== OFFICIAL OAKLAND RAIDERS 2018 thread == (3 Viewers)

[massraider]

 Well, they thought he would just come in and take his regular salary. 

 Same difference in that it sounds like they didn’t bother to negotiate at all. 

 That seems… Less than competent 

 King make some other very interesting and solid observations about the value of the trade, what the Raiders lost, and what their chances of regaining that value is. 

 Spoiler alert: it’s not good. 

Gosh, that's a shock, I expected an article saying that the Raiders got good value for a player they didn't think they could afford.  

In terms of trade value, I'm not sure that one can make the argument that the Raiders got hosed.  It's two firsts.  People don't give more than that.  

 

[massraider]

In my opinion, the Pats cost themselves a title by trading away Chandler Jones.

Difference in that game was a good pass rusher making a play.  Eagles had a guy to do that, Pats didn't.  

Gruden must not have watched that game.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Gosh, that's a shock, I expected an article saying that the Raiders got good value for a player they didn't think they could afford.  

In terms of trade value, I'm not sure that one can make the argument that the Raiders got hosed.  It's two firsts.  People don't give more than that.  

You should read it - he doesn’t exactly say they got hosed, but he’s saying it’s a slim chance they turn those two picks into replacement value. 

He also pointed out the 2019 2nd the Bears got - I didn’t hear that part of the trade. 

 

[rockaction]

In my opinion, the Pats cost themselves a title by trading away Chandler Jones.

Difference in that game was a good pass rusher making a play.  Eagles had a guy to do that, Pats didn't.  

Gruden must not have watched that game.  

But he didn't want to play the Belichick way, and now he's learned his lesson. 

 

[LawFitz]

Chandler Jones was traded b/c he went on a synthetic marijuana bender. Both his famous brothers have been busted for PEDs. Seymour was 30.

Mack is 27, clean as a whistle and better than both. #### this trade.

 

[massraider]

You should read it - he doesn’t exactly say they got hosed, but he’s saying it’s a slim chance they turn those two picks into replacement value. 

He also pointed out the 2019 2nd the Bears got - I didn’t hear that part of the trade. 

And Raiders got a 3rd.  

In terms of this:

he’s saying it’s a slim chance they turn those two picks into replacement value

I'm not clicking on a link to read something any sane person thinks.  I agree with him completely.  

Unless these media guys have a link to them insulting the Pats for trading Jones (for far, far less than Raiders got) then I gotta say they aren't being consistent.  

Patriots got a 2nd round pick for Chandler Jones.  A 2nd round pick.  

And Jones doesn't have that contract.  

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Unless these media guys have a link to them insulting the Pats for trading Jones (for far, far less than Raiders got) then I gotta say they aren't being consistent.  

Peter King saying something negative about the pats?

come on, son. Let’s not be ridiculous now.  King  him some Tom Terrific. 

 

 

[cjv123]

Chandler Jones was traded b/c he went on a synthetic marijuana bender. Both his famous brothers have been busted for PEDs. Seymour was 30.

Mack is 27, clean as a whistle and better than both. #### this trade.

And the Garoppolo trade, for a (very high) 2nd, only?

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Y’all trying too hard to make it sound good. Buuuuuut, it’s 2 firsts!!  The draft isn’t a science. They will be lucky to get anything close to replacement value. They ####ed us, the fans.  They continue to #### on Oakland and some of the most loyal fans on earth. I get it, it’s a business, but This team is go8ng to be brutal to watch over the next few years. 

 

[Ed Wood]

Three questions I wish were asked at the presser:

* When Gruden said, "I don't believe we were anywhere close to where the Bears were," you have to ask "Were you not close because you wouldn't do what it took to get close or because you COULDN'T do what it took to get close?" He'd probably reply, "That's Reggie's territory."

* "Do you think you got fair compensation?" He'd of course say "yes."

* "How much worse is this team now?" He'd probably say, "We haven't played a game yet but I know we were 6-10 with Mack last year."

But it's question No. 1 that I really want to know the answer to.

 

[LawFitz]

And the Garoppolo trade, for a (very high) 2nd, only?

Jimmy the Grop might end up a franchise QB. But at the time of that deal he wasn't anywhere near the proven commodity Mack is. Look at all the other Tom Brady backups after they left NE.

 

[Ed Wood]

Three questions I wish were asked at the presser:

* When Gruden said, "I don't believe we were anywhere close to where the Bears were," you have to ask "Were you not close because you wouldn't do what it took to get close or because you COULDN'T do what it took to get close?" He'd probably reply, "That's Reggie's territory."

