Who is the better owner? (1 Viewer)

[Saints-Man]

I remember this debate several years ago, about mid-way into Haslett's tenure. I contended then as I do now that Al Davis did far more harm to the league than he did positive. His constant, self-promoting lawsuits did more to harm the league and help his own stature than anything positive did for the league. While he was the GM of some good teams, he has been a bad owner for well over a decade now, chasing away the best coach in recent Raider history(Gruden) and not doing anything with bounty he received for it.

I am not arguing that Benson is the best owner in football, that would belong to Kraft in NE then Rooney in Pittsburgh(IMO). However, I don't think he is the worst and I have never thought so. I would put Benson in the bottom third, and Davis as dead last.

The Raider organization has denigrated to the point that it is widely viewed as the worst coaching position in the NFL and that major coaching candidates are not even applying.

I would be interested in reading any viewpoints.

 

[Saints-Man]

I see that someone voted for Davis. Care to elaborate?

 

[Raider Nation]

Before I comment, could you provide the complete criteria which encompasses "better."

 

[Saints-Man]

Before I comment, could you provide the complete criteria which encompasses "better."

Sure...I put in the poll...for whom would you rather work? I think that is the best definition of a boss. You want to be in a place where you can reasonably think that you can succeed, and as long as Davis is at the helm for the Raiders, that will not be the case. I think you can tell by the coaching search that people are avoiding the Raiders. A college position coach(the USC coach) pulled his name out of consideration for the job. A college position coach!!

 

[Raider Nation]

Before I comment, could you provide the complete criteria which encompasses "better."

Sure...I put in the poll...for whom would you rather work? I think that is the best definition of a boss. You want to be in a place where you can reasonably think that you can succeed, and as long as Davis is at the helm for the Raiders, that will not be the case.

I think you can tell by the coaching search that people are avoiding the Raiders. A college position coach(the USC coach) pulled his name out of consideration for the job. A college position coach!!

I think you may be putting too much emphasis on the fact that head coaching candidates RUN from Oakland after they are interviewed. Al wants too much control; that much is evident. As long as he owns the team, he demands to stick his wrinkled little fingers into the day-to-day operation. Coaches, naturally, are uncomfortable with this arrangement. But we are just talking about coaches here. That doesn't make him a "bad" owner. It makes him a meddling owner, and as long as he signs the paychecks he can do as he pleases.With that said, you won't find a more beloved owner in the entire league when it comes to his players. He is loyal to a fault with his former RAIDUHHHS, employing many of them in positions which frankly are superflous, and the stories of Davis providing financial aid to some down-on-their-luck former Raiders are endless. When you are a Raider, you're a Raider for life -- unless you stuck a knife in Al's back on the way out the door.

By all accounts, Al treats his employees like gold... right down to the equipment guy and secretary.

I'm not privy to many of Benson's antics or policies. At least not enough to comment insightfully.

 

[Saints-Man]

Before I comment, could you provide the complete criteria which encompasses "better."

Sure...I put in the poll...for whom would you rather work? I think that is the best definition of a boss. You want to be in a place where you can reasonably think that you can succeed, and as long as Davis is at the helm for the Raiders, that will not be the case.

I think you can tell by the coaching search that people are avoiding the Raiders. A college position coach(the USC coach) pulled his name out of consideration for the job. A college position coach!!

I think you may be putting too much emphasis on the fact that head coaching candidates RUN from Oakland after they are interviewed. Al wants too much control; that much is evident. As long as he owns the team, he demands to stick his wrinkled little fingers into the day-to-day operation. Coaches, naturally, are uncomfortable with this arrangement. But we are just talking about coaches here. That doesn't make him a "bad" owner. It makes him a meddling owner, and as long as he signs the paychecks he can do as he pleases.With that said, you won't find a more beloved owner in the entire league when it comes to his players. He is loyal to a fault with his former RAIDUHHHS, employing many of them in positions which frankly are superflous, and the stories of Davis providing financial aid to some down-on-their-luck former Raiders are endless. When you are a Raider, you're a Raider for life -- unless you stuck a knife in Al's back on the way out the door.

By all accounts, Al treats his employees like gold... right down to the equipment guy and secretary.

I'm not privy to many of Benson's antics or policies. At least not enough to comment insightfully.

Okay, but do you see the Raiders successful any time in the near future under Al Davis' leadership? A lot of people have big egos, but Davis' seems to be especially overwhelming. He was a good GM years ago, but he hasn't won a SB in over 20 years. What makes him a better owner now?

 

[S.K.A.]

Better owner = Al Davis

Better to work for = push ('better' needs to be clarified)

Easier to work for = Tom Benson

As far as Al being worse for the league than Tom Benson, that is ridiculous. Winning sure cures a lot. Tom Benson was trying to whore his team out to San Antonio last year. Meanwhile, Al Davis' bust is in Canton.

