Raider Team Activity Talk (Minicamps, OTAs, Training Camp)

[Darbsk]

21 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Pushing it too far? They've been here 15 months. 

This is a fair point. I think we’ve agreed that we do need to give this regime time to enact their vision and plan, I guess my thought really is that they’ve made several big decisions that have divided the fan base.

It’s sometimes nice to say ‘let’s rip off the band aid’ but when that actually happens as seems to be the case now it can be a bit shocking. I’m still on the ‘give them time’ train but some of the moves have definitely been questionable, not just in the move itself but in terms of compensation received or value in the draft etc.

For me, Im still of the opinion we should give them the full three years, but there are some aspects I’m concerned about. Good Front Offices can turn around a team relatively quickly, we seem to still be taking a Dollar Store approach to the defence which is a bit of a concern whilst we throw resources at an already solid to good offence. Some of the picks have been questionable for sure and some of the Free Agents have been underwhelming at positions of need. As I said, contracts and compensation received has not been optimised several times for various reasons.

Overall, I still want them to see out the vision and of course I want them to succeed. With that said, and I guess what I’m saying in a long winded way 😁 is they should still absolutely be held to account about seemingly poor moves and they should be questioned about mistakes to ensure they are accountable, responsible and they can learn from mistakes and improve themselves and the team moving forward.

[big_palooka]

13 hours ago, Justwinning said:

I just think picking a good player on the defensive side of the ball in particular would bode well for not only this season but for our future too. It's still a barren wasteland. That was my only gripe. I still think Tucker can be good.

I get that. But again, you flip the Tucker/Bennett picks and does anyone care? 

I thought the FO did a good job addressing both sides of the ball. 

[big_palooka]

2 hours ago, Darbsk said:

This is a fair point. I think we’ve agreed that we do need to give this regime time to enact their vision and plan, I guess my thought really is that they’ve made several big decisions that have divided the fan base.

It’s sometimes nice to say ‘let’s rip off the band aid’ but when that actually happens as seems to be the case now it can be a bit shocking. I’m still on the ‘give them time’ train but some of the moves have definitely been questionable, not just in the move itself but in terms of compensation received or value in the draft etc.

For me, Im still of the opinion we should give them the full three years, but there are some aspects I’m concerned about. Good Front Offices can turn around a team relatively quickly, we seem to still be taking a Dollar Store approach to the defence which is a bit of a concern whilst we throw resources at an already solid to good offence. Some of the picks have been questionable for sure and some of the Free Agents have been underwhelming at positions of need. As I said, contracts and compensation received has not been optimised several times for various reasons.

Overall, I still want them to see out the vision and of course I want them to succeed. With that said, and I guess what I’m saying in a long winded way 😁 is they should still absolutely be held to account about seemingly poor moves and they should be questioned about mistakes to ensure they are accountable, responsible and they can learn from mistakes and improve themselves and the team moving forward.

This fan base has been divided over everything for decades to be fair. The past 9 years of Derek Carr. The latest, hiring McDaniels and the Patriot way. There are fans who never got over the tuck rule. And the collective group think about the Patriot way instantly turned many off, which I get. 

I agree, any regime deserves 3 years. There are always going to be ups and downs, but this fan base always focuses on the negative. Everyone complains about the extensions they gave players without mentioning Maxx Crosby in there. The one player who showed up and earned every penny. 

They got draft picks for Gillespie, Mullens, Edwards. That's good business. They cut Abram and Leatherwood which shows they won't stick with a bad player just because of draft position. 

The biggest complaint is not getting value on Carr. While that sucks, they expected Carr to be their QB. Carr was mediocre and became a literal crybaby. Not being able to trade him hurt, but not as bad as sticking with an overpriced average QB just because. 

Overall, I don't think any GM could turn things around quickly. This franchise is steeped in losing culture. They've tried throwing money at it for decades. This approach of building homegrown players and developing a new culture will take time. The issue is fans want instant gratification. They are happy to have fluky one-off playoff appearances. 

[bucksavage1]

3 hours ago, big_palooka said:

This fan base has been divided over everything for decades to be fair. The past 9 years of Derek Carr. The latest, hiring McDaniels and the Patriot way. There are fans who never got over the tuck rule. And the collective group think about the Patriot way instantly turned many off, which I get. 

I agree, any regime deserves 3 years. There are always going to be ups and downs, but this fan base always focuses on the negative. Everyone complains about the extensions they gave players without mentioning Maxx Crosby in there. The one player who showed up and earned every penny. 

They got draft picks for Gillespie, Mullens, Edwards. That's good business. They cut Abram and Leatherwood which shows they won't stick with a bad player just because of draft position. 

The biggest complaint is not getting value on Carr. While that sucks, they expected Carr to be their QB. Carr was mediocre and became a literal crybaby. Not being able to trade him hurt, but not as bad as sticking with an overpriced average QB just because. 

Overall, I don't think any GM could turn things around quickly. This franchise is steeped in losing culture. They've tried throwing money at it for decades. This approach of building homegrown players and developing a new culture will take time. The issue is fans want instant gratification. They are happy to have fluky one-off playoff appearances. 

That’s a good point. Nobody brings up their first big move was resigning our best player Crosby. Or getting compensation for Mullen and Edwards who are on different teams than we traded to.

 

[true2form]

4 hours ago, big_palooka said:

This fan base has been divided over everything for decades to be fair. The past 9 years of Derek Carr. The latest, hiring McDaniels and the Patriot way. There are fans who never got over the tuck rule. And the collective group think about the Patriot way instantly turned many off, which I get. 

