Jump to content

holyghost

Veteran Members
  • Content count

    6,953
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

77 Starter
  1. Why does Gruden love veterans?

    Here, previously, in another thread weeks ago. Which I am sure links to the related articles and comments by Raider writers.
  2. Why does Gruden love veterans?

    This has been covered. Because he runs systems that are complex and young players are limited in that, thus limiting Gruden.
  3. OTA's

    Based on skill sets of what they currently have shown to do well, Parker on the left and MIller on the right makes some sense. Miller is a strong run blocker, Parker the finesse type. Whether it works out that way remains to be seen, both could become high end starters or total busts on either side as of right now. And I doubt it'll fall out that way given draft status. A great scenario would be finding two good left tackles. Kind of a fantasy though. I am in total agreement about not moving the guy, at all. But it's OTAs and hopefully they're just giving it a quick look.
  4. Rnd2 pick 25- DT P.J Hall

    Agreed, and it's certainly not a bad sign. Just keep in the back of your mind that some of the records he broke were those of James Cowser. Meaning, it means little now.
  5. OTA's

    Nah, not really. I wasn't comparing 2000 Brady to current Brady. You're making that connection. Same general case as rookie year Rothlisberger who won a Super Bowl. He definitely wasn't the Rothlisberger he grew into, and even then I gave him little credit because of the excellent team around him. Since then I'm forced to credit Rothlisberger as an excellent and HOF deserving player. HOWEVER, Connor Cook compares favorably to neither. And that was and is the crux of my argument. They did what they had to do to win games, which is manage not to f it up and to execute the needed things to get the game won. Despite a QB who might have poor numbers, as these guys might have in their rookie and early years, it is incredibly overlooked that they absolutely contribute to allowing their teams to win games. You can see the distinction only when you see a guy like Cook go into an important game and fail to execute all of the key plays throughout the game, minor key plays and major ones. They did, Cook didn't. To discredit their quality by saying Cook's situation was somehow unfair is to unfairly raise Cook above what he is and diminish the others. Which is a guy who is terribly unlikely to emerge any time soon, and who does not show NFL starter capacity nor high level backup capacity. Before Brady and Rothlisberger were the QBs they became, the best thing they were able to do was play within their limitations, execute as needed, minimize errors, and let the team win. That is NOT a small or meaningless thing. It is much harder than it is credited as. But fans love stats so that becomes an afterthought. Cook should be jubilant to be compared to the Brady that was "at best Andy Dalton". Because as of right now he's not one inch above Andrew Walter until further notice. And not that it's relevant, but Dalton isn't a good comparison. He racks some stats but never wins the key ones. A slightly better comp would be Rookie Rothlisberger, or even 2002 Brad Johnson.
  6. OTA's

    No I didn't misunderstand. This paragraph is full of misconception. "wasn't expected to make the team"? Belichick drafted him so I am sure he thought differently than that. 6th rounders show some promise if you made a great pick. Since neither of us sees any real practice and unless we're with the team are never going to have that access, even a media person or fan's insight is limited. But you paragraph is predicated on that. What promise do you expect from Cook at this point? It's interesting you used Brady. Not for the reasons that you did, but his case is actually a bit similar to Cook in one aspect. Starting QB gets hurt, backup goes in. Unfortunately that game was Cook's shot, his audition. That's kinda how it works in the NFL. So we all saw he's no Brady. Brady may have played mediocre day one but went on demolish P. Manning the following week and go 11-3 the rest of the way. Not sure I saw that kind of quality coming from Cook. Wouldn't we have seen a leap in the following preseason if that was the case? Seems like he got his feet wet in that game, then got his pants wet thereafter.
  7. OTA's

    It's hard for me to even reply to this. You're using as a reference perhaps the best QB ever to play. And somehow relating that to Connor Cook. On the other side of Tom Brady there's literally hundreds to thousands of players at the position through NFL history that show no such emergence. So what's the realistic percentage that Cook is a magic Brady vs. the chance he is what we have already seen? .01% vs. 99.99%? You say "I am in no way comparing the players to Brady but I wonder how good Brady looked in practice before Bledsoe went down?", but that's exactly what you're doing in sideways fashion. I could not find 2000 preseason stats on Brady, that is the only thing that could be a reference. Or if you or I were a Patriot fan back then, maybe that would be some insight. What I do know is that Manuel has had enough time to see that he is moderately functional. Is he getting better and better? Not that I, or any Buffalo fans, have seen. We've seen enough of Cook and Hackenberg to conclude their battle is steeply uphill. It's not as if we've never seen either get on a field. Last preseason Cook showed nothing different, a year later, than the same guy he was in the playoff game. 0 progression. That's not remotely comparable to the arc of a future hall of famer. It's the arc of a guy with a non descript career, like the many many others before him.
  8. Rnd2 pick 25- DT P.J Hall