 

[S.K.A.]

Before I comment, could you provide the complete criteria which encompasses "better."

Sure...I put in the poll...for whom would you rather work? I think that is the best definition of a boss. You want to be in a place where you can reasonably think that you can succeed, and as long as Davis is at the helm for the Raiders, that will not be the case.

I think you can tell by the coaching search that people are avoiding the Raiders. A college position coach(the USC coach) pulled his name out of consideration for the job. A college position coach!!

I think you may be putting too much emphasis on the fact that head coaching candidates RUN from Oakland after they are interviewed. Al wants too much control; that much is evident. As long as he owns the team, he demands to stick his wrinkled little fingers into the day-to-day operation. Coaches, naturally, are uncomfortable with this arrangement. But we are just talking about coaches here. That doesn't make him a "bad" owner. It makes him a meddling owner, and as long as he signs the paychecks he can do as he pleases.With that said, you won't find a more beloved owner in the entire league when it comes to his players. He is loyal to a fault with his former RAIDUHHHS, employing many of them in positions which frankly are superflous, and the stories of Davis providing financial aid to some down-on-their-luck former Raiders are endless. When you are a Raider, you're a Raider for life -- unless you stuck a knife in Al's back on the way out the door.

By all accounts, Al treats his employees like gold... right down to the equipment guy and secretary.

I'm not privy to many of Benson's antics or policies. At least not enough to comment insightfully.

Okay, but do you see the Raiders successful any time in the near future under Al Davis' leadership? A lot of people have big egos, but Davis' seems to be especially overwhelming. He was a good GM years ago, but he hasn't won a SB in over 20 years. What makes him a better owner now?

Well let's see, they were successful in the near past. They have a solid, young defense. Is that just luck or did Al have something to do with that? He was in a SB seven years ago and Tom Benson has been in exactly Zero SB compared to 5 SB's, so I am not sure how that stat is even relevant in this comparison unless you are trying to attenuate your own argument.

 

[Raider Nation]

Before I comment, could you provide the complete criteria which encompasses "better."

Sure...I put in the poll...for whom would you rather work? I think that is the best definition of a boss. You want to be in a place where you can reasonably think that you can succeed, and as long as Davis is at the helm for the Raiders, that will not be the case.

I think you can tell by the coaching search that people are avoiding the Raiders. A college position coach(the USC coach) pulled his name out of consideration for the job. A college position coach!!

I think you may be putting too much emphasis on the fact that head coaching candidates RUN from Oakland after they are interviewed. Al wants too much control; that much is evident. As long as he owns the team, he demands to stick his wrinkled little fingers into the day-to-day operation. Coaches, naturally, are uncomfortable with this arrangement. But we are just talking about coaches here. That doesn't make him a "bad" owner. It makes him a meddling owner, and as long as he signs the paychecks he can do as he pleases.With that said, you won't find a more beloved owner in the entire league when it comes to his players. He is loyal to a fault with his former RAIDUHHHS, employing many of them in positions which frankly are superflous, and the stories of Davis providing financial aid to some down-on-their-luck former Raiders are endless. When you are a Raider, you're a Raider for life -- unless you stuck a knife in Al's back on the way out the door.

By all accounts, Al treats his employees like gold... right down to the equipment guy and secretary.

I'm not privy to many of Benson's antics or policies. At least not enough to comment insightfully.

Okay, but do you see the Raiders successful any time in the near future under Al Davis' leadership? A lot of people have big egos, but Davis' seems to be especially overwhelming. He was a good GM years ago, but he hasn't won a SB in over 20 years. What makes him a better owner now?

You seem to be changing the rules as you go along. I asked what "better" meant. You replied with the very vague "For whom would you rather work?" I then point out that Al is very kind to his employees. Now you mention that it's been awhile since his last Super Bowl win. We're jumping around too much.Is Al a good/fair employer? Defintely, though it's not easy to coach for him, to say the least.

Is Al a good talent evaluator, and as sharp as he used to be???

Absolutely not. I wish he'd sell the team.

 

[Demons]

Al Davis does treat many employees in his organization very well, and he rewards folks that do a good job.

It is somewhat mystifying that folks would turn down the job offer, especially Sarkisian. At Sark's age, it is unlikely that very many owners will be beating down his door in the near term.

Gruden is a great example of someone who has benefitted tremendously from working for Al. If you look at the coaching ranks throughout the league you will see many names that have coached for Al in some capacity.

Al Davis is not afraid to try for greatness. He is the first owner to have minorities and women in positions of power within the organization. He looks for the greatness within people, the potential, and pushes for that. He has been stung by that in the past, where a coach or employee fails, but he doesn't let that deter him from the attempt.

Al Davis is not perfect, but he isn't the Devil either.