I agree, any regime deserves 3 years. There are always going to be ups and downs, but this fan base always focuses on the negative. Everyone complains about the extensions they gave players without mentioning Maxx Crosby in there. The one player who showed up and earned every penny. 

They got draft picks for Gillespie, Mullens, Edwards. That's good business. They cut Abram and Leatherwood which shows they won't stick with a bad player just because of draft position. 

The biggest complaint is not getting value on Carr. While that sucks, they expected Carr to be their QB. Carr was mediocre and became a literal crybaby. Not being able to trade him hurt, but not as bad as sticking with an overpriced average QB just because. 

Overall, I don't think any GM could turn things around quickly. This franchise is steeped in losing culture. They've tried throwing money at it for decades. This approach of building homegrown players and developing a new culture will take time. The issue is fans want instant gratification. They are happy to have fluky one-off playoff appearances. 

I don't disagree with any of this, but why does everything have to be so black and white around here.  Not every move is bad and not every move is good.  Saying the Tucker pick was terrible value should be met with agreement, not a list of things that they got right to defend them.

The Tucker pick was bad value based on any metric I can think of. 

[raidr4life]

4 minutes ago, true2form said:

I don't disagree with any of this, but why does everything have to be so black and white around here.  Not every move is bad and not every move is good.  Saying the Tucker pick was terrible value should be met with agreement, not a list of things that they got right to defend them.

The Tucker pick was bad value based on any metric I can think of. 

But I think everybody has expressed that it was bad value, and have now have moved on. It's more that the anti jmd/ziegler crowd wants to continue to use it as a grievance against this FO. Then the let's be patient crowd is being accused of defending that pick specifically if you get what I'm saying. Saying let's see how it plays out doesn't mean you agree with all their moves.

[NickButera]

4 hours ago, big_palooka said:

 

I agree, any regime deserves 3 years. There are always going to be ups and downs, but this fan base always focuses on the negative. Everyone complains about the extensions they gave players without mentioning Maxx Crosby in there. The one player who showed up and earned every penny. 

 

I agree with this. But after year one, after year 2, and at the point in year 2 and a half, everyones opinions will be either optimistic or pessimistic.  As time moves on they're either going to confirm they are good, or show they aren't going the right direction. We can't play the "lets give them 3 years" card 2 and a half years in. 

I think it's very fair to give a regime 3 years, I also think it's very fair to criticize and judge them (positively or negatively) on their way to the 3 year mark, and if you see an extreme either advocate for an extension or their firing. So far, my opinions have been swayed towards the negative thus far, even though they've done a couple good things too. I see more negative then positive at this point. 

[NCOUGHMAN]

10 minutes ago, NickButera said:

I agree with this. But after year one, after year 2, and at the point in year 2 and a half, everyones opinions will be either optimistic or pessimistic.  As time moves on they're either going to confirm they are good, or show they aren't going the right direction. We can't play the "lets give them 3 years" card 2 and a half years in. 

I think it's very fair to give a regime 3 years, I also think it's very fair to criticize and judge them (positively or negatively) on their way to the 3 year mark, and if you see an extreme either advocate for an extension or their firing. So far, my opinions have been swayed towards the negative thus far, even though they've done a couple good things too. I see more negative then positive at this point. 

This 100%

[Darbsk]

16 minutes ago, NickButera said:

I agree with this. But after year one, after year 2, and at the point in year 2 and a half, everyones opinions will be either optimistic or pessimistic.  As time moves on they're either going to confirm they are good, or show they aren't going the right direction. We can't play the "lets give them 3 years" card 2 and a half years in. 

I think it's very fair to give a regime 3 years, I also think it's very fair to criticize and judge them (positively or negatively) on their way to the 3 year mark, and if you see an extreme either advocate for an extension or their firing. So far, my opinions have been swayed towards the negative thus far, even though they've done a couple good things too. I see more negative then positive at this point. 

This is where I’m at too. I want to be patient and give them a full three years to enact their vision but I also have to be honest and say my confidence is not at an all time high. They’ve definitely made some controversial decisions as well as a couple seemingly good moves. Jury is still out but I’m more pessimistic now than I was at the regimes inception. They have not filled me with confidence.

[bucksavage1]

 

[bucksavage1]

OTA press conference with Coach McDaniels 

[NYRaider]

6 hours ago, big_palooka said:

I get that. But again, you flip the Tucker/Bennett picks and does anyone care? 

I thought the FO did a good job addressing both sides of the ball. 

Tucker was a 7th round player. Jimmy is already hurt so we’ll be rolling with Hoyer or AOC. Your daddy the goat 

[bucksavage1]

15 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Tucker was a 7th round player. Jimmy is already hurt so we’ll be rolling with Hoyer or AOC. Your daddy the goat 

7th According to who?

The surgery from Jimmy G was a clean up one that was expected to make sure he’s healthy this season. I’m not too concerned about it. If he’s out in TC then it is cause for concern

[Totty]

1 hour ago, bucksavage1 said:

 

Who is surprised.  

 

Get ready AO.

[big_palooka]

3 hours ago, true2form said:

I don't disagree with any of this, but why does everything have to be so black and white around here.  Not every move is bad and not every move is good.  Saying the Tucker pick was terrible value should be met with agreement, not a list of things that they got right to defend them.

The Tucker pick was bad value based on any metric I can think of. 

It's outrange culture. Nobody cares about anything except that their side is right. 

I personally agree that Tucker looks like bad value. While also understanding the "value" placed on him is determined by draft blogs, twitter, etc. 

You have to trust the team knows the value based on other teams. They coached him at the senior bowl and had the insight.