Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 210 of 215 FirstFirst ... 110160200208209210211212 ... LastLast
Results 3,136 to 3,150 of 3216
  1. #3136
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Megatron View Post
    Rodgers evidently wanted to get more weapons to throw to, a playmaking rb and wanted a new extension that paid him over 45 mil a year. Which means he would have taken up 1/4 of the cap room. Which means the other players on the te would have to take an average of 2.7 mil a year. Not going to happen. At least this year.

    Teams like the saints(who could be the worst team in the nfl this year) hosed themselves by doing messed up contracts. Thatís why they got rid of half the team. Kc will have this problem soon. Jones will get paid 20 mil next year. And if he is cut, they will owe him 22 mil. The guy made out. Clark will get 20 mil. Mahommes will get 36, then 45, then 50, etc. hill gets 18, Kelce gets 15. Thatís 110 mil between 5 players. Even if the cap goes up to 205 mil(est), that isnít even counting the honey badger or hardman or clydes contract coming up. That means every other player would avg 1.9 mil a year. Good luck bringing thuney, honey badger, hardman or brown back for 1.9 mil a year. Lol
    Take a look at the teams you are pointing out. Packers, Chiefs, SaintsÖ.perennial winners that make the playoffs every single year, and yet they are team building models to avoid? Lol that couldnít be further from the truth. The facts are that the cap can be managed by the good teams, and it is SHARPLY going to rise in the next number of years. You really think KC gives a damn about losing Hardman when they have Mahomes, plus a top tier coach and GM running the show? Please.

    In contrast, we had to shed salary due to bad moves, and we can barely sniff .500 so what does that say about us? Btw the Saints absolutely will NOT be the worst team in football, do you honestly believe that? Brees was washed, they have a stacked roster and Winston/Hill will probably have their offense better than last year.

  2. #3137
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    18,370
    Dugar, Michael-Shawn@MikeDugar

    Russ is essentially saying he and his agent gave ESPN those 4 list of trade destinations to clear up confusion about whether he requested a trade. He did not request a trade. But, if Seattle was to move him, those were the 4 he'd waive the no-trade clause for.

    ====

    Not that it really matters at this point but Wilson today did admit that the list of teams linked earlier this year that included the Raiders was from him and his agent. Wilson admitting that playing for Gruden and the Raiders is high enough on his list that he would waive his no trade clause for. Again not that it matters as he is not being traded but interesting none the less.

  3. #3138
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    13,611
    Quote Originally Posted by HunterNRoss View Post
    Dugar, Michael-Shawn@MikeDugar

    Russ is essentially saying he and his agent gave ESPN those 4 list of trade destinations to clear up confusion about whether he requested a trade. He did not request a trade. But, if Seattle was to move him, those were the 4 he'd waive the no-trade clause for.

    ====

    Not that it really matters at this point but Wilson today did admit that the list of teams linked earlier this year that included the Raiders was from him and his agent. Wilson admitting that playing for Gruden and the Raiders is high enough on his list that he would waive his no trade clause for. Again not that it matters as he is not being traded but interesting none the less.
    Yeah, I thought that was pretty clear that he wasn't asking to be traded. I guess we can blame the off-season hype machine for things getting blown out of proportion.

    What we do know is that both Watson and Rodgers have indicated that they wouldn't mind playing in Denver. If I'm a Denver exec, I'm using every means possible -- legal, moral and otherwise -- to convince Houston and GB to change their tune about trading their QB.

  4. #3139
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,143
    Quote Originally Posted by HunterNRoss View Post
    Dugar, Michael-Shawn@MikeDugar

    Russ is essentially saying he and his agent gave ESPN those 4 list of trade destinations to clear up confusion about whether he requested a trade. He did not request a trade. But, if Seattle was to move him, those were the 4 he'd waive the no-trade clause for.

    ====

    Not that it really matters at this point but Wilson today did admit that the list of teams linked earlier this year that included the Raiders was from him and his agent. Wilson admitting that playing for Gruden and the Raiders is high enough on his list that he would waive his no trade clause for. Again not that it matters as he is not being traded but interesting none the less.
    Maybe not this year, however I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't get traded in the next year or two if things don't improve in Seattle....he wants to cook!!!!!