 

[Saints-Man]

Better owner = Al Davis

Better to work for = push ('better' needs to be clarified)

Easier to work for = Tom Benson

As far as Al being worse for the league than Tom Benson, that is ridiculous. Winning sure cures a lot. Tom Benson was trying to whore his team out to San Antonio last year. Meanwhile, Al Davis' bust is in Canton.

As far the bolded part, his bust is in Canton for what he did a long time ago and not recently. He hasn't been a good owner in a long time.Tom Benson may have thought about moving his team(and would have been the most hated man in all of Louisiana if he did), but people are confusing Al Davis winning SBs with the trouble he caused for the league. The league was able to prosper because of the blessing of two great commisioners in Rozelle and Tagliabue, and nothing Al Davis did.

 

[Saints-Man]

Before I comment, could you provide the complete criteria which encompasses "better."

Sure...I put in the poll...for whom would you rather work? I think that is the best definition of a boss. You want to be in a place where you can reasonably think that you can succeed, and as long as Davis is at the helm for the Raiders, that will not be the case.

I think you can tell by the coaching search that people are avoiding the Raiders. A college position coach(the USC coach) pulled his name out of consideration for the job. A college position coach!!

I think you may be putting too much emphasis on the fact that head coaching candidates RUN from Oakland after they are interviewed. Al wants too much control; that much is evident. As long as he owns the team, he demands to stick his wrinkled little fingers into the day-to-day operation. Coaches, naturally, are uncomfortable with this arrangement. But we are just talking about coaches here. That doesn't make him a "bad" owner. It makes him a meddling owner, and as long as he signs the paychecks he can do as he pleases.With that said, you won't find a more beloved owner in the entire league when it comes to his players. He is loyal to a fault with his former RAIDUHHHS, employing many of them in positions which frankly are superflous, and the stories of Davis providing financial aid to some down-on-their-luck former Raiders are endless. When you are a Raider, you're a Raider for life -- unless you stuck a knife in Al's back on the way out the door.

By all accounts, Al treats his employees like gold... right down to the equipment guy and secretary.

I'm not privy to many of Benson's antics or policies. At least not enough to comment insightfully.

Okay, but do you see the Raiders successful any time in the near future under Al Davis' leadership? A lot of people have big egos, but Davis' seems to be especially overwhelming. He was a good GM years ago, but he hasn't won a SB in over 20 years. What makes him a better owner now?

You seem to be changing the rules as you go along. I asked what "better" meant. You replied with the very vague "For whom would you rather work?" I then point out that Al is very kind to his employees. Now you mention that it's been awhile since his last Super Bowl win. We're jumping around too much.Is Al a good/fair employer? Defintely, though it's not easy to coach for him, to say the least.

Is Al a good talent evaluator, and as sharp as he used to be???

Absolutely not. I wish he'd sell the team.

I meant solely as a coach, not an office employee. I wasn't clear with that but that is what I meant and that is why I brought up his SB lapse. Even you admit you wish he would sell the team.I don't care if the Benson sells the team or not, as long as the team stays in New Orleans. That alone makes him a better owner right now.

 

[Saints-Man]

Al Davis does treat many employees in his organization very well, and he rewards folks that do a good job.

It is somewhat mystifying that folks would turn down the job offer, especially Sarkisian. At Sark's age, it is unlikely that very many owners will be beating down his door in the near term.

Gruden is a great example of someone who has benefitted tremendously from working for Al. If you look at the coaching ranks throughout the league you will see many names that have coached for Al in some capacity.

Al Davis is not afraid to try for greatness. He is the first owner to have minorities and women in positions of power within the organization. He looks for the greatness within people, the potential, and pushes for that. He has been stung by that in the past, where a coach or employee fails, but he doesn't let that deter him from the attempt.

Al Davis is not perfect, but he isn't the Devil either.

Bolded #1: Many coaches have worked for many different owners. I don't see how Davis is any different than that. I don't see how Gruden benefitted from working for Davis. Yes, Davis gave him an opportunity, but then let him go when he was getting too big for his britches(in Davis' view). And that Gruden won a title with TB, so he was a pretty decent coach himself.Bolded #2: I don't know how true this is, but I will cede the point for the moment. My counter to that is that was a long time ago. The league is very different now than it was in the 70's and 80's. Assuming that is true, I give him credit. But he still hurt the league with his unapproved moves and his lawsuits against the league. If you give him credit for one, he must be faulted for the other.

I am not suggesting Al Davis is the Devil. He was a great owner once who had lots of success. However, he is not that owner anymore and I think he is currently the worst owner in the league right now.

Also, I think the negative impact his lawsuits had on the league cost a lot of people unneccessary money and hurt the league. The leauge was just very fortunate to have Rozelle and then Tagliabue to get them through his hurtful effects.

