Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Raiders need draft Geno Smith, Bray, Or Matt Barkley next.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Burgesskills


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1114
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
There really is zero need to respond to this b/c you basically said we all don't know anything but then you claim Pryor could be our future franchise when he lacks the skill set as a QB to do that. So I guess we're smarter by default.

I want you to stick around. I would never ban anyone (if I had the power) or tell anyone they should never come around. Discussion is discussion no matter how good it is. You're the one who just through a little temper tantrum and said you were leaving.


Did I say that Pryor could be our franchise QB really?

I said I hope the Raiders find one/draft one if it they decide another route other than Pryor.

If we're talking in todays NFL then Pryor has the skill set. He is big, he has a strong arm, he is athletic/mobile. Yes he needs to work on things such as accuracy and leadership, poise, but he is young and has time to develop some of those.

In my personal opinion burning a third round pick on the guy to let him rot without seeing what he could do is kind of silly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 5490
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Burgesskills wrote:
Quote:
There really is zero need to respond to this b/c you basically said we all don't know anything but then you claim Pryor could be our future franchise when he lacks the skill set as a QB to do that. So I guess we're smarter by default.

I want you to stick around. I would never ban anyone (if I had the power) or tell anyone they should never come around. Discussion is discussion no matter how good it is. You're the one who just through a little temper tantrum and said you were leaving.


Did I say that Pryor could be our franchise QB really?

I said I hope the Raiders find one/draft one if it they decide another route other than Pryor.

If we're talking in todays NFL then Pryor has the skill set. He is big, he has a strong arm, he is athletic/mobile. Yes he needs to work on things such as accuracy and leadership, poise, but he is young and has time to develop some of those.

In my personal opinion burning a third round pick on the guy to let him rot without seeing what he could do is kind of silly.


With all due respect to the deceased, welcome to Al's motley menagerie of freakish athletes, workout warriors and olympic sprinters. Similar to when your rich Grandmother passes her furniture is as expensive as it is eclectic. None of it goes together or matches rendering it nonfunctional and unusable.

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .

IMO, Pryor is a distraction and the team would be better without him. Knapp isn't going to install a wildcat package while the OL is struggling with the basic playbook.
_________________
Raiders 2014 Draft (check out my draft review tell me what you think)
Mancrush 2014: DE Clowney, WR Watkins, OT Robinson, LB Shazier, FS Brooks, TE ASJ, OG Jackson, WR Janis, OT Lucas, OT Tiny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chali21


Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 2800
Location: Cali
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
Burgesskills wrote:
Quote:
There really is zero need to respond to this b/c you basically said we all don't know anything but then you claim Pryor could be our future franchise when he lacks the skill set as a QB to do that. So I guess we're smarter by default.

I want you to stick around. I would never ban anyone (if I had the power) or tell anyone they should never come around. Discussion is discussion no matter how good it is. You're the one who just through a little temper tantrum and said you were leaving.


Did I say that Pryor could be our franchise QB really?

I said I hope the Raiders find one/draft one if it they decide another route other than Pryor.

If we're talking in todays NFL then Pryor has the skill set. He is big, he has a strong arm, he is athletic/mobile. Yes he needs to work on things such as accuracy and leadership, poise, but he is young and has time to develop some of those.

In my personal opinion burning a third round pick on the guy to let him rot without seeing what he could do is kind of silly.


With all due respect to the deceased, welcome to Al's motley menagerie of freakish athletes, workout warriors and olympic sprinters. Similar to when your rich Grandmother passes her furniture is as expensive as it is eclectic. None of it goes together or matches rendering it nonfunctional and unusable.

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .

IMO, Pryor is a distraction and the team would be better without him. Knapp isn't going to install a wildcat package while the OL is struggling with the basic playbook.


I wouldn't say Pryor is a distraction. It's not like New York where the starter sucks badly and his back up could be better. Heck Pryor isn't even a backup he's third string!

Besides we have a ton of areas that need an upgrade.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14111
PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dessie


Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 4405
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.


