OG_C2X Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 6 hours ago, raidr4life said: Cousins didnt sit out a year so why are you using him as an example? Somehow you know what Macks agent said is amazing. Plus since Mack was under contract he would have had to report by certain time or lose an accrude season, not to mention fines on top of not getting paid. You are in way over your head. But I'll humor you since i have nothing better to do right now. Mack had report by week 11 to get an accured season. And then from that point he doesn't have to play or suit up just show up. He can be active, inactive or on IR as long as he reports. Losing money or getting fines was not going to deter Mack. HE WAS NOT GOING TO PLAY ON HIS 5TH YEAR. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBXISBXVSBXVIII Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, OG_C2X said: You are in way over your head. But I'll humor you since i have nothing better to do right now. Mack had report by week 11 to get an accured season. And then from that point he doesn't have to play or suit up just show up. He can be active, inactive or on IR as long as he reports. Losing money or getting fines was not going to deter Mack. HE WAS NOT GOING TO PLAY ON HIS 5TH YEAR. Edited May 30, 2019 by SBXISBXVSBXVIII 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drfrey13 Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 4 hours ago, OG_C2X said: You are in way over your head. But I'll humor you since i have nothing better to do right now. Mack had report by week 11 to get an accured season. And then from that point he doesn't have to play or suit up just show up. He can be active, inactive or on IR as long as he reports. Losing money or getting fines was not going to deter Mack. HE WAS NOT GOING TO PLAY ON HIS 5TH YEAR. Sounds like conjecture and not facts. Still would have given us another another 8 weeks to get better compensation just by letting the Bears play without Mack for half the season. It would have cost us nothing, showed we would not panic and made Mack look like the jerk in the situation. We took less from the Bears, increased their ability to win more games and lower the value of our new pick, we panicked, and Gruden looked, I think he really is, like the lying jerk. Maybe a team hungry for a DE would have joined the Mack sweepstakes and we could have kept our 2nd rounder. Still would have cost us nothing. I was a RM supporter until that trade. I did not want to trade him but knew the smart move was to trade him. How it was handled and RM not doing his due diligence made me want to fire him right away. RM was good sometimes and incompetent others. Such a frustrating front office. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolni Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 5 hours ago, drfrey13 said: Sounds like conjecture and not facts. Still would have given us another another 8 weeks to get better compensation just by letting the Bears play without Mack for half the season. It would have cost us nothing, showed we would not panic and made Mack look like the jerk in the situation. We took less from the Bears, increased their ability to win more games and lower the value of our new pick, we panicked, and Gruden looked, I think he really is, like the lying jerk. Maybe a team hungry for a DE would have joined the Mack sweepstakes and we could have kept our 2nd rounder. Still would have cost us nothing. I was a RM supporter until that trade. I did not want to trade him but knew the smart move was to trade him. How it was handled and RM not doing his due diligence made me want to fire him right away. RM was good sometimes and incompetent others. Such a frustrating front office. Or we could have seen that the 49ers sucks and we could make the deal with them for better value. They ****ed up the trade itself and that is a fact. The question whether we came out as a winner in the end really depends on our draft picks and on the 1, 2 FA's we got with Mack's money. We have to play this season, we have to select with all the picks and see them play some. Then we can declare a winner...and by the way there can be two or even 3 winners here. Us, Bears, Mack... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raidr4life Posted May 30, 2019 Share Posted May 30, 2019 18 hours ago, OG_C2X said: You are in way over your head. But I'll humor you since i have nothing better to do right now. Mack had report by week 11 to get an accured season. And then from that point he doesn't have to play or suit up just show up. He can be active, inactive or on IR as long as he reports. Losing money or getting fines was not going to deter Mack. HE WAS NOT GOING TO PLAY ON HIS 5TH YEAR. IS THAT A FACT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 On 5/27/2019 at 1:22 PM, Frankie2Gunz said: Who's to say he wouldn't have pulled a Bell and sat out the entire year? His value would have plummeted and I feel like he would have sat out the season. In your opinion how many more wins would we have had last season if we kept Mack? I know we would have been more competitive with Mack so 4-6 games at least. Team chemistry is why we sucked, not talent. Players giving up on a coach with a 10 year 100 mil commit is why we sucked. On paper we are NT a much better team than last year at this same time. Mack is a team player and high quality dude. Don't think he'd sat out more than two games and the value we 'got' isn't ish when you add it up in the end. Lose Mack and pick in 30's next draft (2nd) Gain 24 (740pts) this past draft and a later one next season and a 3rd?!? (740+150 #88) =1630 which is about #6. I would have given up our #4 to get Mack back over draft Ferrell with it. Bosa, Q, but Ferrell?!? No 40 at combine and such a 'valued' pick nobody offered to trade up worth anything?!? Mack was LUCKY we were INEPT!!! Dude got PAID. Got out of a dumpster fire and doesn't have to live in Vegas...5th year and two tags and get a 3rd when he leaves would have been better than what we