 

[Bevo]

Okay, but do you see the Raiders successful any time in the near future under Al Davis' leadership? A lot of people have big egos, but Davis' seems to be especially overwhelming. He was a good GM years ago, but he hasn't won a SB in over 20 years. What makes him a better owner now?

At least Davis has the Super Bowl rings and he has been to the Super Bowl fairly recently, remind me of Benson's record in the area of playoffs and championships. Yeah, Benson might stumble into a Super Bowl in the next year or two but that reminds me of the old saying about blind pigs and acorns.That being said I would rate Davis as slightly below Benson at the current time with both of them pretty solidly entrenched as sucky bottom 10 owners.

 

[Saints-Man]

Okay, but do you see the Raiders successful any time in the near future under Al Davis' leadership? A lot of people have big egos, but Davis' seems to be especially overwhelming. He was a good GM years ago, but he hasn't won a SB in over 20 years. What makes him a better owner now?

At least Davis has the Super Bowl rings and he has been to the Super Bowl fairly recently, remind me of Benson's record in the area of playoffs and championships. Yeah, Benson might stumble into a Super Bowl in the next year or two but that reminds me of the old saying about blind pigs and acorns.That being said I would rate Davis as slightly below Benson at the current time with both of them pretty solidly entrenched as sucky bottom 10 owners.

Your point is valid. I am not talking about quality of team ownership over their entire careers(Davis' SBs easily over Benson's goose egg in this regard), but I the point of this poll is at this point in time. I think Benson is a better owner now and has been for the last few years. He does give people control in his organization, and at least allows for the possibility of a Payton to come in. Benson worse trait has been loyalty and has stuck with several subpar GMs in his tenure with the exception of the great Jim Finks.

 

[Bevo]

Okay, but do you see the Raiders successful any time in the near future under Al Davis' leadership? A lot of people have big egos, but Davis' seems to be especially overwhelming. He was a good GM years ago, but he hasn't won a SB in over 20 years. What makes him a better owner now?

At least Davis has the Super Bowl rings and he has been to the Super Bowl fairly recently, remind me of Benson's record in the area of playoffs and championships. Yeah, Benson might stumble into a Super Bowl in the next year or two but that reminds me of the old saying about blind pigs and acorns.That being said I would rate Davis as slightly below Benson at the current time with both of them pretty solidly entrenched as sucky bottom 10 owners.

Your point is valid. I am not talking about quality of team ownership over their entire careers(Davis' SBs easily over Benson's goose egg in this regard), but I the point of this poll is at this point in time. I think Benson is a better owner now and has been for the last few years. He does give people control in his organization, and at least allows for the possibility of a Payton to come in. Benson worse trait has been loyalty and has stuck with several subpar GMs in his tenure with the exception of the great Jim Finks.

Not to mention a bad coach or two.

 

[S.K.A.]

So never mind the fact that Benson wanted to use Katrina to move the team out of LA and never mind the fact that the Saints are perennial losers, Tom Benson is better than Al Davis because..........because you are a Saints fan. Lots of good info here.

Seriously, I have read nothing of any substance as to why Benson is better. Al Davis is fiercely loyal to his employees, but he expects results. I don't think that is a bad thing. Al Davis has been and continues to be a pioneer in hiring minorities. Al Davis has assembled a solid core of young talent on the defensive side of the ball.

What has Tom Benson done? I would like to know all of the savvy moves that Benson has done to keep his team competitive throughout the years. Are you just limiting this discussion to 2006~2007? The Saints did have the #2 pick in the draft last year. How does that fare for Tom Benson and the 'recent' success of the franchise? The whole state of LA was down and out with Katrina and Tom Benson tried his best to find somewhere else to move the team.

Al Davis has one foot in the grave and one foot in an Alzheimer's clinic and is still a better owner than Tom Benson. It's not even close.

 

[Saints-Man]

So never mind the fact that Benson wanted to use Katrina to move the team out of LA and never mind the fact that the Saints are perennial losers, Tom Benson is better than Al Davis because..........because you are a Saints fan. Lots of good info here.Seriously, I have read nothing of any substance as to why Benson is better. Al Davis is fiercely loyal to his employees, but he expects results. I don't think that is a bad thing. Al Davis has been and continues to be a pioneer in hiring minorities. Al Davis has assembled a solid core of young talent on the defensive side of the ball. What has Tom Benson done? I would like to know all of the savvy moves that Benson has done to keep his team competitive throughout the years. Are you just limiting this discussion to 2006~2007? The Saints did have the #2 pick in the draft last year. How does that fare for Tom Benson and the 'recent' success of the franchise? The whole state of LA was down and out with Katrina and Tom Benson tried his best to find somewhere else to move the team. Al Davis has one foot in the grave and one foot in an Alzheimer's clinic and is still a better owner than Tom Benson. It's not even close.