I don't think it is being a 'Debbie downer' to suggest McKenzie will draft some busts, it is just being realistic. Every GM drafts busts, the good ones don't draft too many. Sure McKenzie might turn out to be a bad GM but no one (and I am sure you as well) wants to consider that the moment. He was always going to be given time to sort this team out. With the lack of draft picks and salary cap problems I don't think by giving him time it is 'blind faith' just a recognition of the tough job he was given.

The positive signs at the moment are few but I like the pickups of Streater, Criner and Burris. The jury is definitely out on the coaching staff, all of them.
_________________
bitty wrote:
I don't understand why everybody thinks Green Bay is the pinnacle of NFL franchises?
In my opinion they are a joke. In the last ten years there drafts sucked.
#clueless
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3622
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.


He already has a good start to being a terrible GM.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22112
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.


Couldn't agree more. But the honeymoon period needs to last 3-4 years with this being very much a learning year (strapped cap issues and no draft picks).

The strength of a GM is finding players that fit in the system installed and hitting more than you miss. All teams, even the great teams miss on draft picks. The good GMs however can find pieces in all rounds of the draft that can contribute.

As for you 'positive sign', it's going to take time. There was never an easy fix to this team that's been hindered by poor trades, draft picks and FA bloat.

IMO, this year is a lost year more or less. Learning year when the team is strapped financially and talent wise. I want to see positive progression next year when they have some draft picks to work with and FA money to spend.

This season can be looked at as the demolition. Blow up the team and start laying the foundation. Next year, the ribbon is cut on the rebuild when they have resources to add building materials.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22112
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitty wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.


He already has a good start to being a terrible GM.


And why is that? Because the team didn't meet you lofty standards?

No GM could do anything to fix decades of destruction overnight like some of you expect.

I respected Davis, but to much damage was done over the years. Aside from McFadden and Asomugha, he didn't find a start caliber player since Woodson in 1998.

He traded important draft picks for Moss, Seymour, Hall among others. Win now type players on a roster with minimal talent. He paid guys like Wilson, Routt, Kelly, Walker, etc. franchise money despite them being role players or worse. And he never let a coach stay long enough to establish any culture or forward momentum.

So if Reggie has a good start at being a terrible GM as you stated, I'd LOVE to hear what you think he should be doing given the situation.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3622
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
bitty wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.


He already has a good start to being a terrible GM.


And why is that? Because the team didn't meet you lofty standards?

No GM could do anything to fix decades of destruction overnight like some of you expect.

I respected Davis, but to much damage was done over the years. Aside from McFadden and Asomugha, he didn't find a start caliber player since Woodson in 1998.

He traded important draft picks for Moss, Seymour, Hall among others. Win now type players on a roster with minimal talent. He paid guys like Wilson, Routt, Kelly, Walker, etc. franchise money despite them being role players or worse. And he never let a coach stay long enough to establish any culture or forward momentum.

So if Reggie has a good start at being a terrible GM as you stated, I'd LOVE to hear what you think he should be doing given the situation.



Because he signed off on Knapp being OC, drafting an 27 year old OG,signing two injury prone CBs, trading Murphy when the Raiders WRs where hurts and having to sign a street FA so they have enough WRs to play a game.cutting DVD and then having to go find a CB on the waiver wire. Firing Hue and hiring DA.

Is that list enough for you. I got an idea how a bout you name the good he has done?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dessie


Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 4405
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitty wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
bitty wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.


He already has a good start to being a terrible GM.


And why is that? Because the team didn't meet you lofty standards?

No GM could do anything to fix decades of destruction overnight like some of you expect.

I respected Davis, but to much damage was done over the years. Aside from McFadden and Asomugha, he didn't find a start caliber player since Woodson in 1998.

He traded important draft picks for Moss, Seymour, Hall among others. Win now type players on a roster with minimal talent. He paid guys like Wilson, Routt, Kelly, Walker, etc. franchise money despite them being role players or worse. And he never let a coach stay long enough to establish any culture or forward momentum.

So if Reggie has a good start at being a terrible GM as you stated, I'd LOVE to hear what you think he should be doing given the situation.



