- Jan 8, 2006
- 30,560
- 33,906
Closed
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by jumpmanfromdabay,
- Start date
- Feb 17, 2007
- 21,784
- 2,957
Damn, though. If the NFL hadn't extended the cap as much as it did I wonder if we would have had a shot at Greg Hardy? I'm so disappointed.
- Oct 14, 2005
- 12,443
- 1,194
March 11th less than 2 weeks for Reggie to put in work.
- Apr 23, 2004
- 1,787
- 41
Either Verner/Shields would be nice with Jenkins/Porter/Hayden?.
Are Jenkins and Porter still under contract?
So who we getting at #5?
Wouldn't mind drafting Bridgewater at all.
Part of me wants to see Johnny Football
I'd like to see him ball out but i feel Teddy is the safer pick.
Are Jenkins and Porter still under contract?
So who we getting at #5?
Wouldn't mind drafting Bridgewater at all.
Part of me wants to see Johnny Football
I'd like to see him ball out but i feel Teddy is the safer pick.
- Jan 8, 2006
- 30,560
- 33,906
Jenkins and Porter are both free agents I believe.
jumpmanfromdabay
Banned
- Jan 25, 2008
- 25,730
- 2,900
Thompson: Raiders, Oakland were made for each other
By Marcus Thompson II Bay Area News Group
Friday, Feb. 28, 2014 - 6:05 p.m.
Oakland is on its "last chance" huh? That's some tough talk from Raiders owner Mark Davis.
The frustration over the lack of action makes sense. For the Raiders to put the East Bay atop their wish list, while the Warriors and A's eye greener pastures, is refreshing to hear.
But, please, chill with the threats. They are not only unproductive but also borderline insulting.
"I don't want to call it a last-ditch effort, but it does seem to be the last chance that Oakland is going to get," Davis told the San Francisco Chronicle. "We can't continue to play in that stadium, with the baseball field and all of that stuff."
Everybody knows you ain't going anywhere. The Raiders and East Bay go together. They both have issues, which is why they click.
Like most, Davis can't stomach that monstrosity of a stadium. But it's part of his family legacy. The Coliseum should be a reminder of how committed this area is to this franchise. That Ocean's 11-esque hustle that Al Davis pulled on Alameda County is worth more patience, if not respect for the rabid fan base, if not action to ensure the team stays.
And if it doesn't, then such threats should at least be muffled by the shame of consecutive dismal seasons. You've got to make the playoffs or something before you get a license to start poppin' your collar.
This is a marriage with war wounds to prove it, with so much invested that moving on will be extremely difficult for either side. And the maniacal fans in these parts know one thing for sure: No one's going to love you better.
Yeah, you left before. But look where you ended up. How does the saying go? "If you love something, let it go, and if it comes back to you ..." Yeah, this is where you belong.
"Where else will fans take out a second mortgage to buy a PSL?" said Jim Zelinski, co-founder of SaveOaklandSports.org, which just received nonprofit status and is willing to help fundraise to help pay for stadium costs. "Because that's what happened here when they returned in 1995. Nobody supports the Raiders like Oakland and the East Bay. And nobody will."
Plus Oakland is on the rise. If this thing is pulled off, whether on the current site or at the waterfront, the Raiders will have the best of all worlds: a die-hard fan base, a big market and a growing metropolis.
Sure, the city is a bit clunky on major projects such as arenas and stadiums. But the payoff is worth the wait.
So instead of intimating about a divorce, how about reassuring fans how the Raiders are going to spend that $65 million-plus in salary cap space? How about vowing to do whatever is possible, and then some, to make sure it gets done? Especially since you don't have the deep pockets to go build your own, or another city pining to steal you away.
And in the meantime, get a quarterback your fan base can ride with.
No doubt, the city politics need a kick in the tush. More than that, they clearly need expertise and guidance in managing such projects. The track record is less than spectacular. Feel free to step in and just make stuff happen instead of accepting being put off, off, off, off.