Davis is certainly not the paragon of loyalty to a city with his move to Los Angeles and then return to Oakland. Since Benson only *thought* about moving the team and didn't sue the league to implement his selfish interests, I'd say Benson clearly outdoes Davis in this regard.Benson is a better owner because the Saints are still able to attract quality mid-level former head coaches coaches and upcoming assistants and Davis, because of his meddling, is not. That is why Benson is now a better owner. What has been postulated that Davis is a better owner than long ago accomplishments? The last SB victory for the Raiders was 1983, and that was before Benson was owner of the Saints.Under Benson, the Saints have had a little success and mostly medicocrity. The Saints record(from 1986-2005, which does not include this year) under his tenure 157-162, roughly an 8-8 yearly average. Certainly not great, but not bottom of the league. The Raiders' record during this tenure? 156-163. Let's take more recently. What are the records from the last 5 years prior to this one(eliminating one of the best Saints seasons and one of the Raiders worst), from 2001-2005, which includes the Raiders last SB appearance in 2002. From 2001-2005, the Saints were 35-45, roughly a 7-9 record. In this same time frame, which includes a SB appearance, the Raiders record is 34-46. Once again, this to you makes the Raiders better? This would obviously be a greater discrepancy if you included this season, but I purposely left this season out to eliminate one season and look more at trends.So, the records do not indicate, either in the long run or in the short run, that Al Davis has created a better team than the Saints. So, I am looking at other factors. While the Saints were not able to lure current head coaches to New Orleans like maybe a team like New England, Pittsburgh, or more recently KC could, they can still attract quality applicants for their HC job. Candidates are running from the Oakland HC like the plague. Can you provide any concrete data that suggests that Al Davis is currently a better owner than Benson? Anything from the last 5 years is what would interest me.

 

[BlackHole]

Does it not also matter that Al (once again) played a large part in the NFL's current success and future success last year? The man, in his decrepit state, went and made such an impact in the owners meetings during contract negotiations that he was applauded and given credit from the commishioner down through the owners rank and file. Anyone remeber the USFL lawsuit? Their $3 victory was highly attributed to Al Davis. Does anyone remember the merger (I personally fon't but I've read/heard about it). AL was not a primary factor but has been given quite a bit of credit for his prominent role in that.

Al is not what he used to be, and I wish he was. But let's be realistic here. A few years back the same Al Davis Raiders won three straight AFC West titles. That is no easy task. The Raiders Defense is young and primed for a good 5 year run. The Raiders offense is inept, but the guy did spend a #2 pick on a total bust (so far) in Gallery and in the same year the #2 pick in the 2nd round on Grove (semi bust so far). That same year, he brought in Jordan and Moss. Imagine if those 4 players lived up to even 75% of their ability/past performance. The offense would be right there with the defense.

What I'm trying to say is, the guy will spend all the money necessary (except on coaching for some stupid reason) to try and Win. He might not have the same knack for bringing in the right talent, but the guy spends and spends to try and put the pieces together. There are too many owners in pro sports that treat it like a business and I am thankfull Al does not.

 

[Saints-Man]

Does it not also matter that Al (once again) played a large part in the NFL's current success and future success last year? The man, in his decrepit state, went and made such an impact in the owners meetings during contract negotiations that he was applauded and given credit from the commishioner down through the owners rank and file. Anyone remeber the USFL lawsuit? Their $3 victory was highly attributed to Al Davis. Does anyone remember the merger (I personally fon't but I've read/heard about it). AL was not a primary factor but has been given quite a bit of credit for his prominent role in that.

Al is not what he used to be, and I wish he was. But let's be realistic here. A few years back the same Al Davis Raiders won three straight AFC West titles. That is no easy task. The Raiders Defense is young and primed for a good 5 year run. The Raiders offense is inept, but the guy did spend a #2 pick on a total bust (so far) in Gallery and in the same year the #2 pick in the 2nd round on Grove (semi bust so far). That same year, he brought in Jordan and Moss. Imagine if those 4 players lived up to even 75% of their ability/past performance. The offense would be right there with the defense.

What I'm trying to say is, the guy will spend all the money necessary (except on coaching for some stupid reason) to try and Win. He might not have the same knack for bringing in the right talent, but the guy spends and spends to try and put the pieces together. There are too many owners in pro sports that treat it like a business and I am thankfull Al does not.

Bolded #1: I don't know what you mean, please explain.Bolded #2: The Saints did the same, so I don't know how this is a comparison to Benson. He spent money on Brees and paid Bush the requisite money to get him in camp on time so he could impact the Saints' season this year.

 

[BlackHole]

Does it not also matter that Al (once again) played a large part in the NFL's current success and future success last year? The man, in his decrepit state, went and made such an impact in the owners meetings during contract negotiations that he was applauded and given credit from the commishioner down through the owners rank and file. Anyone remeber the USFL lawsuit? Their $3 victory was highly attributed to Al Davis. Does anyone remember the merger (I personally fon't but I've read/heard about it). AL was not a primary factor but has been given quite a bit of credit for his prominent role in that.