Because he signed off on Knapp being OC, drafting an 27 year old OG,signing two injury prone CBs, trading Murphy when the Raiders WRs where hurts and having to sign a street FA so they have enough WRs to play a game.cutting DVD and then having to go find a CB on the waiver wire. Firing Hue and hiring DA.

Is that list enough for you. I got an idea how a bout you name the good he has done?


Bergstrom was 25 when he was drafted. Murphy had been passed by Criner and Streater in the offseason so getting a pick for a player that was likely to cut was good business as was getting Goodson for Bruce Campbell. DVD was terrible and Hue was never going to stay if Reggie was going to be making personnel decisions.

Nice to see you have given up on the coach after 4 games Rolling Eyes
_________________
bitty wrote:
I don't understand why everybody thinks Green Bay is the pinnacle of NFL franchises?
In my opinion they are a joke. In the last ten years there drafts sucked.
#clueless
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NickButera


Moderator
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Posts: 6281
Location: Nevada
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitty wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
bitty wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.


He already has a good start to being a terrible GM.


And why is that? Because the team didn't meet you lofty standards?

No GM could do anything to fix decades of destruction overnight like some of you expect.

I respected Davis, but to much damage was done over the years. Aside from McFadden and Asomugha, he didn't find a start caliber player since Woodson in 1998.

He traded important draft picks for Moss, Seymour, Hall among others. Win now type players on a roster with minimal talent. He paid guys like Wilson, Routt, Kelly, Walker, etc. franchise money despite them being role players or worse. And he never let a coach stay long enough to establish any culture or forward momentum.

So if Reggie has a good start at being a terrible GM as you stated, I'd LOVE to hear what you think he should be doing given the situation.



Because he signed off on Knapp being OC, drafting an 27 year old OG,signing two injury prone CBs, trading Murphy when the Raiders WRs where hurts and having to sign a street FA so they have enough WRs to play a game.cutting DVD and then having to go find a CB on the waiver wire. Firing Hue and hiring DA.

Is that list enough for you. I got an idea how a bout you name the good he has done?


Hindsight is 20/20. When we traded Murphy and cut DVD, we didn't need help. After the fact, severe unforeseen injuries at both positions meant Reggie had to find help. We didn't cut DVD before we lost both our starting CB's. Exact same situation for the WR's This does not equate to doing a bad job. This equates to not being able to see the future. Yes, being prepared is part of being a good GM. But who in this league has enough depth to be prepared to lose both your starting WR's and both your starting CB's?

(As mentioned Berg was 25) The rest of your list is Hiring Knapp and firing Hue. McKenzie came out and said the coaching hiring decisions are up to Allen. He's a big fan of chain of proper hierarchy. That leaves firing Hue is the only bad thing he's been directly responsible for. I can agree with that, but I also understand the wisdom in McKenzie starting his foundation his way and the reason why he let him go. We can't give up after 5 games, let's give our new coaching staff and scheme a year or so to get going. I'm sure the Texans are ecstatic about keeping Kubiak after going 6-10, 8-8, 8-8 his first 3 seasons. He needed time, but after they had stability in management and coaching, it all started to come together.

Have some patience, let's see where this train goes. I loved Al Davis, even loved some of the quirky things he did. After years of strange management of this team, let's see what happens after a year or 2. What other choice do we have?
_________________
Bah-Weep-Granah-Weep-Nini-Bong

My short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Also, my short-term memory is not as sharp as it used to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3622
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NickButera wrote:
bitty wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
bitty wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.


He already has a good start to being a terrible GM.


And why is that? Because the team didn't meet you lofty standards?

No GM could do anything to fix decades of destruction overnight like some of you expect.

I respected Davis, but to much damage was done over the years. Aside from McFadden and Asomugha, he didn't find a start caliber player since Woodson in 1998.

He traded important draft picks for Moss, Seymour, Hall among others. Win now type players on a roster with minimal talent. He paid guys like Wilson, Routt, Kelly, Walker, etc. franchise money despite them being role players or worse. And he never let a coach stay long enough to establish any culture or forward momentum.