What is not needed is more 91 Supreme poured onto the combustible stadium situation. What is not needed is to point out Oakland's flaws while you're still in between championships.
That's not how you treat someone who loves you.
By Marcus Thompson II Bay Area News Group
Friday, Feb. 28, 2014 - 6:05 p.m.
Oakland is on its "last chance" huh? That's some tough talk from Raiders owner Mark Davis.
The frustration over the lack of action makes sense. For the Raiders to put the East Bay atop their wish list, while the Warriors and A's eye greener pastures, is refreshing to hear.
But, please, chill with the threats. They are not only unproductive but also borderline insulting.
"I don't want to call it a last-ditch effort, but it does seem to be the last chance that Oakland is going to get," Davis told the San Francisco Chronicle. "We can't continue to play in that stadium, with the baseball field and all of that stuff."
Everybody knows you ain't going anywhere. The Raiders and East Bay go together. They both have issues, which is why they click.
Like most, Davis can't stomach that monstrosity of a stadium. But it's part of his family legacy. The Coliseum should be a reminder of how committed this area is to this franchise. That Ocean's 11-esque hustle that Al Davis pulled on Alameda County is worth more patience, if not respect for the rabid fan base, if not action to ensure the team stays.
And if it doesn't, then such threats should at least be muffled by the shame of consecutive dismal seasons. You've got to make the playoffs or something before you get a license to start poppin' your collar.
This is a marriage with war wounds to prove it, with so much invested that moving on will be extremely difficult for either side. And the maniacal fans in these parts know one thing for sure: No one's going to love you better.
Yeah, you left before. But look where you ended up. How does the saying go? "If you love something, let it go, and if it comes back to you ..." Yeah, this is where you belong.
"Where else will fans take out a second mortgage to buy a PSL?" said Jim Zelinski, co-founder of SaveOaklandSports.org, which just received nonprofit status and is willing to help fundraise to help pay for stadium costs. "Because that's what happened here when they returned in 1995. Nobody supports the Raiders like Oakland and the East Bay. And nobody will."
Plus Oakland is on the rise. If this thing is pulled off, whether on the current site or at the waterfront, the Raiders will have the best of all worlds: a die-hard fan base, a big market and a growing metropolis.
Sure, the city is a bit clunky on major projects such as arenas and stadiums. But the payoff is worth the wait.
So instead of intimating about a divorce, how about reassuring fans how the Raiders are going to spend that $65 million-plus in salary cap space? How about vowing to do whatever is possible, and then some, to make sure it gets done? Especially since you don't have the deep pockets to go build your own, or another city pining to steal you away.
And in the meantime, get a quarterback your fan base can ride with.
No doubt, the city politics need a kick in the tush. More than that, they clearly need expertise and guidance in managing such projects. The track record is less than spectacular. Feel free to step in and just make stuff happen instead of accepting being put off, off, off, off.
What is not needed is more 91 Supreme poured onto the combustible stadium situation. What is not needed is to point out Oakland's flaws while you're still in between championships.
That's not how you treat someone who loves you.
- Feb 17, 2007
- 21,784
- 2,957
Mark Davis is in a tough spot, I feel for him. He's not half the tactician/politician that his father was, but he's responsible for the reinvention of his father's football legacy. He has to find a suitable home for his team to spend the next couple generations in while navigating the hopeless abyss that is Oakland politics. The company that lobbied its way into the discussion to build a home for the team in Oakland hasn't contacted him in months to let him know about progress, if any. Los Angeles is shrouded in mystery, it seems that no one knows what the NFL's designs are for the City.
I hope a solution is found before the decade is out. I'd prefer Oakland, but anywhere in California (except SF) would be fine with me.
I hope a solution is found before the decade is out. I'd prefer Oakland, but anywhere in California (except SF) would be fine with me.
As a bay area dude, I sympathize with the raider fans, If not the niners winning, i want the raiders to win - as long as they are in the bay.