Al is not what he used to be, and I wish he was. But let's be realistic here. A few years back the same Al Davis Raiders won three straight AFC West titles. That is no easy task. The Raiders Defense is young and primed for a good 5 year run. The Raiders offense is inept, but the guy did spend a #2 pick on a total bust (so far) in Gallery and in the same year the #2 pick in the 2nd round on Grove (semi bust so far). That same year, he brought in Jordan and Moss. Imagine if those 4 players lived up to even 75% of their ability/past performance. The offense would be right there with the defense.

What I'm trying to say is, the guy will spend all the money necessary (except on coaching for some stupid reason) to try and Win. He might not have the same knack for bringing in the right talent, but the guy spends and spends to try and put the pieces together. There are too many owners in pro sports that treat it like a business and I am thankfull Al does not.

Bolded #1: I don't know what you mean, please explain.Bolded #2: The Saints did the same, so I don't know how this is a comparison to Benson. He spent money on Brees and paid Bush the requisite money to get him in camp on time so he could impact the Saints' season this year.

#1, I see what you mean. Poor grammar, sorry 15 hours and still at work. I've had a bad day. Basically I believe we need to account for Al's contributions to the NFL as a whole as well as to his individual team.#2. You are correct and I did not intend to imply anything else. I only feel that most do not give credit to AL for having the intentions of winning and being willing to spend the money to meat those goals on a year in and year out basis.

 

[Saints-Man]

Does it not also matter that Al (once again) played a large part in the NFL's current success and future success last year? The man, in his decrepit state, went and made such an impact in the owners meetings during contract negotiations that he was applauded and given credit from the commishioner down through the owners rank and file. Anyone remeber the USFL lawsuit? Their $3 victory was highly attributed to Al Davis. Does anyone remember the merger (I personally fon't but I've read/heard about it). AL was not a primary factor but has been given quite a bit of credit for his prominent role in that.

Al is not what he used to be, and I wish he was. But let's be realistic here. A few years back the same Al Davis Raiders won three straight AFC West titles. That is no easy task. The Raiders Defense is young and primed for a good 5 year run. The Raiders offense is inept, but the guy did spend a #2 pick on a total bust (so far) in Gallery and in the same year the #2 pick in the 2nd round on Grove (semi bust so far). That same year, he brought in Jordan and Moss. Imagine if those 4 players lived up to even 75% of their ability/past performance. The offense would be right there with the defense.

What I'm trying to say is, the guy will spend all the money necessary (except on coaching for some stupid reason) to try and Win. He might not have the same knack for bringing in the right talent, but the guy spends and spends to try and put the pieces together. There are too many owners in pro sports that treat it like a business and I am thankfull Al does not.

Bolded #1: I don't know what you mean, please explain.Bolded #2: The Saints did the same, so I don't know how this is a comparison to Benson. He spent money on Brees and paid Bush the requisite money to get him in camp on time so he could impact the Saints' season this year.

#1, I see what you mean. Poor grammar, sorry 15 hours and still at work. I've had a bad day. Basically I believe we need to account for Al's contributions to the NFL as a whole as well as to his individual team.#2. You are correct and I did not intend to imply anything else. I only feel that most do not give credit to AL for having the intentions of winning and being willing to spend the money to meat those goals on a year in and year out basis.

Sorry for the long work hours. I hope you get to leave work soon.Al's positive contributions(which do exist, I am not attempting to rewrite history here) must be offset for the problems he caused the league with his lawsuits and moving franchises. Davis' supporters seems to dismiss these negative affects he caused out of hand and must be balanced with the positive things he brought to the league.

I do think Al *wants* to win and some of the owners in the NFL see this only as a business, but what Al doesn't realize is that he is the biggest obstacle now to the Raiders' success with his excessive meddling. With his football IQ quickly diminishing(an ongoing trend for the last few years), he needs to relinquish his tight grip on the franchise. Unless he does, he will continue to be a bad owner and probably the worst in the league at this time.

 

[S.K.A.]

Tom Benson *thought* about leaving LA during the worst possible time as far as the city is concerned. The commissioner had to advocate for New Orleans, the nfl had give the Saints 20 million bucks to keep them in town. If Tom Benson would have had his way, you would hold Tom Benson in as high of esteem as Cleveland football fans esteem Art Modell.

Tom Benson did his very best to become the single biggest goat owner of all time. That tells you all you need to know about Benson. The saints had a good year, that is all you can say about that franchise. They are a constant financial drain on the nfl. They don't generate revenue, they benefit from profit sharing in the NFL. Hell, even Bill Bidwill's team generated profits and gave money to the nfl this year.

