Raiders hire Jon Gruden as Head Coach

[Dr LBC]

42 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

Are we all just jumping to conclusions here? I assume in this 10 year contract there is an out to protect both sides right? 

Length in and of itself really doesn't matter, it's how much of it was guaranteed.  That said, the length smells to me more like a concession that was made to get him to back off wanting full personnel control, which had been rumored from several sources to be something Gruden was after.

That said, the length and guarantees may just be delaying the inevitable, so to speak.  For the moment it looks like there won't be any diminishing of Reggie McKenzie's personnel role, authority, and responsibilities.  However, should Gruden and McKenzie butt heads in the future over personnel matters and Gruden starts angling for more personnel sway (as he did in Tampa)?  My bet is that ownership is going to side with the guy that has 5+ years remaining on his contract and probably still some guaranteed money due his way.  If Mark gave up a piece of ownership to get the deal done, and Gruden doesn't measure up to expectations, he could be an even more difficult burr to dig out if he has an ownership stake (even a minority one).

[Nightmare]

17 minutes ago, The LBC said:

Length in and of itself really doesn't matter, it's how much of it was guaranteed.  That said, the length smells to me more like a concession that was made to get him to back off wanting full personnel control, which had been rumored from several sources to be something Gruden was after.

That said, the length and guarantees may just be delaying the inevitable, so to speak.  For the moment it looks like there won't be any diminishing of Reggie McKenzie's personnel role, authority, and responsibilities.  However, should Gruden and McKenzie butt heads in the future over personnel matters and Gruden starts angling for more personnel sway (as he did in Tampa)?  My bet is that ownership is going to side with the guy that has 5+ years remaining on his contract and probably still some guaranteed money due his way.  If Mark gave up a piece of ownership to get the deal done, and Gruden doesn't measure up to expectations, he could be an even more difficult burr to dig out if he has an ownership stake (even a minority one).

I agree that this contract gives Gruden a distinct advantage over Reggie in any potential personnel clashes, and I think that may be deliberate negotiation from Gruden. I like the fact that they'll be working together, at least initially, but I don't see Reggie McKenzie lasting any longer than a couple of years in a situation where Jon Gruden is going to be given a level of control most head coaches don't have.

In terms of the ownership stake, Gruden confirmed that is nonsense.

[Oregon Ducks]

100,000,000? lol

Is Al back?

[JiffyJag]

let me say again on record

this is going to go really poorly for the Raiders 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

3 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said:

One thing for certain is there will be no excuses for Carr if he doesn't pick it up over the next couple seasons. Gruden, Olsen and potentially Gannon. There's a lot of help available to him.

I bet he's going to love having to memorize that complicated WCO verbage that Gruden utilizes. Sounds like a headache just to remember one play. 

Jimmy G seems to be getting it quickly at least. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

This was recently uploaded on YouTube. It's a short interview from 2000 by NFL Films regarding Gruden. Worth a watch.

 

[Nightmare]

19 minutes ago, Jaguarfan said:

let me say again on record

this is going to go really poorly for the Raiders 

Why? Franchise about to make a ton of money might lose a fraction of it if coaching hire goes badly... not a huge deal, in the grand scheme of things.

[TheRealMcCoy]

[Kip Smithers]

31 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

I bet he's going to love having to memorize that complicated WCO verbage that Gruden utilizes. Sounds like a headache just to remember one play. 

Jimmy G seems to be getting it quickly at least. 