* "Do you think you got fair compensation?" He'd of course say "yes."

* "How much worse is this team now?" He'd probably say, "We haven't played a game yet but I know we were 6-10 with Mack last year."

But it's question No. 1 that I really want to know the answer to.

Just watched again. Someone DID ask No. 1 and used exactly the "wouldn't/couldn't wording": "Was it a case of you wouldn't go to that number or you couldn't go to that number?"

Gruden: "I'm not going to get into the negotiations. Reggie (McKenzie) and (director of football administration) Tom Delaney and the people that were involved in the negotiations were involved in that. I know there is maybe some feeling that I was involved on a day-to-day negotiation. I had nothing to do with it. We were at a standoff and something had to happen. And here we are."

 

[Ed Wood]

"People are trying to divide us (Gruden and McKenzie). We made a decision as an organization. Mark, Tom...we made a decision together. It was a decision we all came to."

But a few minutes later...

"I really wasn't involved in all of that," Gruden said in response to a second round pick also being sent to Chicago, "so you have to ask Reggie to be honest with you."

Yuck...

 

[Arodin]

He’s trying hard not to admit that his own $100 million contract is contributing to the Raiders’ liquidity issues and may have cost them Khalil...

 

[Ed Wood]

You won't see a all-out player revolt but this is gonna reverberate across that locker room for a while IMO, especially if they get off to a bad start.

I had 'em going 11-5 a few months ago. Now I see 6-10.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

2015 draft was great? 

I’ll give you 2014, but 2015 was a dumpster fire after Cooper, especially when you consider where they were drafting.  

i meant getting Carr and Cooper ...then the next year Mack....thats more in 2 drafts they have gotten in many years...hard to keep paying the core of your team top money i guess is what im trying to say....but i just read about how its best not to look at the players contracts as real money....pay more attention to the % over the long haul...especially where teams are getting 10 million a year extra in salary cap .

The Lead: Khalil Mack

I was talking to Saints coach Sean Payton over the weekend, and the Khalil Mack trade to Chicago came up. “The last time we played Oakland [Week 1 2016], we put in a special protection for him,” Payton said. If Mack lined up outside the right tackle to rush, the Saints’ tight end would line up on the right side and chip him as he rushed. If Mack lined up opposite the left tackle, the tight end would shift left. The Saints called it “Mack Protection” in the gameplan that week.

You do that kind of thing for Khalil Mack, or Aaron Donald, or maybe Von Miller. They’re that good, and they can wreck games if foes try to block them consistently with one man.

But between late February and late August, I’m told, the Raiders didn’t aggressively try to resolve the Mack contract issue—not as aggressively as the Rams with Aaron Donald or the Packers with Aaron Rodgers. Mack was on the fifth-year option of his rookie deal but didn’t report to camp, and the Raiders seemed willing to hope Mack would report this week so he could begin collecting increments of his $13.846-million one-year salary. But Mack was steadfast about staying away, feeling Oakland didn’t value his game sufficiently. He wasn’t coming. So last Friday the Raiders zoned in on trying to get two first-round draft picks in trade for him (the Jets, Niners and Browns pushed, but not hard enough) and Chicago put the two ones on the table. So the deal got done, with an asterisk: Oakland had to send a future second-round pick to Chicago, cheapening the return for Mack. By the end of the day Saturday, Mack had eclipsed Aaron Donald as football’s richest defender.

The most important part of this story is being mostly ignored. It’s best framed by asking this question:

If I told you that you could draft and develop one of the three best defensive players in football (and maybe the best), and then sign him to a contract that would take him all the way through his prime for an average of 10.7 percent of your salary cap annually, would you do it?

I bet the vast majority of the teams in the league would be happy to do so. If they knew anything about football they would.

But that’s the crux of this situation. Let me explain. Mack, over the next seven years, is scheduled to make $154.85 million on his new Bears contract. The salary cap this year is $177.2 million. Over the last five years, the cap has risen about $10 million a year. So let’s project that it continues to rise $10 million a year through the last year of the Mack deal, in 2024. The cap, then, would be $237.2 million in the last year of Mack’s deal.

Average salary cap per team over the next seven years, by my estimate: $207.2 million.

Mack’s average compensation over the next seven years: $22.12 million.

Average cap spending devoted to Mack annually: 10.67 percent.

