Raiders hire Jon Gruden as Head Coach

[Dr LBC]

18 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

What I don't understand about this logic that we weren't good before.

We had one good season where we eked out a lot of wins. Last year, we were 6-10 with Carr, Cooper, and Mack healthy for all 16 games. This team's roster was fundamentally flawed. Maybe Gruden will bust every pick next year. It's possible. Maybe the next 3 years too. Also possible.

But can you blame him for blowing it up considering how mediocre we've been? A good defense means a host of good starters. Not one superstar trying to carry a pitiful squad. A good roster means depth and lots of good starters with a few excellent ones mixed in. That takes effective drafting. Not hitting big on 2 picks, busting on a ton of others.

I can't believe anyone here couldn't recognize that. If we invested big in Carr, Mack, and Cooper, we'd certainly be better than we are now. But investing 70 million in 3 players on a flawed roster is a recipe for long term mediocrity. Straight up. And at least getting back some seriously impressive draft capital can accelerate the retooling of the roster. I'm not saying he's the right guy to do it, but his logic isn't unsound. I'd rather be 2-14 with draft capital than 6-10 with big gtd$$ for a lot of players and nothing to help pull the team out of mediocrity.

I just believe that this notion that, "Oh, Gruden's tanking to blow things up" is getting blown out of proportion.  The Raiders are losing.  The Raiders are bad.  Yes.  Do I believe that a coach is actively working towards losing?  No.  You're going to have to show me much more evidence to substantiate that, especially when Gruden is still running the same scheme that he did over a decade ago, which he hasn't adapted and which opposing DC are familiar with the adaptations that were made to combat that scheme because many of them were staffers and position coaches under the DC's that plotted those courses.  Instead, we're still seeing Gruden still refuse to make second-half adjustments and keep trying to run through the reinforced steel wall rather than find a different way over/under/around it.

Your last paragraph is flawed, because you wouldn't end up with "nothing" to help pull you out.  You'd end up with two of the pieces that GM's entire careers are often pinned on finding: The guy who throws the ball and the guy who chases down the guy who throws the ball.  Is Carr not prolific?  Sure, he's probably closer to Matt Ryan than he'll ever be to Aaron Rodgers or even Ben/Phil, but he's also not easily replaceable.  Mack, meanwhile, is a top 5 (easily) defensive player in the league.  If a Top 5 defensive player in the league can't pull you out of mediocrity, you're not in mediocrity, you're in something lower and you've been trying to convince yourself you're mediocre to spare your feelings.

Now if you wanted to approach this from the perspective that Mark Davis wasn't going to ever pay these guys contracts that had huge guarantees on them, so you might as well maximize value while you can, that might actually hold water.  But sacrificing known, quality assets at premium positions the way Gruden has you guys going is akin to sitting at the roulette table and then any time you win anything - even if it's not a huge win - just breaking down those winnings into smaller bets and playing individual numbers that haven't come up yet.

[Dr LBC]

18 hours ago, CKSteeler said:

Counterpoint to those who think Gruden is going to hit homeruns with those picks:

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/jon-gruden-made-wild-prediction-about-nathan-peterman-before-2017-nfl-draft/

 

Devil's advocate argument (that I think is still going to roundabout end up supporting your position anyway... lol):

Law of averages says that he's likely going to hit at least 1 homerun, but is whether he actually hits the homerun important or should there be more concern over whether he's able to recognize that a guy who is really more of a double-that-beats-the-throw isn't a homerun?  It's a criticism that can be made of a majority of coaches, but it's also one that tends to be the undoing of A LOT of coaches.  They sure aren't (or don't) blame themselves for not developing the guys properly or for failing to harness those players' great potential.  Particularly in the modern league, more great (as in actually sustained at a high level) teams were built off of tremendous track records in the middle rounds than with homeruns in the 1st round.  How likely do we think Gruden will be to recognize that ___ who he picked with one of those 1st rounders and saw such gleaming potential in isn't trending the way he wants him to and maybe he should insure his bet with a value pick at that position in the 3rd or 4th round a year or two removed from picking said guy in the 1st?