But I gotta ask how you can support a franchise that doesn't even know where they'll be in the next 10 years... They don't have any roots, they don't have a permanent home right now... this team could hypothetically end up leaving for LA or London for that matter in the next 5 years...
Most of you guys seem like Bay Area dudes, but the Raiders don't seem to give a **** about the city of Oakland and the city of Oakland doesn't seem to give a **** about them...
I just wonder how you can support a franchise that has shown no dedication to win lately, and that has shown very little commitment to even stay local...like what reason is there to even support this team.
Legit i'm curious
I understand you may love the raiders, but if I were y'all I would boycott going to games/buying gear until they show that they care about winning and/or staying close by.
Just compare the niners to the raiders, the niners are a team that even when they aren't winning, still draws immense fan support because they aren't playing games with people about relocating and stuff... even when they were looking for a stadium, they weren't trying to betray their most loyal fans by moving somwhere else.
The raiders just feel like a toxic organization to work for whether you're a player, coach or front office person... all you have to do is look at how the "promising" players in oakland have performed... most of them shined for 1 season or less and then they disappeared... Mcfadden, Jacoby, etc etc.
But I gotta ask how you can support a franchise that doesn't even know where they'll be in the next 10 years... They don't have any roots, they don't have a permanent home right now... this team could hypothetically end up leaving for LA or London for that matter in the next 5 years...
Most of you guys seem like Bay Area dudes, but the Raiders don't seem to give a **** about the city of Oakland and the city of Oakland doesn't seem to give a **** about them...
I just wonder how you can support a franchise that has shown no dedication to win lately, and that has shown very little commitment to even stay local...like what reason is there to even support this team.
Legit i'm curious
I understand you may love the raiders, but if I were y'all I would boycott going to games/buying gear until they show that they care about winning and/or staying close by.
Just compare the niners to the raiders, the niners are a team that even when they aren't winning, still draws immense fan support because they aren't playing games with people about relocating and stuff... even when they were looking for a stadium, they weren't trying to betray their most loyal fans by moving somwhere else.
The raiders just feel like a toxic organization to work for whether you're a player, coach or front office person... all you have to do is look at how the "promising" players in oakland have performed... most of them shined for 1 season or less and then they disappeared... Mcfadden, Jacoby, etc etc.
Last edited:
- Oct 14, 2005
- 12,443
- 1,194
You mentioned the most injured players 
.
.
- Jan 8, 2006
- 30,560
- 33,906
I'm not jumping ship on the franchise anytime soon. Being a Raider, regardless of success, is a very proud thing for us fans.
- Aug 7, 2005
- 4,495
- 2,866
With more than two months to go until the first-ever May draft, the gap between the Scouting Combine and the selection process needs to be filled with something.
Other than, you know, free agency.
Before the focus fully shifts to the looming veteran swap meet, let’s pay a little (more) attention to the buzz regarding the quarterbacks expected to be taken at the top of the draft.
Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times has the Raiders taking quarterback Derek Carr over Johnny Manziel in Farmer’s latest mock draft, with this observation: “The Raiders are known for their unconventional picks, so Manziel might seem like a natural fit for them. Word is, though, that they liked Carr more coming out of the Combine.”
At a time when most presume the first three quarterbacks taken will be Manziel,Teddy Bridgewater, and Blake Bortles (but not necessarily in that or any specific order), it’s possible Carr will be crashing that three-man party. (Farmer has the Vikings taking Manziel, a possible modern-day Fran Tarkenton, at No. 8.)
It’s also possible that the Raiders are sending out smoke signals aimed at making other teams guess wrong about the team’s true intentions. And those true intentions need to be kept tightly under wraps so that the Raiders can say that whoever they draft is the guy they wanted all along.
Last year, the Raiders kept their plans quiet until the last few days before the draft, when rumors surfaced that they were considering cornerback D.J. Hayden with the third overall pick. They reportedly would have taken Hayden at No. 3 if the Dolphins hadn’t called about a possible slide to No. 12.