When Jon Gruden spoke Sunday night in Oakland, he implied that the odds are against a team winning when it has two huge-salaried players. Those two players in Oakland were Derek Carr and Mack. Last year, Carr signed an extension that, adding in his scheduled 2017 salary, would pay him $126.7 million over six years, according to Over The Cap. Long-term, then, the combined Carr/Mack cap number, on average, would be $43 million, or 20.87 percent of the annual cap. That means two star players would make 21 percent of the Raiders’ cap.

I don’t think spending 21 percent of the cap on two big stars is excessive. Especially when the alternative is irrelevance.

That’s the most important thing here. Let’s dig into four tributaries:

1. There are times to make first-round picks untouchable. This was not one of them. There’s this impression out there that first-round picks are the Holy Grail of team development, absolutely irreplaceable pieces of a team’s future. Remember the Patriots’ furious comeback to beat Atlanta in the Super Bowl two years ago? On their game-tying drive that night, of the five offensive linemen and six skill-players who touched the ball, one (left tackle Nate Solder) was drafted in the top 75 of a draft.

Excepting Mack and the last two first-round Raider picks (who cannot be judged yet), look at the last 10 Raider first-round picks: Robert Gallery, Fabian Washington, Michael Huff, Jamarcus Russell, Darren McFadden, Darrius Heyward-Bey, Rolando McClain, D.J. Hayden, Amari Cooper, Karl Joseph. Sevenof those players were top 10 picks in the first round. But would you trade Mack for any two of them? I wouldn’t. Not even close. So what makes the Raiders think they’ll strike gold with another franchise player with either of the two picks after nearly a generation of not finding one (other than Mack) in the first round?

2. Oakland players can no-comment this or try to make it not so big a deal, but there’s no way they’re not ticked off. The early tweets from Derek Carr and Bruce Irvin (No f—ing way) are the real ones. This has Jon Gruden’s fingerprints all over it, and the team’s leaders—Carr included—should not sit idly by and say, Whatever you want to do, coach. Gruden had to make this call. And the locker room is thinking, “If Khalil Mack, probably our best player, isn’t worth 10 percent of the cap through his prime, then who are they going to pay around here other than the quarterback?”

3. The football world has to stop thinking of $22 million a year as absolutely outlandish and dumb to pay a non-quarterback. Folks, it’s all Monopoly money. The cap has more than doubled in 13 years. The way to think of players’ salaries is as a percentage of the cap—not in raw dollars. Five years ago, this Mack deal, on average, would have been 18 percent of the cap. Now, over the next seven years, it’s 10.67 percent. When the cap grows, you’re much better off thinking of the percentage of the cap, not that a defensive player shouldn’t make $20 million a year. It’s all relative.

4. As for the Bears … Bears fans—ask Michael Wilbon—have a love-hate relationship with GM Ryan Pace. This, though, was a brilliant trade by Pace, who smartly figured (I think he did; I could not reach him Sunday) that two first-round picks was extremely reasonable for a player of Mack’s caliber in an age when disrupting the quarterback’s rhythm is the most important thing a defense can do. Per Pro Football Focus, Mack has 175 sacks/quarterback hits/quarterback hurries in the last two seasons, and that is 13 more than the next-most disruptive rusher, Von Miller. I love what defensive coordinator Vic Fangio must be thinking, particularly if Akiem Hicks continues to play in his disruptive way and ifLeonard Floyd can become the consistent force on the edge that he’s shown flashes of being in his first two seasons (22 games, 11.5 sacks).

The Bears now have no picks in the first two rounds in 2019, and none in first and third rounds of 2020. But they were able to squeeze a 2020 second-rounder back from Oakland. So their earliest picks in the next two drafts are a third next year and two second-rounders in 2020. Imagine if the Raiders struggle in ’19, and the Bears have a pick near the top of the second round in ’20. That wouldn’t cancel out the Bears’ first-rounder in 2020, but it would ease the pain.

Think, too, of what Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson must be thinking this morning—Rodgers mostly. The Bears play the Packers and Seahawks in Weeks 1 and 2, and a rush with Mack, Hicks and Floyd is downright scary. If Mitch Trubisky is somewhere between competent and very good, the Bears will be a major factor in the NFC North much quicker than we thought

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I didnt see that MassRaider already posted this Peter King story a few posts above

 

[cjv123]

OK, between someone quoting Peter King as an authority and someone else saying the Raiders would have gone 11-5 with Mack, it's time for me to leave this thread to the alternate realities.

