2016 Oakland Raiders thread (1 Viewer)

[Chadstroma]

Agreed, I would be shocked to not see two DB starters brought in before the draft.

Goal should be: Best player. Free agency is where you go looking for a CB or a S or a MLB. Do it in the draft, and you lose.

That is another thing- we get a MLB who can cover somewhat and that goes a long way to helping the passing D. Lofton was horrible. I remember seeing something that had his cover guy 16 of 16 in passing attempts around mid-season. The dude is a tackling machine but I am pretty sure I could get open if he was covering me.

 

[Chaka]

Agreed, I would be shocked to not see two DB starters brought in before the draft.

Goal should be: Best player. Free agency is where you go looking for a CB or a S or a MLB. Do it in the draft, and you lose.

That is another thing- we get a MLB who can cover somewhat and that goes a long way to helping the passing D. Lofton was horrible. I remember seeing something that had his cover guy 16 of 16 in passing attempts around mid-season. The dude is a tackling machine but I am pretty sure I could get open if he was covering me.

I agree, and said as much upthread. I just think we may differ on which guy is the one who will be able to cover better. Right now I think that's J.Smith.

 

[Chadstroma]

Agreed, I would be shocked to not see two DB starters brought in before the draft.

Goal should be: Best player. Free agency is where you go looking for a CB or a S or a MLB. Do it in the draft, and you lose.

That is another thing- we get a MLB who can cover somewhat and that goes a long way to helping the passing D. Lofton was horrible. I remember seeing something that had his cover guy 16 of 16 in passing attempts around mid-season. The dude is a tackling machine but I am pretty sure I could get open if he was covering me.

I agree, and said as much upthread. I just think we may differ on which guy is the one who will be able to cover better. Right now I think that's J.Smith.

Jaylon has the coverage skills though not sure if MLB is the right spot for him.

 

[Chaka]

Agreed, I would be shocked to not see two DB starters brought in before the draft.

Goal should be: Best player. Free agency is where you go looking for a CB or a S or a MLB. Do it in the draft, and you lose.

That is another thing- we get a MLB who can cover somewhat and that goes a long way to helping the passing D. Lofton was horrible. I remember seeing something that had his cover guy 16 of 16 in passing attempts around mid-season. The dude is a tackling machine but I am pretty sure I could get open if he was covering me.

I agree, and said as much upthread. I just think we may differ on which guy is the one who will be able to cover better. Right now I think that's J.Smith.

Jaylon has the coverage skills though not sure if MLB is the right spot for him.

I agree (also mentioned that upthread) but I like his versatility so much more than a guy like Ragland who seems more like a thumper in the middle. Nothing wrong with being a thumper so long as he can play sideline to sideline and keep the ball in front of him, Ray Lewis is going to the Hall of Fame for that, but I am not sure that is as important for the Raider defense as coverage help.

 

[massraider]

Sheeeet, I put him at linebacker, and don't care what the label is.

The nickel is the base defense now. Jaylon looks like a bada## nickel LB right now.

 

[Chaka]

Sheeeet, I put him at linebacker, and don't care what the label is.

The nickel is the base defense now. Jaylon looks like a bada## nickel LB right now.

That's kind of the way I see him too. And it looks like he isn't shy about going after the run either. The more I look at this guy the more I hope they take a chance on him.

 

[krsone21]

Tony Pauline ‏@TonyPauline 1h1 hour ago Mobile, AL
Spoke with the Raiders about the DBs. Harlan Miller, James Bradberry, Darian Thompson & Miles Killebrew impressed them most.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Another vote for Jaylon Smith if available at pick 14. The MLB from Alabama Ragland also should be a strong possibility although it's more of a "need" pick.

 

[Chaka]

Another vote for Jaylon Smith if available at pick 14. The MLB from Alabama Ragland also should be a strong possibility although it's more of a "need" pick.

I don't see MLB as nearly a big a need as CB. Safety is a bigger need IMO too, but you don't go there in the first this year.

 

[massraider]

By the way, we need to all be Paxton Lynch fans for the next 4 months. Looks like Goff and Wentz are both trending as top 10 picks, which is only good for us. If Lynch crashes the party, we are picking in front of the next team that needs a QB (Rams) with the Jets, Texans, and Bills behind them. One could imagine that #14 might be a nice turning spot in the draft.

 

[Toomuchnv]

Another vote for Jaylon Smith if available at pick 14. The MLB from Alabama Ragland also should be a strong possibility although it's more of a "need" pick.

I don't see MLB as nearly a big a need as CB. Safety is a bigger need IMO too, but you don't go there in the first this year.

To be honest, with free agency happening before the draft, we don't really know what this teams needs will be come draft time. Either way, I hope Reggie just goes bpa in the first round regardless of need. Talent over position.

 

[Dezbelief]

Do you guys think Ben Heeney will be a good MLB?

 

[Chaka]

Do you guys think Ben Heeney will be a good MLB?

Too early to tell but he flashed potential.

I think if Jelly and D. Williams keep playing at a high level it will give the Raiders the opportunity to see if Heeney can be the answer at the position.

 

[Bruno2]

Do you guys think Ben Heeney will be a good MLB?

Too early to tell but he flashed potential. I think if Jelly and D. Williams keep playing at a high level it will give the Raiders the opportunity to see if Heeney can be the answer at the position.

I'm not sold on Heeney as a starter, but what he adds is great depth and solid special teams play. Guys like him get over looked but are just as important as the big name guys. Championship teams have solid depth (next man up philosophy ) and excellent special teams play.

 

[massraider]

We didn't see enough of Heeney to be convinced one way or another, but he looked rangy and smart. Didn't look like a phenom in coverage. Looks like a solid player, but long way from knowing if he can really be counted on as a starter.

 

[Chadstroma]

Another vote for Jaylon Smith if available at pick 14. The MLB from Alabama Ragland also should be a strong possibility although it's more of a "need" pick.

I don't know for myself because I didn't watch any Alabama games but from what I am readying Ragland is not so much about cover. That is what we are lacking. From what I have read there seems to me to be more in common with McClain than just school. Maybe not so much a head case but perhaps lacking in cover skills.

 

[krsone21]

Las Vegas Sands proposes $1B domed stadium; Adelson to meet with Raiders owner

http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/stadium/las-vegas-sands-proposes-1b-domed-stadium-adelson-meet-raiders-owner

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Las Vegas Raiders? That's wild man. Hell might freeze over. It'd be interesting though.

 

[massraider]

That would be awesome.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

Hasn't the NFL stated in the past that Las Vegas is a nonstarter. No way, no how type of deal.

 

[krsone21]

Jason Cole ‏@JasonColeBR 2m2 minutes ago

Told by source idea of #Raiders moving to Vegas is very real. Mark Davis and Sheldon Adelson have been discussing it for two years.

 

[massraider]

I doubt NFL wants Vegas, and I dount Jason Cole has any real sources.

Sheldon Adelson is a very, very powerful person, FWIW.

 

[Sarlakticacid]

Raiders in a dome doesn't feel right

 

[massraider]

Matt Miller says he has heard that Jaylon Smith is on track to be ready for start of draft. I don't believe that for a minute, but if true, that's probably bad news for any chance of him being there at 14.

 

[Workhorse]

The Raiders in Vegas makes too much sense, which is why it probably won't happen. I think it would be fantastic but the NFL will block it under the disingenuous guise of avoiding the gambling element, even though they post injury reports for only one reason...

 

[Chadstroma]

Las Vegas Raiders.... I could live with that.

The only way it happens though is if they put together a ridiculous package of a stadium that makes the owners salivate with dreams of dollar signs in the heads. You basically need to get enough money together to build a stadium that makes the new LA stadium look like the Coliseum.

They otherwise will worry about their players being arrested on away games for doing stupid things in Vegas. Also the stigma over it being the gambling capital of the world will need something to make them swallow easier.

However, that all said, you can get a TON of private and public money not of the Raiders to maybe do just that. Close enough for the existing fanbases. It is also a great place to fly in and take in a game. There is a lot about it that make sense and it would be something that could really help the organization in a lot of ways.

 

[Chadstroma]

Hasn't the NFL stated in the past that Las Vegas is a nonstarter. No way, no how type of deal.

No, there is a quote from the commish out there that basically was something along the lines of "There is no reason why we wouldn't consider it but as far as I know there are no stadiums there". Basically, he could have closed the door when asked (I think this was a couple of years ago) and his statement kept the door wide open.

 

[Braktastic]

I'm sure this is all for show and to twist the NFL's arm to either make a move to San Antonio or a stay in Oakland more palatable.

 

[krsone21]

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 22m22 minutes ago
#Raiders owner Mark Davis is in Las Vegas now to meet with Las Vegas Sands chairman Sheldon Adelson about his support of a stadium in town.

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 20m20 minutes ago
.@NFL has no comment on the #Raiders' Las Vegas meeting. There is no rule against approving a franchise to any location. It's 3/4 owner vote

 

[DocHolliday]

LV seems like a better option than SA. Texas has enough teams. Seems like it would be tough to increase fans. Cowboys are loved in Texas and the Texans have been good enough to get a decent following.

LV is better than SA and even Oakland for the long term. Staying in Oakland would be great but it seems as though that ship has sailed. There is simply not enough money available to make it work.

As the poster stated above, it is easy to get to LV from anywhere. And, going to games could turn in to a long weekend get aways. My wife would be all for going to Vegas for a 4-day weekend as opposed to Oakland/SF or even SA. SF and SA are fun to visit once or twice but LV never gets old.

 

[joey]

Vegas is my 3rd choice, after Oakland and LA.Sna

Antonio and San Diego are way below those 3.

And London is a nightmare scenario.

 

[Chadstroma]

Vegas is my 3rd choice, after Oakland and LA.Sna

Antonio and San Diego are way below those 3.

And London is a nightmare scenario.

Vegas is my 1st choice now. I do not want to share a stadium with Kroenke and Kroenke does not want the Rams to share LA with the Raiders because he knows the fanbase will favor the Raiders. Any deal he would make with the Raiders would make us a second class citizen in our own stadium. To me, that is worst than having a third class crappy stadium shared with a baseball team. As I stated before, I think Vegas would breath a lot of new life into the franchise. The stadium would be better than anything else we will get anywhere else. It is a tax friendly state so it helps in FA. It is an entertainment mecca that no other city has anything like. It is near enough to existing fan base, would capture the market easily, be the only pro team in town and be a great place to go see an out of town NFL game.

A new deal in Northern California. I don't think it has to be IN Oakland. Sacramento has been thrown out there but who knows if that sticks. I remember other Nor Cal locations being floated in the past. But somewhere in Nor Cal is my second choice.

SD is my next choice. Then SA. And I agree, a London move is down right nasty but I have never heard anyone use London and the Raiders in any kind of speculation that made any sense, so I am not worried about it.

 

[joey]

you know what, you sold me on Vegas. Shiny new toy in an exciting city. Good for the NFL and the Raiders. And there's some DEEP POCKETS in Vegas to fund this whole thing.

my new 1st choice.

 

[massraider]

Heck, road trip to see my team would be an easy sell to my buddies.

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

Well, if there are no NFL stumbling blocks for LV besides the owner vote I am all in. Offering a fully funded $1B domed stadium is much better than we will get anywhere else, even if it is shared with the university.

 

[DocHolliday]

Vegas is my 3rd choice, after Oakland and LA.Sna

Antonio and San Diego are way below those 3.

And London is a nightmare scenario.

Vegas is my 1st choice now. I do not want to share a stadium with Kroenke and Kroenke does not want the Rams to share LA with the Raiders because he knows the fanbase will favor the Raiders. Any deal he would make with the Raiders would make us a second class citizen in our own stadium. To me, that is worst than having a third class crappy stadium shared with a baseball team. As I stated before, I think Vegas would breath a lot of new life into the franchise. The stadium would be better than anything else we will get anywhere else. It is a tax friendly state so it helps in FA. It is an entertainment mecca that no other city has anything like. It is near enough to existing fan base, would capture the market easily, be the only pro team in town and be a great place to go see an out of town NFL game.

A new deal in Northern California. I don't think it has to be IN Oakland. Sacramento has been thrown out there but who knows if that sticks. I remember other Nor Cal locations being floated in the past. But somewhere in Nor Cal is my second choice.

SD is my next choice. Then SA. And I agree, a London move is down right nasty but I have never heard anyone use London and the Raiders in any kind of speculation that made any sense, so I am not worried about it.

Well written and the bolded should mean something to FAs.

 

[Chadstroma]

Vegas is my 3rd choice, after Oakland and LA.Sna

Antonio and San Diego are way below those 3.

And London is a nightmare scenario.

Vegas is my 1st choice now. I do not want to share a stadium with Kroenke and Kroenke does not want the Rams to share LA with the Raiders because he knows the fanbase will favor the Raiders. Any deal he would make with the Raiders would make us a second class citizen in our own stadium. To me, that is worst than having a third class crappy stadium shared with a baseball team. As I stated before, I think Vegas would breath a lot of new life into the franchise. The stadium would be better than anything else we will get anywhere else. It is a tax friendly state so it helps in FA. It is an entertainment mecca that no other city has anything like. It is near enough to existing fan base, would capture the market easily, be the only pro team in town and be a great place to go see an out of town NFL game.

A new deal in Northern California. I don't think it has to be IN Oakland. Sacramento has been thrown out there but who knows if that sticks. I remember other Nor Cal locations being floated in the past. But somewhere in Nor Cal is my second choice.

SD is my next choice. Then SA. And I agree, a London move is down right nasty but I have never heard anyone use London and the Raiders in any kind of speculation that made any sense, so I am not worried about it.

Well written and the bolded should mean something to FAs.

Well besides the horrific typos. I gotta get in the habit of proof reading before posting but I have been saying that for years.

I think a lot of people will be like me. Maybe the first thought is negative but if you really think about it and are thinking in terms of the best for the Raider franchise.... I am not seeing a better option.

 

[Chadstroma]

One more line of thought on SD since news has broke that there is an agreement in principle for the Chargers moving to LA.....

Sure, San Diegoans LOVE to hate the Raiders now but guess who they will hate even more when they move up North? Rams will own LA (though there will still be plenty of Raider Nation faithful there) and I think the Chargers will have a hard time winning market share in LA. They will be the Clippers to the Lakers in the 80's. While the Lakers sell out every game the Clippers had empty stands.

SD would support, largely, the Raiders. And the Chargers would become a second rate team struggling along. Which.... kind of makes me smile.

 

[No. 16]

If they don't stay in Nor Cal....please, please, please let it be Vegas.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

One more line of thought on SD since news has broke that there is an agreement in principle for the Chargers moving to LA.....

Sure, San Diegoans LOVE to hate the Raiders now but guess who they will hate even more when they move up North? Rams will own LA (though there will still be plenty of Raider Nation faithful there) and I think the Chargers will have a hard time winning market share in LA. They will be the Clippers to the Lakers in the 80's. While the Lakers sell out every game the Clippers had empty stands.

SD would support, largely, the Raiders. And the Chargers would become a second rate team struggling along. Which.... kind of makes me smile.

The Chargers are using LA as leverage for a new deal in SD. Same goes with the Raiders and Vegas. I believe the Raiders have a bigger fan base in LA than the Rams/Chargers combined. I also believe that the Chargers will lose a larger portion of their SD fan base by moving to LA. Ultimately I predict the Charger sstay in SD and the Raiders move to LA (barring some last minute miracle to build a stadium in Oak).

Besides leverage Mark could be using the Vegas card to passive-aggressively "get even" for how the LA decision went down. The talk of moving to Vegas seems ill conceived:

1. Temperatures in August/Sept are ridiculously hot. I find it difficult to imagine people will to go to day games when it is 108°.
2. The Vegas environment is fraught with vices that are easily accessible.
3. The place is not very scenic nor appealing for families

 

[Chaka]

One more line of thought on SD since news has broke that there is an agreement in principle for the Chargers moving to LA.....

Sure, San Diegoans LOVE to hate the Raiders now but guess who they will hate even more when they move up North? Rams will own LA (though there will still be plenty of Raider Nation faithful there) and I think the Chargers will have a hard time winning market share in LA. They will be the Clippers to the Lakers in the 80's. While the Lakers sell out every game the Clippers had empty stands.

SD would support, largely, the Raiders. And the Chargers would become a second rate team struggling along. Which.... kind of makes me smile.

The Chargers are using LA as leverage for a new deal in SD. Same goes with the Raiders and Vegas. I believe the Raiders have a bigger fan base in LA than the Rams/Chargers combined. I also believe that the Chargers will lose a larger portion of their SD fan base by moving to LA. Ultimately I predict the Charger sstay in SD and the Raiders move to LA (barring some last minute miracle to build a stadium in Oak).

Besides leverage Mark could be using the Vegas card to passive-aggressively "get even" for how the LA decision went down. The talk of moving to Vegas seems ill conceived:

1. Temperatures in August/Sept are ridiculously hot. I find it difficult to imagine people will to go to day games when it is 108°.
2. The Vegas environment is fraught with vices that are easily accessible.
3. The place is not very scenic nor appealing for families

1) I am pretty sure any stadium would be domed.

2) Sure is. Then again, so is Los Angeles.

3) Vegas is a huge family destination. The casinos shifted their business models at least a decade ago away from gambling and towards restaurants, commerce, night life and entertainment. It is a huge family destination.

 

[massraider]

3) Vegas is a huge family destination. The casinos shifted their business models at least a decade ago away from gambling and towards restaurants, commerce, night life and entertainment. It is a huge family destination.

It was more like 20 years ago. It has swung back to 'what happens in Vegas......' and is now pretty much one giant bottle service club. Place is as adult as its ever been

 

[Chadstroma]

One more line of thought on SD since news has broke that there is an agreement in principle for the Chargers moving to LA.....

Sure, San Diegoans LOVE to hate the Raiders now but guess who they will hate even more when they move up North? Rams will own LA (though there will still be plenty of Raider Nation faithful there) and I think the Chargers will have a hard time winning market share in LA. They will be the Clippers to the Lakers in the 80's. While the Lakers sell out every game the Clippers had empty stands.

SD would support, largely, the Raiders. And the Chargers would become a second rate team struggling along. Which.... kind of makes me smile.

The Chargers are using LA as leverage for a new deal in SD. Same goes with the Raiders and Vegas. I believe the Raiders have a bigger fan base in LA than the Rams/Chargers combined. I also believe that the Chargers will lose a larger portion of their SD fan base by moving to LA. Ultimately I predict the Charger sstay in SD and the Raiders move to LA (barring some last minute miracle to build a stadium in Oak).

Besides leverage Mark could be using the Vegas card to passive-aggressively "get even" for how the LA decision went down. The talk of moving to Vegas seems ill conceived:

1. Temperatures in August/Sept are ridiculously hot. I find it difficult to imagine people will to go to day games when it is 108°.
2. The Vegas environment is fraught with vices that are easily accessible.
3. The place is not very scenic nor appealing for families

1. The proposal is a domed stadium. It doesn't matter how hot it is. Plus, Phoenix and Las Vegas are nearly identical in terms of weather.

2. Which is the real and nearly only hurdle to get owners to vote for it. The stigma of being gambling mecca will scare some but if you show them a nice enough building with enough money invested- they will go along.

3. You think Oakland or Inglewood are scenic and appealing for families?!

I think Mark is really looking at Vegas because of one reason- there is NO where that he can get a $1 Billion stadium with very little of Raider money involved.

You hit on the fact that the LA market favors the Raiders. You think Kroenke will offer the Raiders co-ownership on near equal terms to be partners in LA? No way in hell. He will do everything he can to keep the Raiders from coming to LA because it would be bad for the Rams.

 

[krsone21]

One more line of thought on SD since news has broke that there is an agreement in principle for the Chargers moving to LA.....

Sure, San Diegoans LOVE to hate the Raiders now but guess who they will hate even more when they move up North? Rams will own LA (though there will still be plenty of Raider Nation faithful there) and I think the Chargers will have a hard time winning market share in LA. They will be the Clippers to the Lakers in the 80's. While the Lakers sell out every game the Clippers had empty stands.

SD would support, largely, the Raiders. And the Chargers would become a second rate team struggling along. Which.... kind of makes me smile.

The Chargers are using LA as leverage for a new deal in SD. Same goes with the Raiders and Vegas. I believe the Raiders have a bigger fan base in LA than the Rams/Chargers combined. I also believe that the Chargers will lose a larger portion of their SD fan base by moving to LA. Ultimately I predict the Charger sstay in SD and the Raiders move to LA (barring some last minute miracle to build a stadium in Oak).

Besides leverage Mark could be using the Vegas card to passive-aggressively "get even" for how the LA decision went down. The talk of moving to Vegas seems ill conceived:

1. Temperatures in August/Sept are ridiculously hot. I find it difficult to imagine people will to go to day games when it is 108°.
2. The Vegas environment is fraught with vices that are easily accessible.
3. The place is not very scenic nor appealing for families

Wouldn't the dome help with the temperatures by keeping the place air conditioned.

 

[krsone21]

NFL sends memo to all 32 teams about possible Raiders move to Las Vegas

by Vincent Bonsignore

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2016/01/30/nfl-sends-memo-to-all-32-teams-about-possible-raiders-move-to-las-vegas/

 

[Chaka]

I think the best thing that would come out of a move to Vegas is that maybe Davis would take on an equity partner with deep pockets. Regardless of all the benefits of moving and a new stadium I am pretty sure Davis is the most cash poor owner in the league and ultimately that hurts the franchise.

 

[msommer]

Vegas is my 3rd choice, after Oakland and LA.Sna

Antonio and San Diego are way below those 3.

And London is a nightmare scenario.

Vegas is my 1st choice now. I do not want to share a stadium with Kroenke and Kroenke does not want the Rams to share LA with the Raiders because he knows the fanbase will favor the Raiders. Any deal he would make with the Raiders would make us a second class citizen in our own stadium. To me, that is worst than having a third class crappy stadium shared with a baseball team. As I stated before, I think Vegas would breath a lot of new life into the franchise. The stadium would be better than anything else we will get anywhere else. It is a tax friendly state so it helps in FA. It is an entertainment mecca that no other city has anything like. It is near enough to existing fan base, would capture the market easily, be the only pro team in town and be a great place to go see an out of town NFL game.

A new deal in Northern California. I don't think it has to be IN Oakland. Sacramento has been thrown out there but who knows if that sticks. I remember other Nor Cal locations being floated in the past. But somewhere in Nor Cal is my second choice.

SD is my next choice. Then SA. And I agree, a London move is down right nasty but I have never heard anyone use London and the Raiders in any kind of speculation that made any sense, so I am not worried about it.

Well written and the bolded should mean something to FAs.

Then trade for Manziel and it's a match made in heaven

 

[DocHolliday]

Vegas is my 3rd choice, after Oakland and LA.Sna

Antonio and San Diego are way below those 3.

And London is a nightmare scenario.

Vegas is my 1st choice now. I do not want to share a stadium with Kroenke and Kroenke does not want the Rams to share LA with the Raiders because he knows the fanbase will favor the Raiders. Any deal he would make with the Raiders would make us a second class citizen in our own stadium. To me, that is worst than having a third class crappy stadium shared with a baseball team. As I stated before, I think Vegas would breath a lot of new life into the franchise. The stadium would be better than anything else we will get anywhere else. It is a tax friendly state so it helps in FA. It is an entertainment mecca that no other city has anything like. It is near enough to existing fan base, would capture the market easily, be the only pro team in town and be a great place to go see an out of town NFL game.A new deal in Northern California. I don't think it has to be IN Oakland. Sacramento has been thrown out there but who knows if that sticks. I remember other Nor Cal locations being floated in the past. But somewhere in Nor Cal is my second choice.

SD is my next choice. Then SA. And I agree, a London move is down right nasty but I have never heard anyone use London and the Raiders in any kind of speculation that made any sense, so I am not worried about it.

Well written and the bolded should mean something to FAs.

Then trade for Manziel and it's a match made in heaven

The Raiders have an actual starting QB. Manziel is a headache and nothing more.

 

[msommer]

Vegas is my 3rd choice, after Oakland and LA.Sna

Antonio and San Diego are way below those 3.

And London is a nightmare scenario.

Vegas is my 1st choice now. I do not want to share a stadium with Kroenke and Kroenke does not want the Rams to share LA with the Raiders because he knows the fanbase will favor the Raiders. Any deal he would make with the Raiders would make us a second class citizen in our own stadium. To me, that is worst than having a third class crappy stadium shared with a baseball team. As I stated before, I think Vegas would breath a lot of new life into the franchise. The stadium would be better than anything else we will get anywhere else. It is a tax friendly state so it helps in FA. It is an entertainment mecca that no other city has anything like. It is near enough to existing fan base, would capture the market easily, be the only pro team in town and be a great place to go see an out of town NFL game.A new deal in Northern California. I don't think it has to be IN Oakland. Sacramento has been thrown out there but who knows if that sticks. I remember other Nor Cal locations being floated in the past. But somewhere in Nor Cal is my second choice.

SD is my next choice. Then SA. And I agree, a London move is down right nasty but I have never heard anyone use London and the Raiders in any kind of speculation that made any sense, so I am not worried about it.

Well written and the bolded should mean something to FAs.

Then trade for Manziel and it's a match made in heaven

The Raiders have an actual starting QB. Manziel is a headache and nothing more.

Oh, I know, but it would ease Manziel's commute

 

[Toomuchnv]

Vegas is my 3rd choice, after Oakland and LA.Sna

Antonio and San Diego are way below those 3.

And London is a nightmare scenario.

Vegas is my 1st choice now. I do not want to share a stadium with Kroenke and Kroenke does not want the Rams to share LA with the Raiders because he knows the fanbase will favor the Raiders. Any deal he would make with the Raiders would make us a second class citizen in our own stadium. To me, that is worst than having a third class crappy stadium shared with a baseball team. As I stated before, I think Vegas would breath a lot of new life into the franchise. The stadium would be better than anything else we will get anywhere else. It is a tax friendly state so it helps in FA. It is an entertainment mecca that no other city has anything like. It is near enough to existing fan base, would capture the market easily, be the only pro team in town and be a great place to go see an out of town NFL game.A new deal in Northern California. I don't think it has to be IN Oakland. Sacramento has been thrown out there but who knows if that sticks. I remember other Nor Cal locations being floated in the past. But somewhere in Nor Cal is my second choice.

SD is my next choice. Then SA. And I agree, a London move is down right nasty but I have never heard anyone use London and the Raiders in any kind of speculation that made any sense, so I am not worried about it.

Well written and the bolded should mean something to FAs.

Then trade for Manziel and it's a match made in heaven

The Raiders have an actual starting QB. Manziel is a headache and nothing more.

Oh, I know, but it would ease Manziel's commute

He could always just buy season tickets to the Raiders since he won't be in the league much longer.