So if Reggie has a good start at being a terrible GM as you stated, I'd LOVE to hear what you think he should be doing given the situation.



Because he signed off on Knapp being OC, drafting an 27 year old OG,signing two injury prone CBs, trading Murphy when the Raiders WRs where hurts and having to sign a street FA so they have enough WRs to play a game.cutting DVD and then having to go find a CB on the waiver wire. Firing Hue and hiring DA.

Is that list enough for you. I got an idea how a bout you name the good he has done?


Hindsight is 20/20. When we traded Murphy and cut DVD, we didn't need help. After the fact, severe unforeseen injuries at both positions meant Reggie had to find help. We didn't cut DVD before we lost both our starting CB's. Exact same situation for the WR's This does not equate to doing a bad job. This equates to not being able to see the future. Yes, being prepared is part of being a good GM. But who in this league has enough depth to be prepared to lose both your starting WR's and both your starting CB's?

(As mentioned Berg was 25) The rest of your list is Hiring Knapp and firing Hue. McKenzie came out and said the coaching hiring decisions are up to Allen. He's a big fan of chain of proper hierarchy. That leaves firing Hue is the only bad thing he's been directly responsible for. I can agree with that, but I also understand the wisdom in McKenzie starting his foundation his way and the reason why he let him go. We can't give up after 5 games, let's give our new coaching staff and scheme a year or so to get going. I'm sure the Texans are ecstatic about keeping Kubiak after going 6-10, 8-8, 8-8 his first 3 seasons. He needed time, but after they had stability in management and coaching, it all started to come together.

Have some patience, let's see where this train goes. I loved Al Davis, even loved some of the quirky things he did. After years of strange management of this team, let's see what happens after a year or 2. What other choice do we have?


Nice try but Ford and Moore where hurt. The CBs have history of being hurt so why not have a back up.
None of the people in charge of the Raiders have proved a thing.
Since when is Texas a team you want to become. They have won nothing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rolni


Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 2496
Location: Europe
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitty wrote:
NickButera wrote:
bitty wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
bitty wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.


He already has a good start to being a terrible GM.


And why is that? Because the team didn't meet you lofty standards?

No GM could do anything to fix decades of destruction overnight like some of you expect.

I respected Davis, but to much damage was done over the years. Aside from McFadden and Asomugha, he didn't find a start caliber player since Woodson in 1998.

He traded important draft picks for Moss, Seymour, Hall among others. Win now type players on a roster with minimal talent. He paid guys like Wilson, Routt, Kelly, Walker, etc. franchise money despite them being role players or worse. And he never let a coach stay long enough to establish any culture or forward momentum.

So if Reggie has a good start at being a terrible GM as you stated, I'd LOVE to hear what you think he should be doing given the situation.



Because he signed off on Knapp being OC, drafting an 27 year old OG,signing two injury prone CBs, trading Murphy when the Raiders WRs where hurts and having to sign a street FA so they have enough WRs to play a game.cutting DVD and then having to go find a CB on the waiver wire. Firing Hue and hiring DA.

Is that list enough for you. I got an idea how a bout you name the good he has done?


Hindsight is 20/20. When we traded Murphy and cut DVD, we didn't need help. After the fact, severe unforeseen injuries at both positions meant Reggie had to find help. We didn't cut DVD before we lost both our starting CB's. Exact same situation for the WR's This does not equate to doing a bad job. This equates to not being able to see the future. Yes, being prepared is part of being a good GM. But who in this league has enough depth to be prepared to lose both your starting WR's and both your starting CB's?

(As mentioned Berg was 25) The rest of your list is Hiring Knapp and firing Hue. McKenzie came out and said the coaching hiring decisions are up to Allen. He's a big fan of chain of proper hierarchy. That leaves firing Hue is the only bad thing he's been directly responsible for. I can agree with that, but I also understand the wisdom in McKenzie starting his foundation his way and the reason why he let him go. We can't give up after 5 games, let's give our new coaching staff and scheme a year or so to get going. I'm sure the Texans are ecstatic about keeping Kubiak after going 6-10, 8-8, 8-8 his first 3 seasons. He needed time, but after they had stability in management and coaching, it all started to come together.