 

[Boston]

In my opinion, the Pats cost themselves a title by trading away Chandler Jones.

Difference in that game was a good pass rusher making a play.  Eagles had a guy to do that, Pats didn't.  

Gruden must not have watched that game.  

Agree and disagree...could not agree more that the Pats pass-rush cost them and when they have lost in the playoffs during the BB era that is usually the key component...that being said Jones was traded because the Pats were not going to pay him this...http://www.espn.com/blog/arizona-cardinals/post/_/id/24987/breaking-down-chandler-jones-contract...

One of the reasons the Pats have been so good over this 18 year period is decisions like this...it can be frustrating at times but in the end it is this formula (how they allocate their money from top to the bottom of the roster) that puts them in the championship hunt every single year...my beef with them is not letting Jones go but replacing him with very little...

 

[Chadstroma]

We signed Brandon LaFell.

 

[massraider]

Agree and disagree...could not agree more that the Pats pass-rush cost them and when they have lost in the playoffs during the BB era that is usually the key component...that being said Jones was traded because the Pats were not going to pay him this...http://www.espn.com/blog/arizona-cardinals/post/_/id/24987/breaking-down-chandler-jones-contract...

One of the reasons the Pats have been so good over this 18 year period is decisions like this...it can be frustrating at times but in the end it is this formula that puts them in the championship hunt every single year...my beef with them is not letting Jones go but replacing him with very little...

I don't think we disagree at all.

I think the one difference is that I am more open to questioning,  and you are allowed, as fans, to question a move.  

Example:  Trading down, Walsh/JJ/Belichick-style, is the best formula.  But if a game-changing player falls into your lap, trading down is a mistake.  

Not having top salaries cluttering up your roster is a great formula.  Letting vets go that get expensive is a good idea.  It's not 100%.  Keeping Gronk--good move?  Umm, yes.  I would have put Chandler Jones in that discussion as well.  

You let safeties and RB, and OG go, because you can find them.  QBs and pass rushers?  

 

[Chaka]

We signed Brandon LaFell.

And now everything is better.

 

[DocHolliday]

Still hate losing Mack.  But two firsts!.....   Two firsts that could be goal busts or the best D player in the NFL?  That's an easy decision.  The Raiders made a huge mistake and it's going to felt for years.   This team will be average at best if it continues operating as it has so far under Gruden.  

 

[Boston]

I don't think we disagree at all.

I think the one difference is that I am more open to questioning,  and you are allowed, as fans, to question a move.  

Example:  Trading down, Walsh/JJ/Belichick-style, is the best formula.  But if a game-changing player falls into your lap, trading down is a mistake.  

Not having top salaries cluttering up your roster is a great formula.  Letting vets go that get expensive is a good idea.  It's not 100%.  Keeping Gronk--good move?  Umm, yes.  I would have put Chandler Jones in that discussion as well.  

You let safeties and RB, and OG go, because you can find them.  QBs and pass rushers?  

Not sure what you mean about open to questioning...IMO Jones really isn't worth that type of $ for the Pats because of how BB wants to play defense and his commitment to not being overly top-heavy with salaries...if BB wanted to go to a more attacking style of defense (which I would prefer) than Jones would be a much better fit but he seems committed to the bend but don't break scheme (which as a fan I find painful) which if you are going to do it is not worth having a player like Jones taking that much cap space...also, I don't think showing up shirtless at the Foxboro PD totally whacked out made the Pats in a rush to pay him 19 mil a year...

 

[massraider]

Not sure what you mean about open to questioning...IMO Jones really isn't worth that type of $ for the Pats because of how BB wants to play defense and his commitment to not being overly top-heavy with salaries...if BB wanted to go to a more attacking style of defense (which I would prefer) than Jones would be a much better fit but he seems committed to the bend but don't break scheme (which as a fan I find painful) which if you are going to do it is not worth having a player like Jones taking that much cap space...also, I don't think showing up shirtless at the Foxboro PD totally whacked out made the Pats in a rush to pay him 19 mil a year...

Every defensive style includes pass rush.

I think BB thought he could replace it with other guys. He couldn't. 

I completely get why you didn't think he was worth that deal. I thought he was, and said so in the Pool. We disagree on that, I guess.

Mainly I think that with contract protections now, re-signing your own players is less scary. He gets arrested, all those guarantees are gone. Mitigates the risk.