  5. #3140
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,143

  6. #3141
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    3,043
    This is the second article I've seen touting Gruden's ability as a play caller and I just don't see it. Between the 20's his yards per play may be 10th, but what's his redzone percentage? At the end of the day Carr could throw for 700 yards and we could have 300 yards rushing, but if you aren't getting in the endzone than its moot.

    "Just win Baby!" it will cure all ills...

  7. #3142
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,599
    Quote Originally Posted by a60rdie View Post
    This is the second article I've seen touting Gruden's ability as a play caller and I just don't see it. Between the 20's his yards per play may be 10th, but what's his redzone percentage? At the end of the day Carr could throw for 700 yards and we could have 300 yards rushing, but if you aren't getting in the endzone than its moot.

    "Just win Baby!" it will cure all ills...
    The O line injuries played a lot into that last year. Earlier in the year we were running at will. As soon as guys became injured, it dropped of quite a bit. The last half of the season, we were pretty predictable in the red zone. Hopefully that changes. I think we win 2 more games with a healthy line.

  8. #3143
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    13,611
    Quote Originally Posted by dbacknick View Post
    The O line injuries played a lot into that last year. Earlier in the year we were running at will. As soon as guys became injured, it dropped of quite a bit. The last half of the season, we were pretty predictable in the red zone. Hopefully that changes. I think we win 2 more games with a healthy line.
    A healthy line: +2 wins
    A decent defense: +2 wins

    12-5 this season, maybe?

  9. #3144
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,599
    Quote Originally Posted by RaiderLakersA's View Post
    A healthy line: +2 wins
    A decent defense: +2 wins

    12-5 this season, maybe?
    I'll settle for 11-6.

  10. #3145
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    13,611
    Quote Originally Posted by dbacknick View Post
    I'll settle for 11-6.
    Screw that, I'm going for broke. 13-4. You heard it here first, folks!

  11. #3146
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,918
    I saw a stat that ranked Hudson, Jackson and Brown in the negative YPC... Hudson being the worst run blocking Center in the league... Not much more can be said as to why Gruden made the changes

  12. #3147
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    13,143
    Quote Originally Posted by sicknick12 View Post
    I saw a stat that ranked Hudson, Jackson and Brown in the negative YPC... Hudson being the worst run blocking Center in the league... Not much more can be said as to why Gruden made the changes
    Yep, the run blocking was horrendous last season. I'm not talking from the backups. I'm talking a good chunk of the starters minus Miller were really bad. I like Hudson and he was a great Raider for a lot of years but he is now on the downhill side of his career and I'm more than ok moving on from him. If James is even close to what the coaching staff thinks he will be then we should be good there.

  13. #3148
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,481
    Hudson may not have been a good run blocker, but he was he best pass blocking C in football many years in a row. Nobody was better at calling out the defense and recognizing where the pressure was coming. I agree Gruden made the moves to improve our run blocking, which only further confirms he doesn't understand the modern game and roster building in 2021. We would be the only team in football sacrificing efficiency in the pass game to improve running the ball. It just doesnít make sense.

  14. #3149
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Wang View Post
    Hudson may not have been a good run blocker, but he was he best pass blocking C in football many years in a row. Nobody was better at calling out the defense and recognizing where the pressure was coming. I agree Gruden made the moves to improve our run blocking, which only further confirms he doesn't understand the modern game and roster building in 2021. We would be the only team in football sacrificing efficiency in the pass game to improve running the ball. It just doesnít make sense.
    That approach will only work if you have a decent D. We're not even close .......yet.

  15. #3150
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    13,611
    Quote Originally Posted by sicknick12 View Post
    I saw a stat that ranked Hudson, Jackson and Brown in the negative YPC... Hudson being the worst run blocking Center in the league... Not much more can be said as to why Gruden made the changes
    I disagree. Gruden/Mayock first asked those "terrible" run blockers to take a pay cut. It's only after the players refused that Gruden sent them packing. But for that, most of them would still be Raiders. And no one would be harping on the O-line now.

    I get that the offense had issues. But let's not scapegoat the line as the main reason why the Raiders weren't as efficient as they should be in the red zone, or as successful on short yardage conversions. It's deeper than that -- and spoiler! -- we're going to see it crop up again this season. "The calls are coming from inside the house," folks. Fix his tendencies and we fix 75% of what didn't work for us last year.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •