Styrian Raider

As mentioned to @ronjon1990: AP wanted Jayden Daniels and i think he even Said one time that he prefers a mobile QB. So If Daniels is the "mold " then there are 3 QBs to look at in this class: Jackson Dart Cam Ward Jalen Milroe Personally I think Ewers fits better to Getsy's offense, but who knows...

Absolutely. They don't have to agree on all topics but they have to make decisions where both are happy with and are beneficial for the raiders organization - not only their jobs. It was indeed me that brought up Edgar Bennett. It's not like that I want him to be fired or so, but I was just wondering how it is possible that he "survived" 3 different HCs, GMs, philosophies or whatever we wanna call it. IMHO if I have a vision how I want to play, the next steps are, how I find the players for that and how I develop players to be the best they can be. For the latter it doesn't mean that every coach comes from the same coaching tree, but rather that they are good in that categories I want my foucs on. for example (sorry that I use always the run scheme as example) if I decided I want a dominant run game, with a wide zone run scheme, the next thing after the players for that is, who can develop my guys the best for that scheme. same as with players: The best power/gap run coach doesn't have to be the best coach for a zone scheme. That's my initial thought why I brought up Bennett. I think if you're doing your job right with the coaching staff you can start "printing" compensatory picks like the Niners do.

Evil tongues would say, it's because he doesn't get the special massage treatment anymore.

Interesting thing is, that the Commanders are 7th in the league in rushing attempts & 5th in total rushing yards, but they also have a true dual-threat at QB with Daniels. Just thinking about what I said before (not literally): You have to define your vision, and then go after the guys that fit your vision. AP wanted Daniels - we all know that. If he's the mold that fits the vision, it would at least explain why we weren't aggressive on other QBs in the last draft. Because nobody else in that draft class is a true dual-threat QB. (that leads to the next question, who could be the next big dual threat qb in the upcoming class) Nevertheless do I think there is a disagreement between AP and TT regarding the construction of the roster or the overall vision. If it should've looked like what we see with the Commanders, then why we didn't resign Jacobs plus another veteran for the zone run scheme and tried to trade Zamir White. I just want from AP or whoever dictates what happens in the building, to just give more details about the overall plan. IMHO this would be easier to understand for all of us, because then you know "okay - that's the focus for this year and next year the focus is something else". It's just easier to buy in on the "old school raiders" thing when you know what's the plan.

Well, "old school raiders" is a catchy name for the vision, which is good for fans and media to create a hype. And although it's not ideal, when the HC dictates the vision, I'm okay with it as long as it is not only catchphrases, and the organization is build around that vision. For example regarding presence on the field AP wants the players to be physical, aggressive but also disciplined - you can see that attempt especially on the defense in the first two games, where we started strong on defense. but then there are also things that just didn't work out so far, and what were the thoughts with that: - if AP wants old school smashmouth football, then why didn't we invest money at the RB position? - running scheme: Getsy wants to run a wide zone scheme, but our RB1 Zamir White is just not a scheme fit plus we let Jacobs, who would've been a scheme fit go to the Packers - Kliff Kingsbury was the first choice for OC - how is he fit for the "old school raider smashmouth football"? or is it Getsy that just doesn't fit into that? - if AP dictates the vision, is Tom Telesco on board with that? - How do they think they can get the guys and develop the guys that fit into that old school raider mold? (let's be honest a first round talent is most of the time more well-rounded and fit better in different schemes than day 2 or 3 guys, who are limited in certain areas but can fit a certain role)

was just gonna say that - of course we hire the one coach from the Shanahan tree that don't work out - Raiders fans just can't have nice things.

The major problem is, that it doesn't look like we have an overall plan or vision at all, how the Raiders should look like, and how we want to succeed. In the last 3 coaching cycles we always picked randomly a HC and paired him with his favourite GM - and none of the three head anything in common with one another. Which means of course, that you then have a bunch of guys on your roster or even on your coaching team, that doesn't fit all together. Edgar Bennet for example is WRs coach since the Gruden era - don't want to criticize his work, 'cause I'm no expert in that - but how can he fit to a Gruden offense, McDaniels offense and a Getsy offense at the same time? I am well aware that you can't overhaul the whole building in one off-season, but I think there should be a shift seen, which I don't honestly.

While I'm not agreeing with the Koonce part, I like the idea of adding an EDGE rusher in next year's draft with a higher pick under certain circumstances. e.g. the O-Line solidifies on the course of the season - especially Kolton Miller Or If there is again a rush in QBs and OLine in the first round and a good talent falls to our lap.

congrats! wish you and your family all the best!

Unfortunately Josh Jacobs would've been a good scheme fit ...

I mean I could be completely wrong but, isn't Getsy's offense closer to Shanahan's offense than what the Saints showed against the Cowboys? In both games played, Minshew threw the ball over 30 times and had more than 250 passing yards. Carr threw the ball 16 and 23 times and had 200 & 243 passing yards. Purdy had 36 & 29 attempts during the first two games with 319 & 231 passing yards. main problem we have is that our run game doesn't work - Saints are 3rd in rushing yards and the Niners 10th we are second to last

okay - wikipedia had it wrong on his page but still interesting what they see in him imho

Interesting thing is that the 49ers replaced Kubiak with Mick Lombardi, I'm excited to see how that turns out.

So AP got outcoached last week by Jim Harbaugh. That means AP outcoached John Harbaugh this week, right? Honestly still don't know how we could loose last week against the Chargers and beat the Ravens this week, since the Ravens were for sure the better team. The good: Brock Bowers looks like the TE prospect that he was promised - right now he is on pace for the most receiving yards & receptions for a Rookie TE ever Defense looked great in the first half and very good in the second - just imagine how that could look if Koonce wasn't injured or Wilson panned out APs team is playing again very disciplined Spillanes INT exactly on the right time the bad: run game was horrible almost the whole game - I think we had 12 rushing yards by the end of the 3rd quarter(?) O-Line is still struggling - Kolton Miller had again a rough day the ugly: play calling and game plan was terrible 3/4 of the game Minshews INT - had time but throws a really bad ball Moehrig's late hit - this could've been a crucial situation for the Ravens, right after that penalty they scored a TD iirc and just because it isn't said enough: the outstanding: Maxx Crosby - He's THE leader of this team and everyone in this locker room should want to be like him.

Nah it's not about that someone said that Bowers sucked. There's one particular poster here, that is whining about value all the time. And then when asked, if he ever watched him play or who he rather drafted, he answers something like "oh my time is too value to watch college football - I rather make money" That's how you get salty comments in here.