 

[kaso]

I don't think it is too far fetched to think that Gruden was part of the decision to trade Mack and that conversation was had between the 3 of Davis, Gruden and McKenzie, and not part of the final compensation.  The final compensation and discussions withe Bears could have been just McKenzie, or Davis and McKenzie. The agreed to approach to trade Mack probably happened shortly after the trade calls heated up and may have included Davis drawing a line on the top dollar he was willing/able to pay Mack.   And that line may have been under what they already knew the Mack camp was going to accept.

For me I don't see this as a decision to trade away Mack or sign him.   For the Raiders it likely was a decision of force him to play for one more year and hope he doesn't hold out more than 1 or 2 regular season games, or trade him now and pull some value back into the organization.   I'll take the latter.  Does it suck for 2018? Yup, no argument there.

I also don't get the angle of "us poor fans".  The team is not going to retain a player because they sold x-number of jerseys, or because the fan base liked him.  The franchise is running a business and tied to the salary cap limitations, the financial standing of the organization, the collective bargaining agreement, and simply the willingness of any said player to play for that franchise. Let's not forget the pain of the late Al Davis years and the trouble he caused with the cap.   Sorry, but I'll take trading away a team asset they likely couldn't maintain over paying an outrageous contract to likes of DeAngelo Hall, every single day of the week..  How about just that off-season as a comparison:

The Raiders have been very active during the free-agency season after winning just four games last season and a league-low 19 the previous five years. Oakland has signed defensive tackles Tommy Kelly and William Joseph, receivers Javon Walker and Drew Carter, safety Gibril Wilson, offensive linemen Kwame Harris and Cornell Green to deals that could be worth more than $160 million.

I think I'll keep my rose colored glasses on for a bit longer this pre-season, in all of its 3 remaining days. I will be making sure I have fresh batteries in my remote to mute the TV talking heads during the Raider game on Monday night as I suspect roughly 97% of their time will be spend ripping the Raiders for this deal.  Because it's an easy topic for them to chew on.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Every defensive style includes pass rush.

I think BB thought he could replace it with other guys. He couldn't. 

I completely get why you didn't think he was worth that deal. I thought he was, and said so in the Pool. We disagree on that, I guess.

Mainly I think that with contract protections now, re-signing your own players is less scary. He gets arrested, all those guarantees are gone. Mitigates the risk.

i was under the impression The Raiders have a pretty good Pass rush right now...they looked dominant in preseason....i know its crazy to put much stock in those games but the talent is there

 

[Chaka]

i was under the impression The Raiders have a pretty good Pass rush right now...they looked dominant in preseason....i know its crazy to put much stock in those games but the talent is there

Three of those key pieces are rookies.  They looked great but it's asking a lot for all three to become solid contributors immediately but they are all going to have to if the team is going to be relevant in 2018.

 

[LawFitz]

I will always be a Raider fan because it is in my nature to be loyal and stubborn. After the DHB pick I managed to emotionally detach from the team knowing they'd be effectively rudderless until Al moved on. I remember arguing with Raider-haters before that draft that even Al wasn't dumb enough to take a WR who can't catch in the top ten just because he ran a fast forty.

Fast forward a decade with renewed hope from Gruden's rehiring to the later rounds of this past draft to the amazing preseason defense - by recent Raider standards - and I felt a sense of optimism that once Mack was added to the fold, this could become a darkhorse championship level team. Perhaps that was terribly misguided. #### me if it was.

Then I found myself arguing again with Raider-haters that there was no way they'd trade Mack. Gruden was too smart to do that. #### me again. Raider haters win. There is no justifying this trade. Even if they actually hit on the picks, it was dumb. And the odds of them getting two decent starters out of those picks are about 25% by avg NFL standards. The odds of getting another Mack are zero. Or at least so close to zero that it might as well be. 

You do not trade a Khalil Mack in his prime. You just don't. It's as obvious as obvious gets and I've grown to hate that word as I've aged. Get off my lawn.

 

[[scooter]]

We signed Brandon LaFell.

And now everything is better.

The Bengals paid him a $1 million roster bonus in May, then cut him a week into training camp. And nobody signed him.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

We signed Brandon LaFell.

Yahoo!  A 7th receiver and he’s a vet(old)

 

[Sarlakticacid]

Houlton cut?

 

[Chadstroma]

I am wondering if you guys are responding to me like I was excited about the signing or just angry in general.

