Raiderstation

So tired of this bum running the franchise

It can be traced to Al's inability to find a quarterback in the 1990s to pair with his well-built teams. The post-1983 rule changes on defense placed a greater emphasis on the position and Al was too enamored with the big arm to evaluate candidates.

Physical traits are important but the best quality for an NFL QB lies between the ears as defenses and game plans grew more complex.

The Real CK wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 7:19 am It can be traced to Al's inability to find a quarterback in the 1990s to pair with his well-built teams. The post-1983 rule changes on defense placed a greater emphasis on the position and Al was too enamored with the big arm to evaluate candidates.

Physical traits are important but the best quality for an NFL QB lies between the ears as defenses and game plans grew more complex.

It’s one of the major factors.

The problem was Al’s experience ran counter to the changes in the NFL. From the beginning he won with other guys that came from somewhere else off the scrap heap or trades. Even Stabler was largely Ron Wolf. Roll into the late 70s early 80s and Plunkett wins 2. He sees this as further vindication all the way to his death.

Fast forward to JaMarcus and he still would let go then the ten years of Carr.

As franchise they’ve never understood the importance of the position or the need to churn the roster until you find one.

A good example of this is the Bills: they drafted and churned QBs from Kelly until they finally landed on Allen.

Continuing to draft QBs is the only way to do it. Otherwise? Well we can see where we are now. A large percentage will likely fail, that’s simply the odds. The only way to counter that is to increase the pool.

Good bad or indifferent the franchise is going to have to start swinging for QB and if they fail let them go. Problem is each GM is going to be tied to his guy and likely let go if they don’t pan out repeating an already vicious cycle we are in.

Right now there are no good choices, just degrees of bad ones.

Willmark wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 7:27 am It’s one of the major factors.

The problem was Al’s experience ran counter to the changes in the NFL. From the beginning he won with other guys that came from somewhere else off the scrap heap or trades. Even Stabler was largely Ron Wolf. Roll into the late 70s early 80s and Plunkett wins 2. He sees this as further vindication all the way to his death.

Fast forward to JaMarcus and he still would let go then the ten years of Carr.

As franchise they’ve never understood the importance of the position or the need to churn the roster until you find one.

A good example of this is the Bills: they drafted and churned QBs from Kelly until they finally landed on Allen.

Continuing to draft QBs is the only way to do it. Otherwise? Well we can see where we are now. A large percentage will likely fail, that’s simply the odds. The only way to counter that is to increase the pool.

Good bad or indifferent the franchise is going to have to start swinging for QB and if they fail let them go. Problem is each GM is going to be tied to his guy and likely let go if they don’t pan out repeating an already vicious cycle we are in.

Right now there are no good choices, just degrees of bad ones.

Well, this franchise is engrossed with finding the next Plunkett/Gannon.

I am sure after Smith runs his course, we will try another reject.

The Real CK wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 7:34 am Well, this franchise is engrossed with finding the next Plunkett/Gannon.

I am sure after Smith runs his course, we will try another reject.

I did a breakdown a while back, something like 3 out of every 4 SB winning QBs come from the first round. A few 2nd rounders and Montana as the only 3rd rounder. After that a lot of outliers, Brady being the most obvious.

The data is fairly clear and over the last 20 or so years it’s become more pronounced with Brady being an anomaly.

Here’s what I’ve been advocating. 2 QBs nearly every year until we hit. At face value it sounds far fetched but the every year or nearly so part? Rounds 5-7 especially when there are multiple picks, one should be allocated to a QB. Sure the hit rate there is low but it’s a question of opportunity cost. Usually those picks don’t make the roster or are ST guys. You can get them as FA if you need to fit the roster. So what’s the “waste” on a QB late? Not much and the potential pay off is huge.

1st or at the very latest 2nd round when drafting a guy to be the starter and we can’t be adverse to trading up if it’s the right move.

If we land on the guy we can adjust the pattern to only QBs late but until we do? Basically draft the guy we think is the one we want, roll with him. All the while drafting QBs late. If it doesn’t work jettison him and repeat.

And Geno? I’m not even necessarily against the move. He buys us time. What I was hoping was we would have done was traded into the back end of the first for Dart. Another year going forward? We at least have to be prepared to do it.

Of course the last part of this crap show is where we draft: never bad enough to be at the top near 1st or good enough to be at the end. It always seems to be somewhere between 6-15ish.

Willmark wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:47 am IMO you really can’t blame fans for reacting to forty years of crap time and again.

If anything we should all be super negative until proven otherwise with this “franchise” such that it is.

Think about this. Simply flipping a quarter (on a long enough scale) will produce better results than the Raiders winning percentage.