Have some patience, let's see where this train goes. I loved Al Davis, even loved some of the quirky things he did. After years of strange management of this team, let's see what happens after a year or 2. What other choice do we have?


Nice try but Ford and Moore where hurt. The CBs have history of being hurt so why not have a back up.
None of the people in charge of the Raiders have proved a thing.
Since when is Texas a team you want to become. They have won nothing.


Ok let me try it too.

Murphy was passed by the new draft pick and an UDFA on the DC. Add to that that he was making more money then those guys together. He was cut because of his salary and because he was in his last year and was not in the long term plan, so this was the only solution where we could get something in return. Good decision IMO.

DVD also made too much money and on a team with this cap space situation it's important. While the 2 starting CB had injury in the prewious seasons neither of them were injury prone before that in they carrier, so loosing both of them was highly unlikely.

What did Hue proved? He can put together a high powered O with lots of penalities and he can't lead man. After he throw the hole D under the bus what could you expect from them? He had such an ego by the end of the season that it's not a surprise a new GM didn't wanted him as his HC. RM and Hue even had the same agent and knew each other, so he could judge Hue as a person well enough. Why is Hue a DB coach in Cinncy if he is so good?

DA and his staff has to install their schemes and has to form the roster with RM to be able to run those schemes effectively. With our cap situation and lost draft picks it was not an easy task.
They managed to find two starting OLB's, starting RG, an UDFA WR who is contributing big time...not bad IMO.
In this last game against Atlanta the D started to look different to last seasons finally. Hopefully they can keep that up.
In this last game Knapp started to call good plays...or the guys started to execute?? I'm not Knapp's biggest fan, but he is not that bad...

We have to wait till the next season's end to form some kind of judgement about RM and DA IMO.

Right now the Houston Texans are a top 5 team, so it would be nice to have similar success in a 3-4 year time.
_________________
WIN LOSE OR TIE...RAIDER FAN 'TIL I DIE!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 14111
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolni wrote:

DVD also made too much money and on a team with this cap space situation it's important.


No, he didn't. He was on a 3rd round pick rookie contract which is cheap.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3622
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rolni wrote:
bitty wrote:
NickButera wrote:
bitty wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
bitty wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Baggabonez wrote:

McKenzie is here to provide a clear vision of what the Raiders are to better determine how potential acquisitions will fit in and contribute in a highly specialized modern day NFL. No more throwing athletes at a wall and holding coaches accountable for what doesn't stick. Gone already are DVD, Barksdale & Bruce Campbell. The house cleaning will continue . . . .


When trying to envision what McKenzie could bring to the Raiders as far as drafting and FA signing, the only resource we have is the Packers' track record. So take a look at the QBs the Packers have drafted in the last 15 years and ponder your expectations.
I feel like i've been fighting a lost cause for the last 10 months because every Al Davis hater wants to believe having a GM means we'll never have a bad draft pick again. I've been and will be called a debbie downer for this but McKenzie will draft some busts. You all need to realize it for your own sake. Actually, Mckenzie might turn out to be a terrible GM but i'm sure that's something no one wants to hear.

While i'm on my rant, that's clearly the thing going on right now in this forum, and i guess all over Raider Nation. Al Davis haters want to give this regime blind faith while those who respect what Al Davis was about, including myself, are waiting for positive signs, which have yet to come.


He already has a good start to being a terrible GM.


And why is that? Because the team didn't meet you lofty standards?

No GM could do anything to fix decades of destruction overnight like some of you expect.

I respected Davis, but to much damage was done over the years. Aside from McFadden and Asomugha, he didn't find a start caliber player since Woodson in 1998.

He traded important draft picks for Moss, Seymour, Hall among others. Win now type players on a roster with minimal talent. He paid guys like Wilson, Routt, Kelly, Walker, etc. franchise money despite them being role players or worse. And he never let a coach stay long enough to establish any culture or forward momentum.