 

[Chadstroma]

Houlton cut?

Not sure about that guy but Holton was cut as a corresponding move after signing LaFell.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Angry in general

 

[DocHolliday]

Angry in general

X 2

 

[Chadstroma]

Signed DT Brian Price and cut Treyvan Hester

 

[Bruno2]

Signed DT Brian Price and cut Treyvan Hester

They're in full rebuilding mode now. All Reggies picks not named Carr, Cooper and Jackson are on notice. This is Gruden's team now. Do GMs have contracts? If they do, when Reggie is done Gruden will be like his old buddy Mike Holmgren. GM/HC. Wait... He already is.

 

[Sarlakticacid]

Not sure about that guy but Holton was cut as a corresponding move after signing LaFell.

Yeah him too!

 

[FreshiZ]

This is getting depressing

Reggie was doing good work. He was going down the right path imo opinion to building a solid club. Sure he has had his misses but there was consistency there and it felt like we were following a path in the right direction. Now I feel like I'm getting flashbacks to the Al Davis days. The bad Al Davis days. If we lose Reggie out of this Chucky experiment, that is going to be a huge hit to the franchise. 

For now, all we can do is have faith in Chucky but damn that's getting hard reconcile at this point...

 

[Chaka]

This is getting depressing

Reggie was doing good work. He was going down the right path imo opinion to building a solid club. Sure he has had his misses but there was consistency there and it felt like we were following a path in the right direction. Now I feel like I'm getting flashbacks to the Al Davis days. The bad Al Davis days. If we lose Reggie out of this Chucky experiment, that is going to be a huge hit to the franchise. 

For now, all we can do is have faith in Chucky but damn that's getting hard reconcile at this point...

Yeah some of this rings so true. IMO Gruden and Davis know #### all about managing a salary cap for the long haul. How quickly they forget the cap nightmare McKenzie inherited.

 

[massraider]

Signed DT Brian Price and cut Treyvan Hester

Dallas had cut him, and was going to re-sign him after IR'ing someone else.  He's a 1 tech, we only had one-Jelly. Be interesting when Vanderdoes comes back. 

Hester to the PS maybe.  

Our PS right now:

FB Ryan Yurachek

WR Marcell Ateman

WR Saeed Blacknall

TE Paul Butler

G Denver Kirkland

DT Gabe Wright

LB Jason Cabinda

CB Terrell Sinkfield

DB Rico Gafford

S Dallin Leavitt

Not an impressive group.

 

[massraider]

After week 1, we'll probably be in line for the top two picks in the draft.

WINNING

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

The history of being a Raiders fan for me since their SB win in 1983 against the Skins has been a successive series of gut-punches.

I leave for a long weekend camping trip in the deep woods on Fri night to come back to civilization and all the news Monday late aft. and have to say this is the biggest gut punch this franchise has ever dealt me as a fan.

Great points have been made up and down this thread since news broke so I am not adding anything substantial except my opinion, shared by a few here, in that this is going to be a very long season, and we're firmly back in the middle of rebuild instead of being where we should be -- in the midst of pressing for division championships. 

It really, really stings to lose a generational talent, and I have zero faith we can find anyone near as talented as Mack at any position to fill that void -- it still makes zero sense to lose a HOF-bound bird in hand for the potential of finding yet another Mack -- Raiders do not have a sound track record in this regard.

Also stings to really get bitten by Gruden's contract -- I still maintain that he was the best coach option for the job, but we definitely hamstrung ourselves financially where we might have better used that money to keep talent on the team.

A big shine was taken off this season and this team for me this year. It's always been hard to be a Raiders fan, but the specter of continued dysfunction and questionable decisions that continually mortgage our future without benefit is getting very, very hard. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The history of being a Raiders fan for me since their SB win in 1983 against the Skins has been a successive series of gut-punches.

I leave for a long weekend camping trip in the deep woods on Fri night to come back to civilization and all the news Monday late aft. and have to say this is the biggest gut punch this franchise has ever dealt me as a fan.

Great points have been made up and down this thread since news broke so I am not adding anything substantial except my opinion, shared by a few here, in that this is going to be a very long season, and we're firmly back in the middle of rebuild instead of being where we should be -- in the midst of pressing for division championships. 

It really, really stings to lose a generational talent, and I have zero faith we can find anyone near as talented as Mack at any position to fill that void -- it still makes zero sense to lose a HOF-bound bird in hand for the potential of finding yet another Mack -- Raiders do not have a sound track record in this regard.