did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 AB Got paid 'more' to become a 'Raider' we gave up high 3rd and 5th round picks. It's worth it but add the other Brown's contract and we've SIGNIFICANTLY spent more cap than Mack. Trent and Williams= more than Mack cap. Mack=PRO BOWLER recent DMVP. Trent a starter who's solid. Not a pro bowler but paid like he's the next Joe Thomas. Williams a solid #2 WR who picks up the slack when 1's go down. Jocobs?!? Are you kidding me?!? He'd been Grudens #1 pick if we still had Mack. No need to REACH on Ferrell but we'd be in the teens anyways and Jacobs would probably be there with the Cooper pick. BUT WAIT!!! If we were WINNING maybe Cooper is still on the team because 'maybe' we're in the playoff hunt. Carr plays better because his best friend doesn't get traded days before the season. Irvin actually cares and gets 7-8 sacks. Lot's of 'what if's' either direction but the Mack supporters are saying we had a knee jerk reaction once Donald signed his contract. Mack had same agent and the Raiders flinched... Mack has always done his best for us when he played so I'm glad it didn't get ugly but the aftermath created a dumpster fire that could of been handled better. HINDSIGHT fire RM and bring Mayock on day 1 and see how it plays out with Mack... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drfrey13 Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 6 hours ago, G said: AB Got paid 'more' to become a 'Raider' we gave up high 3rd and 5th round picks. It's worth it but add the other Brown's contract and we've SIGNIFICANTLY spent more cap than Mack. Trent and Williams= more than Mack cap. Mack=PRO BOWLER recent DMVP. Trent a starter who's solid. Not a pro bowler but paid like he's the next Joe Thomas. Williams a solid #2 WR who picks up the slack when 1's go down. Jocobs?!? Are you kidding me?!? He'd been Grudens #1 pick if we still had Mack. No need to REACH on Ferrell but we'd be in the teens anyways and Jacobs would probably be there with the Cooper pick. BUT WAIT!!! If we were WINNING maybe Cooper is still on the team because 'maybe' we're in the playoff hunt. Carr plays better because his best friend doesn't get traded days before the season. Irvin actually cares and gets 7-8 sacks. Lot's of 'what if's' either direction but the Mack supporters are saying we had a knee jerk reaction once Donald signed his contract. Mack had same agent and the Raiders flinched... Mack has always done his best for us when he played so I'm glad it didn't get ugly but the aftermath created a dumpster fire that could of been handled better. HINDSIGHT fire RM and bring Mayock on day 1 and see how it plays out with Mack... A lot of what ifs like you already stated but I tend to agree with what your saying. I think trading Mack was the correct choice but how and when it was done was horrible. RM showed me he was in over his head as a GM or just did not care at that point. Gruden showed me his ego is always going to limit his ability to coach by not even reaching out to Mack. I get hired on day 1 I am reaching out to all my top players as long as the CBA allows it. It is sad but there are a lot of posters on this site that could do a better job then our FO personnel. I hope Mayock can turn it around but Gruden needs to be put in his place and told to shut up sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightTrainLane Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 7 hours ago, drfrey13 said: A lot of what ifs like you already stated but I tend to agree with what your saying. I think trading Mack was the correct choice but how and when it was done was horrible. RM showed me he was in over his head as a GM or just did not care at that point. Gruden showed me his ego is always going to limit his ability to coach by not even reaching out to Mack. I get hired on day 1 I am reaching out to all my top players as long as the CBA allows it. It is sad but there are a lot of posters on this site that could do a better job then our FO personnel. I hope Mayock can turn it around but Gruden needs to be put in his place and told to shut up sometimes. You just lost all your credibility. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie2Gunz Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, G said: I know we would have been more competitive with Mack so 4-6 games at least. Team chemistry is why we sucked, not talent. Players giving up on a coach with a 10 year 100 mil commit is why we sucked. On paper we are NT a much better team than last year at this same time. Mack is a team player and high quality dude. Don't think he'd sat out more than two games and the value we 'got' isn't ish when you add it up in the end. Lose Mack and pick in 30's next draft (2nd) Gain 24 (740pts) this past draft and a later one next season and a 3rd?!? (740+150 #88) =1630 which is about #6. I would have given up our #4 to get Mack back over draft Ferrell with it. Bosa, Q, but Ferrell?!? No 40 at combine and such a 'valued' pick nobody offered to trade up worth anything?!? Mack was LUCKY we were INEPT!!! Dude got PAID. Got out of a dumpster fire and doesn't have to live in Vegas...5th year and two tags and get a 3rd when he leaves would have been better than what we did. We would have been a better team with Mack last season no doubt. Maybe Mack translates into 1 more win, maybe but who cares if we win 4 or 5 games. Our current team is certainly built better with an eye on the future without a 28 year old Mack's bloated contract, our draft picks and young FA acquisitions. The fact that you say that team chemistry is why we sucked and not talent is perplexing. We had one of the worst overall rosters of any team in the NFL, do you not agree with that? Edited June 1, 2019 by Frankie2Gunz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Frankie2Gunz said: We would have been a better team with Mack last season no doubt. Maybe Mack translates into 1 more win, maybe but who cares if we win 4 or 5 games. Our current team is certainly built better