    Raider fans must chill, again. Plenty of physical freaks out there. Including that dude who did back flips at 380 and didn't even make an NFL team. The issue with Hall and his potential success is not in his physical ability. He has NFL high level physical ability. The issue will be if he can exist day in and day out in the mental and emotional grinder of pressure, constant microscope, and big stage that is the NFL. Compared to playing in front of how many people in college? Big fish in small pond goes directly to huge pond as tiny fish. It's taken out of play sooooo many players, all of whom who could physically do it. Whatever speed and size the guy has is not going to be the determining factor of whether or not he can live up to 2nd round draft status and beyond.
  9. OTA's

    Thus far, both Cook and Hackenberg have shown little to nothing to merit NFL roster spots. Whether that changes this camp is possible but unlikely. Manuel, as stated, has a moderately functional ability to actually run this offense. The gap between Manuel and the others is wider than most fans realize. And none are remotely exciting options as far as backup QBs across the league go. The idea of it being a "battle" in camp is a bit of wish fulfillment. Cook has a huge uphill climb to beat out Manuel, he has shown so little NFL quality thus far. He would have to perform quite well, all camp from day one to day last. Hackenberg has an even steeper climb than that.
  10. OTA's

    EJ Is a moderately functional backup. Nothing whatsoever that Cook has done merits him getting the backup job. I know little to nothing about what he has or hasn't done to grow as a player, but there was no indication in last year's preseason he was any better than before. It's the only indicator we have. Cook and Hackenberg cost less than Manuel, but neither has any qualification thus far to being in any position to potentially play actual snaps in the regular season. Despite them being cheaper than Manuel, they can't just be thrown in to utterly fail because of their price tag. And we are a team whose backup might play considering Carr's recent injury history.
  11. OTA's

    Agreed. Why do Raider fans continually enamor themselves with average to below average guys and them call them really good options. We're in a league where teams periodically come up with guys such as Foles, Garoppolo, McCarron as backups. Those are very viable to varying degrees. Manuel is utterly average to below. But in contrast to other entirely unqualified trash we've trotted out before, he's actually moderately functional. Moderately functional is an apt description.
  12. Raiders Defense

    If I was implying he's awful it went too far. He's not, he's just not near to a top end player and not at all what we need out of first rounders. He's not the worst of this awful D, but he's not doing anything to make it an ascending D either.
  13. Raiders Defense

    I'm glad we reached agreement, it rarely happens online. He might fit better than matched up on TEs, but care must be taken in understanding the statement. It's predicated on the knowledge that anyone can see he's mismatched covering the TE. It would be a move based on a negative, not a positive. Basically saying that he has to move because he can't do the job he is in now. It's a shame too, because I thought I saw a guy in college who could handle covering ground and reading pass plays. Where did his instincts go? Now he looks utterly lost in that role.
  14. 2018 Draft Recap Thread

    In agreement here. It's been posted before, the Seahawks drafted plenty of linemen in high and mid rounds. I will agree losing Unger hurt them. But Cable did not excel. I cringed at his hiring. Had no real problem with any hire other than him.
  15. Raiders Defense

    I'm sure they are different. But I wonder what anyone has actually seen in his play to suggest he can cover as a deep safety. He looks even more lost in open space in coverage than he does manning up a TE. On TEs at least he is on or near the guy. In space he's just lost. I'm sure there are times when is responsibility on a given play here or there bears similarity to whatever he would be asked to do as a deep safety. But I don't recall seeing him excel in anything related to that. So again, why is this move constantly discussed as his best fit when nothing tangible indicates that? It's been a typical Raider fan thing to do over years and years. Move a guy here or there to "fix" the guy. It's never worked. Because what you've seen thus far isn't some magical player waiting to be unlocked. It's a limited player who will very likely continue to be a limited player. I don't see how Joseph is so much better in zone. He has 2 career INTs and 10 career PDs. I'm sure he's been in zone plenty thus far. He's not attacking the ball successfully in zone or man. This is the same unfortunate reality that had to be accepted with Mario Edwards. He's not a pass rush fiend, never was, he was hyped as a cure all for the defense last year. This is a guy who at the time had 2 career sacks. Lo and behold, he's still not a fiend with 5.5 career sacks. Because the first 2 years didn't really lie that much about who he was as a player. There's no real evidence to suggest Karl Joseph is going to blossom into a beautiful butterfly at FS. It's just wishful thinking and fan rhetoric.
×