So if fans are inconsistent with how they view the Raiders I think they can be given some slack.

I don't blame a single person for being mad at this crap team. I was just amused how the exact same people thought we could do no wrong this off season said Mark gets zero credit now say its all his fault.
In their minds he stripped himself of anything to do with the team decision wise but now he is to blame for it all 3 games later

Mark has stepped back from team operations. Him selling the team would accomplish nothing.

Now you can certainly blame for the 12 years of mismanagement before that, but that's in the past. We can't change it.

We should focus on being good at something - anything. Run? Pass? Even our special teams doesn’t feel very special.
I know it’s only 3 games into a new system and regime but damn, give us something.

Attyla wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 3:16 am Mark ain't selling. Period, give it up, ain't happening.

As for our GM, like many he had his hits and misses. The line is a huge miss but it was only the first year and they were tinkering with other aspects of the lineup. I will bet that gets addressed next off season hard.

Hits like what? White? He’s Brady’s bitch boy so he will get to stay. Brady could never stand a GM like Telesco, who’s a 1000x more qualified than these jokers yet he never got more than a year to prove himself

You watch though, the narrative is gonna start changing & they will whine like Reggie about what a horrible hand they were dealt. No media will ask these jokers why Darnold was never considered, why did they study the OL all off season and move them around?

All Brady did was live in the past with his decisions and the only owner dumb enough to give this zero resume guy that control. And he’s not even full time into this team.

Gonna pay to be a coach though. Brady will have to over pay people to deal with his constant overseeing

Sir Raider Duck, OMS wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 8:42 am Mark has stepped back from team operations. Him selling the team would accomplish nothing.

Now you can certainly blame for the 12 years of mismanagement before that, but that's in the past. We can't change it.

Laughable, ask Dodger fans if going from the McCourt to Mark Walter’s changed things

Sloth_Fratelli wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 8:56 am Hits like what? White? He’s Brady’s bitch boy so he will get to stay. Brady could never stand a GM like Telesco, who’s a 1000x more qualified than these jokers yet he never got more than a year to prove himself

You watch though, the narrative is gonna start changing & they will whine like Reggie about what a horrible hand they were dealt. No media will ask these jokers why Darnold was never considered, why did they study the OL all off season and move them around?

All Brady did was live in the past with his decisions and the only owner dumb enough to give this zero resume guy that control. And he’s not even full time into this team.

Gonna pay to be a coach though. Brady will have to over pay people to deal with his constant overseeing

you make a lot of unsubstantiated accusations

Sloth_Fratelli wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 8:59 am Laughable, ask Dodger fans if going from the McCourt to Mark Walter’s changed things

I am a Dodger fan. Going from McCourt to Mark Walter totally changed things because McCourt had been running the team badly. Mark Walter brought in Stan Kasten, an experienced baseball man, who quickly turned the Dodgers around before turning everything over to Andrew Friedman a few years later.

But Mark has already turned things over to Brady. Changing the guy at the top won't do anything unless the new owner were to move Brady aside, which is doubtful at best. Brady will get a long leash because the NFL wants him in there.

Sloth_Fratelli wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 8:56 am Hits like what? White? He’s Brady’s bitch boy so he will get to stay. Brady could never stand a GM like Telesco, who’s a 1000x more qualified than these jokers yet he never got more than a year to prove himself.

Telesco's record in one year with us mirrors his record with the Chargers: Great top half of the draft, crappy bottom half of the draft, and mediocre-to-crappy FA signings (Christian Wilkins, Gardner Minshew) and coaching hires (Luke Getsy). We could do better.

Whether Spytek is better remains to be seen, obviously.

It just seems like nearly everyone Davis hires whether it be GM, HC, UFA players, traded players, draft pedigree, etc all perform worse than their career norms once he hires them. It has nothing to meddling and just the fact that something happens when people enter the facility that they just become worse at their jobs. Hard to explain why, but the results speak for themselves.

We need patience and discipline, that's what's mostly been missing. If you believe that Brady is the guy, and if he truly is making decisions, then you need to give it years, not weeks, before you reach any definitive conclusion. It looks f[raiders_icon]cking terrible today but we need to build on what we have and remain disciplined about it.

Jeevo wrote: Mon Sep 22, 2025 9:48 am We need patience and discipline, that's what's mostly been missing. If you believe that Brady is the guy, and if he truly is making decisions, then you need to give it years, not weeks, before you reach any definitive conclusion. It looks fcking terrible today but we need to build on what we have and remain disciplined about it.

Like it or not, we're all in on Brady. I suspect that when Mark finally passes, the NFL will line up the silent partner investors for Brady to just buy the team outright.