with an eye on the future without a 28 year old Mack's bloated contract, our draft picks and young FA acquisitions. The fact that you say that team chemistry is why we sucked and not talent is perplexing. We had one of the worst overall rosters of any team in the NFL, do you not agree with that? I think some people fail to realize just how bad our offense was in terms of talent. We had one receiving threat in Cook. That's literally it. We did the best we could with a terrible team. We had 13 sacks. You don't win games without pressuring the opposing QB. Once teams realized that, they would just slowly pick us apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 3 hours ago, Frankie2Gunz said: The fact that you say that team chemistry is why we sucked and not talent is perplexing. We had one of the worst overall rosters of any team in the NFL, do you not agree with that? No, I don't agree... Gruden got rid of a proven Oline coach (Tice) for Cable. TOTALLY DESTROYED what was already in place. Drafted athletic ZBS tackles but has everyone bulk up now realizing ZBS wasn't a good fit with our talent. Cook, Cooper even Nelson had a game showing he had something when made the focus but the Oline failure made it all go down. Carr looked like a chicken with his head cut off a lot behind that mess. Lynch looked good enough until we were losing bad and then he gets hurt. Richard was one of the few who didn't look like he gave up. That's more talent on offense than 1/3rd of the NFL Defense with Mack would have made everyone better. Irvin checked out early. Aging vets got reps over the younger guys early but did better once switching it the other way around. The funny thing about all of this is I said we should trade Mack MONTHS before we actually did. Everybody thought I was joking but it's all in the posts. I knew the contract would limit overall team talent depth. I'm just PISSED how it was handled and I was one of the guys who wanted Gruden back UNTIL I saw a 10 year contract. I KNEW that was a mistake instantly. We start winning I'll be MORE THAN HAPPY to get some wing sauce for that crow, but I'm past blind faith, loyalty (after decades already)and they need to EARN it back with good moves. I'm seeing meh moves. Looked like a full rebuild but AB, Trent means the opposite. The draft was solid players with character but then Burfict and Iggycog says we want nasty for temp attitude. Mack didn't talk much but was one of the hardest workers and absolutely ZERO character concerns when moving to SIN CITY. I go there a LOT and everything in excess and easily available is too tempting for some guy. Glad OBJ isn't on the team or we'd get weekly tweets/snaps of all the excess that can be bought with all that money. It all comes down to Mark Davis. He stayed out of it til Gruden and now Gruden has too much juice to feed that EGO... PS I expect a recession so just think I'm all doom and gloom but I say expect the best and prepare for the worst. I expect 6-10 but could see 4-12 not be shocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drfrey13 Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 7 hours ago, NightTrainLane said: You just lost all your credibility. Really, because I have seen plenty of posters on this board and the general board call out obvious bad decisions by our FO over the years. I have seen many posters come up with off-season plans that make a lot more sense then what our team has done. Have seen people have a grasp of the cap, contracts, and value of players better than what we have had. I have called out 90% of our cuts before we made them. A lot of us know who to cut , sign, draft, etc... Now can we come up with a plan and execute it would be a more difficult task but there are some that could. The problem is the human interaction and getting people to follow. The NFL is not friendly to outsiders and you have to gain their trust to get them to follow you but making good decisions is not hard. I have said it before that if this team would have just made the easy choices we would be much better off. Instead egos cause people to try and prove that they are the smartest person in the room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightTrainLane Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 4 hours ago, drfrey13 said: Really, because I have seen plenty of posters on this board and the general board call out obvious bad decisions by our FO over the years. I have seen many posters come up with off-season plans that make a lot more sense then what our team has done. Have seen people have a grasp of the cap, contracts, and value of players better than what we have had. I have called out 90% of our cuts before we made them. A lot of us know who to cut , sign, draft, etc... Now can we come up with a plan and execute it would be a more difficult task but there are some that could. The problem is the human interaction and getting people to follow. The NFL is not friendly to outsiders and you have to gain their trust to get them to follow you but making good decisions is not hard. I have said it before that if this team would have just made the easy choices we would be much better off. Instead egos cause people to try and prove that they are the smartest person in the room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYRaider Posted June 2, 2019 Share Posted June 2, 2019 On 5/29/2019 at 6:57 AM, Chali21 said: I think it’s a little too early to say that the Raiders trading Mack was a good idea. Pretty much every one the raiders signed or drafted are unproven with the exception of Antonio Brown. Mack has already made an impact in Chi, what sort of impact these new players have in Oak/LV have yet to be seen and if anything is unpredictable it’s then NFL. What impact did he make? They lost in the Wild Card game at home to a backup QB and Mack was non-existent during the contest. They already had to restructure his deal and lost some talent on their defense because of cap issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.