If Manziel and Carr are both on the clock at No. 5, the Raiders possibly could do the same thing this year, if they truly prefer Carr. Oakland could slide down a few spots, take Carr, and add a pick or two in the process.
All of this presumes that Manziel and Carr make it to No. 5. With the Texans, Jaguars, and Browns all needing quarterbacks, there’s a chance one or both will be gone.
Other than, you know, free agency.
Before the focus fully shifts to the looming veteran swap meet, let’s pay a little (more) attention to the buzz regarding the quarterbacks expected to be taken at the top of the draft.
Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times has the Raiders taking quarterback Derek Carr over Johnny Manziel in Farmer’s latest mock draft, with this observation: “The Raiders are known for their unconventional picks, so Manziel might seem like a natural fit for them. Word is, though, that they liked Carr more coming out of the Combine.”
At a time when most presume the first three quarterbacks taken will be Manziel,Teddy Bridgewater, and Blake Bortles (but not necessarily in that or any specific order), it’s possible Carr will be crashing that three-man party. (Farmer has the Vikings taking Manziel, a possible modern-day Fran Tarkenton, at No. 8.)
It’s also possible that the Raiders are sending out smoke signals aimed at making other teams guess wrong about the team’s true intentions. And those true intentions need to be kept tightly under wraps so that the Raiders can say that whoever they draft is the guy they wanted all along.
Last year, the Raiders kept their plans quiet until the last few days before the draft, when rumors surfaced that they were considering cornerback D.J. Hayden with the third overall pick. They reportedly would have taken Hayden at No. 3 if the Dolphins hadn’t called about a possible slide to No. 12.
If Manziel and Carr are both on the clock at No. 5, the Raiders possibly could do the same thing this year, if they truly prefer Carr. Oakland could slide down a few spots, take Carr, and add a pick or two in the process.
All of this presumes that Manziel and Carr make it to No. 5. With the Texans, Jaguars, and Browns all needing quarterbacks, there’s a chance one or both will be gone.
bro...You mentioned the most injured players.
mcfadden is partially to blame for being injury prone
look at the size of his legs compared to the size of his NFL counterparts...
the dude could've bulked up if he actually cared about success in the NFL
For example, if there was a guy who was like a 6th round pick who was like mcfadden, he would've bulked up/ done anything he needs to do to make the roster and win a starting spot.
McFadden doesn't have that drive because he's content with his rookie contract.
Last edited:
- Oct 14, 2005
- 12,443
- 1,194
I agree with you there whenever he got injured he would just sit it out. I lost respect for him in the 2011 season when we could have made the playoffs dude just sat out. 
jumpmanfromdabay
Banned
- Jan 25, 2008
- 25,730
- 2,900
You can still be injury prone and bulked up too. It means nothing
- Oct 14, 2005
- 12,443
- 1,194
Verner and Hayden
jumpmanfromdabay
Banned
- Jan 25, 2008
- 25,730
- 2,900
Verner and Hayden
Yes please
- Jan 8, 2006
- 30,560
- 33,906
If Reggie lets Houston and Veldheer go then I'll be done with him. He stressed how it was important to keep the key young core players last year and I have a feeling he's letting them both test the market before making an offer.
jumpmanfromdabay
Banned
- Jan 25, 2008
- 25,730
- 2,900
I believe Reggie will bring back Valdheer 1st
- Nov 16, 2012
- 3,133
- 507
Carr....da ****?
- Feb 17, 2007
- 21,784
- 2,957
Mack running a 4.45?? :x
- Jan 8, 2006
- 30,560
- 33,906
DO IT REGGIE
jumpmanfromdabay
Banned
- Jan 25, 2008
- 25,730
- 2,900
I honestly have no idea who I want to draft anymore
- Jan 8, 2006
- 30,560
- 33,906
I honestly have no idea who I want to draft anymore
There's a handful of guys I'm ok with depending on who slides to the pick.
- Oct 14, 2005
- 12,443
- 1,194
If Teddy isn't there I think Reggie trades down.