We aren't going to change each other's mind, much the same as we didn't change each others' minds last time we did this song and dance. You just brought this up now because this is the best team in Saint history and you were less than satisfied with the overall response to this thread the first time you started it. I hope this time around goes better for you and you get your axe ground.

 

[Autumn Wind]

Look, you think Benson is great because the Saints are in the playoffs this year. You're all a-twitter at the prospect of actually reaching the Super Bowl, and that's understandable. But before you start lambasting Al Davis, take off your gold-colored glasses and realize Benson is a POS owner who would move the Saints out of Louisiana tomorrow if he could, and not think twice about stomping on a fanbase that has supported the franchise through decades of nearly consistent suckitude.

 

[x260bm]

Better owner = Al DavisBetter to work for = push ('better' needs to be clarified)Easier to work for = Tom BensonAs far as Al being worse for the league than Tom Benson, that is ridiculous. Winning sure cures a lot. Tom Benson was trying to whore his team out to San Antonio last year. Meanwhile, Al Davis' bust is in Canton.

That about sums it up for me. The game may have passed Al by, but when you look at everything they have done, it is not really close.

 

[Saints-Man]

Look, you think Benson is great because the Saints are in the playoffs this year. You're all a-twitter at the prospect of actually reaching the Super Bowl, and that's understandable. But before you start lambasting Al Davis, take off your gold-colored glasses and realize Benson is a POS owner who would move the Saints out of Louisiana tomorrow if he could, and not think twice about stomping on a fanbase that has supported the franchise through decades of nearly consistent suckitude.

Didn't Al Davis do this exact same thing to Oakland fans when he moved the team to L.A.?

 

[Saints-Man]

Tom Benson *thought* about leaving LA during the worst possible time as far as the city is concerned. The commissioner had to advocate for New Orleans, the nfl had give the Saints 20 million bucks to keep them in town. If Tom Benson would have had his way, you would hold Tom Benson in as high of esteem as Cleveland football fans esteem Art Modell.

Tom Benson did his very best to become the single biggest goat owner of all time. That tells you all you need to know about Benson. The saints had a good year, that is all you can say about that franchise. They are a constant financial drain on the nfl. They don't generate revenue, they benefit from profit sharing in the NFL. Hell, even Bill Bidwill's team generated profits and gave money to the nfl this year.

...

I don't argue with your statements here, but the fact is that in the end Benson did not move the team. He did not sue the league so he could implement his wishes like Al Davis did. Is everyone forgetting how Al Davis abandoned Oakland(way before Model did Cleveland), and put the NFL through the ringer to do it?Yes, last year the Saints were a drain on the NFL. They were the only team that lost money. However, I believe this year with a year of sellouts, they are making money and contributing to the league. Don't you think last year was an exception to the rule given the circumstances?

 

[Bevo]

So, the records do not indicate, either in the long run or in the short run, that Al Davis has created a better team than the Saints.

In the long run Davis has 2 Super Bowl rings and several other Super Bowl appearances; Benson has NOTHING in that arena. Let me repeat that, Benson has NOTHING. Clearly Davis kicks the ever loving crap out of Benson on that issue.I find it amusing that you are scavenging from among the very worst owners in the league (a group that includes Benson) trying to find someone that is a worse owner than Benson apparently in some vain attempt to make Benson look good. That speaks a huge amount about what kind of owner that Benson has been without going any further.

 

[Saints-Man]

Look, you think Benson is great because the Saints are in the playoffs this year. You're all a-twitter at the prospect of actually reaching the Super Bowl, and that's understandable. But before you start lambasting Al Davis, take off your gold-colored glasses and realize Benson is a POS owner who would move the Saints out of Louisiana tomorrow if he could, and not think twice about stomping on a fanbase that has supported the franchise through decades of nearly consistent suckitude.

This is not true. I have not stated I think Benson is great. Matter of fact, the only place I assign a value to him is that I put him in the bottom 3rd of the league. He is not a great owner and has had many pr blunders during his career as owner. My point is that Al Davis is long past his glory and at this time is the worst owner in the NFL.

 

[Saints-Man]

So, the records do not indicate, either in the long run or in the short run, that Al Davis has created a better team than the Saints.

In the long run Davis has 2 Super Bowl rings and several other Super Bowl appearances; Benson has NOTHING in that arena. Let me repeat that, Benson has NOTHING. Clearly Davis kicks the ever loving crap out of Benson on that issue.I find it amusing that you are scavenging from among the very worst owners in the league (a group that includes Benson) trying to find someone that is a worse owner than Benson apparently in some vain attempt to make Benson look good. That speaks a huge amount about what kind of owner that Benson has been without going any further.

Bevo, I am not attempting to make Benson look good. I never said he was a great owner. I have posted, and I will repeat, he is in the bottom 3rd of the league. Also, just for accuracy, Davis has 3 SB rings. The Raiders won the title in 1976, 1980, and 1983. They have had one appearance since then. Benson did not become an owner until 1986.