So if Reggie has a good start at being a terrible GM as you stated, I'd LOVE to hear what you think he should be doing given the situation.



Because he signed off on Knapp being OC, drafting an 27 year old OG,signing two injury prone CBs, trading Murphy when the Raiders WRs where hurts and having to sign a street FA so they have enough WRs to play a game.cutting DVD and then having to go find a CB on the waiver wire. Firing Hue and hiring DA.

Is that list enough for you. I got an idea how a bout you name the good he has done?


Hindsight is 20/20. When we traded Murphy and cut DVD, we didn't need help. After the fact, severe unforeseen injuries at both positions meant Reggie had to find help. We didn't cut DVD before we lost both our starting CB's. Exact same situation for the WR's This does not equate to doing a bad job. This equates to not being able to see the future. Yes, being prepared is part of being a good GM. But who in this league has enough depth to be prepared to lose both your starting WR's and both your starting CB's?

(As mentioned Berg was 25) The rest of your list is Hiring Knapp and firing Hue. McKenzie came out and said the coaching hiring decisions are up to Allen. He's a big fan of chain of proper hierarchy. That leaves firing Hue is the only bad thing he's been directly responsible for. I can agree with that, but I also understand the wisdom in McKenzie starting his foundation his way and the reason why he let him go. We can't give up after 5 games, let's give our new coaching staff and scheme a year or so to get going. I'm sure the Texans are ecstatic about keeping Kubiak after going 6-10, 8-8, 8-8 his first 3 seasons. He needed time, but after they had stability in management and coaching, it all started to come together.

Have some patience, let's see where this train goes. I loved Al Davis, even loved some of the quirky things he did. After years of strange management of this team, let's see what happens after a year or 2. What other choice do we have?


Nice try but Ford and Moore where hurt. The CBs have history of being hurt so why not have a back up.
None of the people in charge of the Raiders have proved a thing.
Since when is Texas a team you want to become. They have won nothing.


Ok let me try it too.

Murphy was passed by the new draft pick and an UDFA on the DC. Add to that that he was making more money then those guys together. He was cut because of his salary and because he was in his last year and was not in the long term plan, so this was the only solution where we could get something in return. Good decision IMO.

DVD also made too much money and on a team with this cap space situation it's important. While the 2 starting CB had injury in the prewious seasons neither of them were injury prone before that in they carrier, so loosing both of them was highly unlikely.

What did Hue proved? He can put together a high powered O with lots of penalities and he can't lead man. After he throw the hole D under the bus what could you expect from them? He had such an ego by the end of the season that it's not a surprise a new GM didn't wanted him as his HC. RM and Hue even had the same agent and knew each other, so he could judge Hue as a person well enough. Why is Hue a DB coach in Cinncy if he is so good?

DA and his staff has to install their schemes and has to form the roster with RM to be able to run those schemes effectively. With our cap situation and lost draft picks it was not an easy task.
They managed to find two starting OLB's, starting RG, an UDFA WR who is contributing big time...not bad IMO.
In this last game against Atlanta the D started to look different to last seasons finally. Hopefully they can keep that up.
In this last game Knapp started to call good plays...or the guys started to execute?? I'm not Knapp's biggest fan, but he is not that bad...

We have to wait till the next season's end to form some kind of judgement about RM and DA IMO.

Right now the Houston Texans are a top 5 team, so it would be nice to have similar success in a 3-4 year time.


Just like I posted before a coach can run any offense he wants but he has to be held accountable for its success or failure.
A coaches job is to prepare the team and get the most out of your players. Can you honestly say that the coaches are getting the most out of the Raiders.
And as for the Texans they play in a weak division and win games in the regular season and then losing a playoffs the last 10 years the Raiders have more playoff wins they do and the Raiders sucked for 9 of them. Is that the team you want to be like because I want to be like the Giants tough running, smash mouth defense type of team that wins Super Bowl's and is never counted out in any year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 22 of 24

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group