chain movers more


a guy turning down a 1 year 8 million dollar deal from the broncos isn't someone we need at TE. sure he is a great redone target but we need a heck of a lot more at different positions. I don't know enough about Virgil Green and I will have to take your word on him but so far I like the progress Mychal Rivera has made and he sure is cheap. is Virgil a blocking first TE? we can use a great blocking TE who can be decent with his catching. we don't need a pair of good to great catching TEs who can't block worth a damn.


He is an excellent blocker. Think an unheralded Brandon Pettigrew with some upside. And I'm not too concerned how it affects Rivera, who is a major negative as a blocker and so average as a pass catcher. Not very athletic either. If we got Virgil, he should be our #1 with Rivera being our move TE, or hopefully, our reserve TE. Or cut.

IMO, Rivera's catch radius is nothing special.. As guys like Brandon Myers and Larry Donnell have proven, there are quite a few blocking TEs with similar catching skills.. A pure pass catching TE needs to be great at it or they are a liability: see Jared Cook, Zach Ertz, Eric Ebron. Unless Rivera seriously mans up re: his blocking, I dont want to see him on the field any more
Twinkie defense
RealGM
Posts: 18,802
And1: 1,083
Joined: Jul 15, 2005

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1295 » by Twinkie defense » Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:48 pm

Louisville defensive coordinator Todd Grantham refuses Raiders offer of DC position...
User avatar
Quake Griffin
RealGM
Posts: 15,417
And1: 4,640
Joined: Jul 06, 2012
     

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1296 » by Quake Griffin » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:01 am

his contract situation at Louisville is better than what we could offer. No biggie.

I think he's like top 5 highest paid DCs in college football with 4 more years left on his deal. He wasn't leaving unless we cashed him out.
“I’ve always felt that drafting is the life blood of any organization.” - Jerome Alan West.
User avatar
Neddy
RealGM
Posts: 15,865
And1: 3,908
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
     

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1297 » by Neddy » Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:23 am

Twinkie defense wrote:I appreciate your take Neddy. With the Raiders I am in a place where they need to show me some improvement. I like Carr, Mack, a few others, but not a lot else to inspire confidence - not in free agent signings, not in coaching, not in choosing coaches, not in using the team's cap space or keeping promising young players around. The draft has been one bright spot but (to be charitable) that is maybe 70% good, 30% bad. If they were trending upwards that would inspire confidence - but in number of wins, margin of losses, growing losing streaks, they seem to be trending downwards, not upwards. I have been a member of Raider Nation since the 1970s, through good times and bad times. I'm not going anywhere. But the franchise needs to reciprocate here - they need to prove they are headed in the right direction, and they just haven't done that yet. Until they do you can color me skeptical.



good to know that you are not a kid who is being impatient but a long timer who is skeptical.

hey I may have issues with many of your POV but i don't have a problem with another true raider fan. cheers. :beer:
ehhhhh f it.
User avatar
Neddy
RealGM
Posts: 15,865
And1: 3,908
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
     

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1298 » by Neddy » Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:24 am

duplicate post.
ehhhhh f it.
User avatar
Neddy
RealGM
Posts: 15,865
And1: 3,908
Joined: Jan 28, 2012
     

Re: OT: Raiders least desirable team to play for 

Post#1299 » by Neddy » Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:27 am

FireNellieQuick wrote:
Neddy wrote:
FireNellieQuick wrote:
Either Broncos TE is appealing, though for value's sake, I'd prefer Virgil Green. Julius is a red zone mavens, but we need chain movers more


a guy turning down a 1 year 8 million dollar deal from the broncos isn't someone we need at TE. sure he is a great redone target but we need a heck of a lot more at different positions. I don't know enough about Virgil Green and I will have to take your word on him but so far I like the progress Mychal Rivera has made and he sure is cheap. is Virgil a blocking first TE? we can use a great blocking TE who can be decent with his catching. we don't need a pair of good to great catching TEs who can't block worth a damn.


He is an excellent blocker. Think an unheralded Brandon Pettigrew with some upside. And I'm not too concerned how it affects Rivera, who is a major negative as a blocker and so average as a pass catcher. Not very athletic either. If we got Virgil, he should be our #1 with Rivera being our move TE, or hopefully, our reserve TE. Or cut.

IMO, Rivera's catch radius is nothing special.. As guys like Brandon Myers and Larry Donnell have proven, there are quite a few blocking TEs with similar catching skills.. A pure pass catching TE needs to be great at it or they are a liability: see Jared Cook, Zach Ertz, Eric Ebron. Unless Rivera seriously mans up re: his blocking, I dont want to see him on the field any more



sounds like the type of guy we need. he is also a free agent? what's his price range and his age?
ehhhhh f it.

Return to Las Vegas Raiders