This is not a question of who is the best owner over their entire career, as I already posted that Al Davis is clearly the winner here. However, since Benson entered the leagues both their teams have been quite average. Please show me some data that Al Davis is a better owner than Benson in the last 20 years. The only argument here is that the Raiders lost a SB in 2002.

What brings this up now is that I can not recall a team finding it so difficult to find a HC. Coaches are running from this job. There is a reason for this, and that reason is Al Davis.

 

[Bevo]

So, the records do not indicate, either in the long run or in the short run, that Al Davis has created a better team than the Saints.

In the long run Davis has 2 Super Bowl rings and several other Super Bowl appearances; Benson has NOTHING in that arena. Let me repeat that, Benson has NOTHING. Clearly Davis kicks the ever loving crap out of Benson on that issue.I find it amusing that you are scavenging from among the very worst owners in the league (a group that includes Benson) trying to find someone that is a worse owner than Benson apparently in some vain attempt to make Benson look good. That speaks a huge amount about what kind of owner that Benson has been without going any further.

Bevo, I am not attempting to make Benson look good. I never said he was a great owner. I have posted, and I will repeat, he is in the bottom 3rd of the league. Also, just for accuracy, Davis has 3 SB rings. The Raiders won the title in 1976, 1980, and 1983. They have had one appearance since then. Benson did not become an owner until 1986.

This is not a question of who is the best owner over their entire career, as I already posted that Al Davis is clearly the winner here. However, since Benson entered the leagues both their teams have been quite average. Please show me some data that Al Davis is a better owner than Benson in the last 20 years. The only argument here is that the Raiders lost a SB in 2002.

What brings this up now is that I can not recall a team finding it so difficult to find a HC. Coaches are running from this job. There is a reason for this, and that reason is Al Davis.

Thanks for the correction, it just proves my point even more! The next time that Benson even makes it to the Super Bowl will be his first. He's not even able to look at Davis' jock in the world of success in the Super Bowl, much less carry it.Look back up to where I bolded "long run", that is YOUR statement. It is wrong.

I've already stated that I think that in the realm of crappy owners that Benson is marginally better than Davis at the current time. Hurrah! That is quite a feather in Benson's cap.

 

[Saints-Man]

Bevo, the long run in my statement is comparing their ownership over the 20 years (prior to this one) that they have been in the league concurrently. I explained this more fully in a prior post. In those 20 years, their records are nearly identical and all the Raiders have to show for it is one SB loss. That makes them marginally better, but nothing signficant and neither are the Saints. Both have been middle of the road teams since Benson joined the league. I am comparing their concurrent tenure, and that concurrent tenure is one of mediocrity.

The great days of Al Davis were from the 1960's through 1983. Since 1986(when Benson joined the league), Al Davis has been quite pedestrian as an owner on the field. My argument is with people who have for the last 20 years viewed Davis as great, where every measurable data item proves this not so. When they cite his greatness, they go before that. This I do not deny. However, since 1986, he has been average on the field and the legal problems he caused the leauge has made him a nuisance.

 

[Bevo]

Bevo, the long run in my statement is comparing their ownership over the 20 years (prior to this one) that they have been in the league concurrently. I explained this more fully in a prior post. In those 20 years, their records are nearly identical and all the Raiders have to show for it is one SB loss. That makes them marginally better, but nothing signficant and neither are the Saints. Both have been middle of the road teams since Benson joined the league. I am comparing their concurrent tenure, and that concurrent tenure is one of mediocrity.

The great days of Al Davis were from the 1960's through 1983. Since 1986(when Benson joined the league), Al Davis has been quite pedestrian as an owner on the field. My argument is with people who have for the last 20 years viewed Davis as great, where every measurable data item proves this not so. When they cite his greatness, they go before that. This I do not deny. However, since 1986, he has been average on the field and the legal problems he caused the leauge has made him a nuisance.

Who are these people that have viewed Davis as great based on his last 20 years? From my perspecitive it appears that the vast majority of people revile Davis and would not take that view point. I have seen very little along these lines, especially over the last 4 or 5 years.And I guess I still don't get the reason for the poll/thread. This is analogous to you and me standing on the corner when 2 butt ugly women walk by. You say, Hey Bevo look at that one on the left, she is uglier than the one on the right? I respond with, who cares, they both make me :X :X .

Anyway, I have spent way too much time and energy posting about 2 owners that are among the worst in the league. I don't usually spend too much time talking about ugly chicks or crappy owners.

 

[Raider Nation]

At least Davis has the Super Bowl rings and he has been to the Super Bowl fairly recently, remind me of Benson's record in the area of playoffs and championships. Yeah, Benson might stumble into a Super Bowl in the next year or two but that reminds me of the old saying about blind pigs and acorns.

Malaprops SO rule!