Also stings to really get bitten by Gruden's contract -- I still maintain that he was the best coach option for the job, but we definitely hamstrung ourselves financially where we might have better used that money to keep talent on the team.

A big shine was taken off this season and this team for me this year. It's always been hard to be a Raiders fan, but the specter of continued dysfunction and questionable decisions that continually mortgage our future without benefit is getting very, very hard. 

Well said - I know many Raiders fans. At the rib cookoff in Reno this weekend I spoke with dozens at my booth about the deal (they’re easy to spot, in jerseys & hats, a couple in now-defunct Mack jerseys) - I didn’t hear positivity from a single one. Every one of them was disgusted by it and mad at Gruden / the team / Mark Davis.

more than one said it was “Insult to injury” of first losing the team to Vegas, and then giving up Mack for a couple of picks & a bag of magic beans.

on this forum there seems to be about a 65-35 split of positive:negative. 

Out on the mean streets of Reno/Sparks it was 100% - the only difference was between anger, depression or apathy.

But as they say, winning cures a lot of ails. The difference for Raiders fans this year will be how they play, how well Gruden coaches, and how many games they win. 

Before the Mack fiasco, most of the callers on sports radio (and the hosts) were saying it’s “playoffs or bust” regarding how to judge 100 million dollar man Gruden - I don’t see how that’s changed except his job just became that much harder for them. 

Raiders fans are among the most passionate in football - it’s rough seeing the battered spouse syndrome. I hope the team does well this season & the picks work out.

IMO if Gruden was really a genius maybe he’d be on the phone with Pittsburgh right now trying to flip one of those 1st round picks for Bell.  

 

[DocHolliday]

IMO if Gruden was really a genius maybe he’d be on the phone with Pittsburgh right now trying to flip one of those 1st round picks for Bell.  

The last things the Raiders need is Bell.  The Raiders have just proven they have no idea on how to handle players that want paid. 

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The last things the Raiders need is Bell.  The Raiders have just proven they have no idea on how to handle players that want paid. 

Obviously they’d have to trade & sign him - but he’d be a lot less $ than Mack, and they’d essentially flip a 1st for Bell, immediately improving the offense, giving Carr another 80+ reception receiver that they desperately need & adding a superstar talent at RB. Lynch could still serve a valuable role. Unless you think Brandon LaFell is the answer? (If he is, you’re probably asking the wrong question)

Every team needs Bell. If the Steelers don’t want to pay him, and the Raiders have a chance to strike guaranteed gold with one of those picks they just got, they should do so immediately IMO. 

 

[Chaka]

13-3, Championship!

 

[Chadstroma]

Dallas had cut him, and was going to re-sign him after IR'ing someone else.  He's a 1 tech, we only had one-Jelly. Be interesting when Vanderdoes comes back. 

Hester to the PS maybe.  

Our PS right now:

FB Ryan Yurachek

WR Marcell Ateman

WR Saeed Blacknall

TE Paul Butler

G Denver Kirkland

DT Gabe Wright

LB Jason Cabinda

CB Terrell Sinkfield

DB Rico Gafford

S Dallin Leavitt

Not an impressive group.

How often is the PS an impressive group?

 

[kaso]

Figured I'd look a bit further into the 'old' roster Gruden is building....

https://www.phillyvoice.com/ranking-nfl-teams-age-after-53-man-cutdowns-2018-edition/ 

Raiders average out at the oldest with age 27.4.  To round out the top 5 in 2018 you have the Falcons (26.9), Patriots (26.8), Panthers (26.8) and Bills (26.7)
The top 5 youngest teams; Bengals (25.2), Browns (25.3), Cowboys (25.4), Rams (25.5), and Jaguars (25.5).

Don't need to spend much more time in the weeds to bust the myth that youth means success in the NFL, or that age means failure.  A teams average age is not relevant to a teams success. 

In 2017, here are the playoff teams, and their average age and rank (youngest being 1, oldest 32)

Carolina 26.8 (31)
New Orleans 26.5 (28)
Atlanta 26.4 (24)
LA Rams 25.1 (2)
Buffalo 26.7 (30)
Jacksonville 25.6 (7)
Kansas City 25.9 (14)
Minnesota 26.1(20)
Pittsburgh 26.1 (18)
Tennessee 26.5 (27)
Philadelphia 26.4 (23)
New England 26.5 (26)