Jump to content

Random Raider Stuff


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Rich7sena said:

The article didn’t bring up Carr’s beliefs at all. His brother defended Carr against an accusation PFT didn’t make.

The article didn't specifically call him "soft" either but that is what was implied or questioned and where convo went again afterwards.

Here are the Darren tweets for context...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, NightTrainLane said:

The article didn't specifically call him "soft" either but that is what was implied or questioned and where convo went again afterwards.

Here are the Darren tweets for context...

 

The article implied a personality dissonance between Derek Carr and John Gruden. Darren Carr chose to take it as a slight against his brother.

Darren Carr isn't a new name to me; he's a far right leaning "conservative" who -- right or wrong -- goes to bat for Derek every opportunity he gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rich7sena said:

The article implied a personality dissonance between Derek Carr and John Gruden. Darren Carr chose to take it as a slight against his brother.

Darren Carr isn't a new name to me; he's a far right leaning "conservative" who -- right or wrong -- goes to bat for Derek every opportunity he gets.

Way more than Darren took it as that. That was the convo surrounding the topic many were having after the story came out. But it's a matter of prospective that we don't have to agree on.

He is suppose to go to bat for his brother. Me and my brothers are the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NightTrainLane said:

Way more than Darren took it as that. That was the convo surrounding the topic many were having after the story came out. But it's a matter of prospective that we don't have to agree on.

He is suppose to go to bat for his brother. Me and my brothers are the same way.

Who’s “many”? Reputable people or the usual Twitter fodder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NightTrainLane said:

There weren't "many" media people in the convo surrounding the story so, yes, it was fans like you and me. Doesn't make a difference to the point.

It does, because Darren Carr was responding to PFT's article and not regular fans.

Again, as a devout Christian myself, I found Darren's Tweet off base. Although you can't completely divorce beliefs from personality, Christians come in all different personality types. It seems the concern around Carr -- based on Gannon's assessment -- centers around his leadership style more than anything else.

Regardless, I'm not too concerned about the Carr/Gruden dynamic. If anything, Gruden should help fill the "gaps" in Carr's leadership, if need be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rich7sena said:

It does, because Darren Carr was responding to PFT's article and not regular fans.

Again, as a devout Christian myself, I found Darren's Tweet off base. Although you can't completely divorce beliefs from personality, Christians come in all different personality types. It seems the concern around Carr -- based on Gannon's assessment -- centers around his leadership style more than anything else.

Regardless, I'm not too concerned about the Carr/Gruden dynamic. If anything, Gruden should help fill the "gaps" in Carr's leadership, if need be.

Yes, he was responding to the article directly (thru the @)  but also indirectly the commenters surrounding the convo that were and have for years in the past taken his Christian faith and "choirboy" mentality as a weakness and as something that isn't the "Raider way" or not tough. If you can't see that and want to just laser focus on the article that is fine and you can misunderstand him or the way he was using social media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NightTrainLane said:

Yes, he was responding to the article directly (thru the @)  but also indirectly the commenters surrounding the convo that were and have for years in the past taken his Christian faith and "choirboy" mentality as a weakness and as something that isn't the "Raider way" or not tough. If you can't see that and want to just laser focus on the article that is fine and you can misunderstand him or the way he was using social media.

If he was responding to fans, he would of responded to fans.

Either way, it's a trash take if I've sever seen one. Invoking Jesus' struggle on the cross as a label of toughness for all Christians? That doesn't make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rich7sena said:

If he was responding to fans, he would of responded to fans.

Either way, it's a trash take if I've sever seen one. Invoking Jesus' struggle on the cross as a label of toughness for all Christians? That doesn't make any sense.

You missed the point. again

Yes, he was responding to the article directly (thru the @)  but also indirectly the commenters surrounding the convo that were and have for years in the past taken his Christian faith and "choirboy" mentality as a weakness and as something that isn't the "Raider way" or not tough.

As for how you and he interpret the bible, I'll leave that alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Gets to coach a team that actually has LBs including that one the Raiders should have drafted for his defense.

Idk why people have issues with Conley. IMO DB is still a bigger need than LB going into the off season, imagine if we didn’t draft Conley? I take zero issue with that pick and I won’t let an unforeseen injury sway me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, OakRaiders3828 said:

Idk why people have issues with Conley. IMO DB is still a bigger need than LB going into the off season, imagine if we didn’t draft Conley? I take zero issue with that pick and I won’t let an unforeseen injury sway me

I have no issue with Conley. Just thought Foster was the superior player if we're talking BPA. Conley pick was great assuming he gets healthy and shows out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, big_palooka said:

I have no issue with Conley. Just thought Foster was the superior player if we're talking BPA. Conley pick was great assuming he gets healthy and shows out.

This is known and has been discussed many times but Foster had 2 red flags. Yes, he was the superior player than most of the guys that were picked in the first rd but he was still picked 31st. Teams did their risk reward assessment and everyone but the Niners thought it wasn't worth the risk and went another way even though Foster was a top 10 talent pre-combine kickout. Just hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...