Seeing Chris Simms trying to remember the verbage is hilarious 

[JaguarCrazy2832]

On 12/31/2017 at 11:47 PM, DontTazeMeBro said:

Isn’t complying with the Rooney Rule a little degrading to whoever they bring in? I mean I guess it doesn’t hurt to to get in front of ppl who may keep you in mind in the future or might say to someone else, “hey we interviewed and he was great.” But still 

Yea I understand the rule but i think it becomes a waste of time on both sides

[Malik]

They are really giving this man a MLB contract

[ninjapirate]

On 12/31/2017 at 8:47 PM, DontTazeMeBro said:

Isn’t complying with the Rooney Rule a little degrading to whoever they bring in? I mean I guess it doesn’t hurt to to get in front of ppl who may keep you in mind in the future or might say to someone else, “hey we interviewed and he was great.” But still 

make them interview at a really nice restaurant. get a free meal out of it. 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

1 hour ago, The LBC said:

Well, except that - again, this is something I'm not sure a lot of fans want to grasp - he's still going to go for his guys.  In other words, guys he's worked with or have worked under him before.  Gruden isn't immune to nepotism.  Even with Gruden, coaches, generally, aren't just going to reach out and hit up some guy who they have no connection to.

From the sound of the staff coming in:

Greg Olson (former Gruden OC in Tampa)

Rich Bisaccia (former Gruden ST Coordinator in Tampa)

Guenther at the moment is a bit of an anomaly in terms of connection at the moment, given that he's a Marvis Lewis guy and Lewis was actually the guy to replace Ray Rhodes (the guy Gruden came up under) as DC in Washington in the early part of the 2000's.  But it does make sense if you look at when Gruden was first hired in Oakland, he effectively outsourced the defense to long-time coach (former Vikings, Stanford DC) Willie Shaw, and was totally content to retain Monte Kiffin in Tampa.  I've always found it kind of funny that a coach from the Ray Rhodes tree had so few immediate defensive coaching connections, but then again Rhodes was the type to do what Gruden does (run his own side of the ball and outsource the other side to someone else).  Even still, I'm a bit surprised to see someone like Chuck Pagano (who at least has Rhodes/Gruden ties via John Harbaugh) or Emmitt Thomas (who was a DB coach under Rhodes and is currently working with the KC DB's) drum up some interest.

And that, IMO, will be his shortcomings. The same thing has happened to John Harbaugh here in Baltimore. He only goes for "his" guys, and it's killed us.

[Dr LBC]

15 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

And that, IMO, will be his shortcomings. The same thing has happened to John Harbaugh here in Baltimore. He only goes for "his" guys, and it's killed us.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's learned how to adapt in the modern league, but this doesn't trend in the right direction for me.  Still a lot to be seen.  And ultimately, I don't think we're going to be able to judge this Gruden regime off the first 1-2 seasons unless he manages to absolutely smash expectations and wins a Super Bowl in those first two seasons.  As was the case with Del Rio, we have to wait until after this team/regime has had to deal with true adversity and see how they respond before rendering judgment.  The Raiders this season were a prime candidate for regression, Vegas even saw it for anyone who knows how to read odds well.

[Dr LBC]

1 hour ago, Nightmare said:

I agree that this contract gives Gruden a distinct advantage over Reggie in any potential personnel clashes, and I think that may be deliberate negotiation from Gruden. I like the fact that they'll be working together, at least initially, but I don't see Reggie McKenzie lasting any longer than a couple of years in a situation where Jon Gruden is going to be given a level of control most head coaches don't have.

In terms of the ownership stake, Gruden confirmed that is nonsense.

This is my sentiment as well.  I think the "seeking an ownership stake" was probably a leverage play that was made solely by Gruden's agent (it would have been an extraordinary difficult thing to pull off because the other owners, by and large, hate consortium ownership because it just complicates things - in their eyes, unnecessarily; and would have required an heavy ownership vote before being ratified) in order to have something to "concede" to get the more important parts of the contract (length and guaranteed money - which as we've established give him an inside track to personnel control in the future as well).

That said, if Gruden's name value makes a demonstrable impact on the PSL sales and the season ticket sales then ultimately, even having to buyout his contract is a drop in the bucket compared to what can be made in corporate partnership and advert revenue in the new Vegas digs.  From a business perspective, this is absolutely a smart move for Davis and the Raiders.  I'm just less convinced it's going to be a smart competitive move in the long haul; jury's definitely still out on that.