Pete Carroll is officially the Raiders HC
-
Raidernation1979
- Posts: 8,329
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:39 am
- Has given High Fives: 296 times
- Received High Fives: 830 times
[quote=FLORIDARAYDAH post_id=1289840]It's ridiculous that you make this a bad thing. He got a state of the art stadium and made himself a billionaire. Let's be honest here you have no idea how involved he was. A friend if a friend's friend told my sisters 3rd cousin he did nothing.
He has not been afraid to spend money on the team. Things don't always work out. He has Brady and Carroll on board let's hope it works out better than Gruden and McDaniels
Show us on this doll where that football man hurt you[/quote]Agreed. He isn’t an owner who doesn’t care just cashing checks spending the bare minimum. He genuinely wants to win. Some folks seem jealous, some seem to just hate for the way he looks. We all get mad at the lack of wins. No doubt a steep learning curve and his hires at the time weren’t always terrible at that moment.
A supposed young defensive mind. (Who got a second chance)
A mediocre guy getting a second chance who did well his first 3 years.
A former SB winning coach (who had this team at its last height of dominance)
A second chance guy who was being highly coveted around the league for offensuve mastermind
Then AP. Not a lot there but he rolled with the momentum.
He didn’t hesitate to the pull plug when things went wrong. The only plug that should have been pulled much sooner was the previous 9 year starting qb.
He has not been afraid to spend money on the team. Things don't always work out. He has Brady and Carroll on board let's hope it works out better than Gruden and McDaniels
Show us on this doll where that football man hurt you[/quote]Agreed. He isn’t an owner who doesn’t care just cashing checks spending the bare minimum. He genuinely wants to win. Some folks seem jealous, some seem to just hate for the way he looks. We all get mad at the lack of wins. No doubt a steep learning curve and his hires at the time weren’t always terrible at that moment.
A supposed young defensive mind. (Who got a second chance)
A mediocre guy getting a second chance who did well his first 3 years.
A former SB winning coach (who had this team at its last height of dominance)
A second chance guy who was being highly coveted around the league for offensuve mastermind
Then AP. Not a lot there but he rolled with the momentum.
He didn’t hesitate to the pull plug when things went wrong. The only plug that should have been pulled much sooner was the previous 9 year starting qb.
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,647
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1238 times
- Received High Fives: 2960 times
Losers try all the time, the winners f[raiders_icon]ck the prom queen. I get it, he tries really hard, but it took a winner coming in to change the outlook for the team.
-
Jeevo
- Posts: 14,866
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:24 am
- Location: Canada
- Has given High Fives: 420 times
- Received High Fives: 794 times
[quote=SkullCrusher post_id=1289855]Al was alive for a decade there and Mark had zero input.
He had to flip the roster/front office, surely that's a few years of rope. (Dennis years)
So now we are down to around 10 years of not good enough.
He hired Jack, Gruden, McD, Pierce and Pete.
Jack was a decent candidate, wasn't a total flop at all, just not good enough to get us there.
Gruden, similar to Jack, he was out of football for a long time, but the team was improving steadily, then the NFL caught Gruden in the Washington investigation. Gruden would probably still be here, good or bad.
McD ok did the coach learn from his first failure? This happens. He was well respected as a OC. Total disaster.
Pierce makes the team look really strong to end the season, gets a year to prove it, didn't. IMO it was still a reasonable think to see where it went, cost us one season.
Pete his record speaks for itself, if he bombs it wasn't a bad hire, just didn't work out.
This isn't the workings of a complete idiot. We also just don't always happen to get the best choices and when in Oakland was a bit cash strapped.[/quote]Two of the hires got us into the playoffs and two didn't. AP was the big mistake but with star players, or was there only one, publicly lobbying for him he was in a tough situation. The GM hires weren't crazy either. You can argue about Mayock but that was Gruden's hire and coaches with all the power isn't an unusual thing in this league.
In any case, I'm happy with the direction we're heading, and if we see real success I'll have no problem giving credit to everyone in the decision tree and Mark is at the top of that tree.
He had to flip the roster/front office, surely that's a few years of rope. (Dennis years)
So now we are down to around 10 years of not good enough.
He hired Jack, Gruden, McD, Pierce and Pete.
Jack was a decent candidate, wasn't a total flop at all, just not good enough to get us there.
Gruden, similar to Jack, he was out of football for a long time, but the team was improving steadily, then the NFL caught Gruden in the Washington investigation. Gruden would probably still be here, good or bad.
McD ok did the coach learn from his first failure? This happens. He was well respected as a OC. Total disaster.
Pierce makes the team look really strong to end the season, gets a year to prove it, didn't. IMO it was still a reasonable think to see where it went, cost us one season.
Pete his record speaks for itself, if he bombs it wasn't a bad hire, just didn't work out.
This isn't the workings of a complete idiot. We also just don't always happen to get the best choices and when in Oakland was a bit cash strapped.[/quote]Two of the hires got us into the playoffs and two didn't. AP was the big mistake but with star players, or was there only one, publicly lobbying for him he was in a tough situation. The GM hires weren't crazy either. You can argue about Mayock but that was Gruden's hire and coaches with all the power isn't an unusual thing in this league.
In any case, I'm happy with the direction we're heading, and if we see real success I'll have no problem giving credit to everyone in the decision tree and Mark is at the top of that tree.
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,647
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1238 times
- Received High Fives: 2960 times
But back to the topic, I believe we never saw the contract info other than years, I know they don't have to release that stuff but I think it speaks to value. The old man used to go cheap on coach contracts, preferring to pay the talent on the field. I think some of that played into him trading Gruden since he knew he was going to be asking for a substantial raise. I know ego played a role but cheap when if comes to resigning successful coaches does not work. I would be interested to see the numbers though
-
GoodTimeCharlie
- Posts: 4,980
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:26 pm
- Location: Atop the commode
- Has given High Fives: 1559 times
- Received High Fives: 1601 times
[quote=SkullCrusher post_id=1289855]Al was alive for a decade there and Mark had zero input.
He had to flip the roster/front office, surely that's a few years of rope. (Dennis years)
So now we are down to around 10 years of not good enough.
He hired Jack, Gruden, McD, Pierce and Pete.
Jack was a decent candidate, wasn't a total flop at all, just not good enough to get us there.
Gruden, similar to Jack, he was out of football for a long time, but the team was improving steadily, then the NFL caught Gruden in the Washington investigation. Gruden would probably still be here, good or bad.
McD, ok did the coach learn from his first failure? This happens. He was well respected as a OC. Total disaster. Mark aborted quickly 1.5 years.
Pierce makes the team look really strong to end the season, gets a year to prove it, didn't. IMO it was still a reasonable think to see where it went, cost us one season.
Pete his record speaks for itself, if he bombs it wasn't a bad hire, just didn't work out.
This isn't the workings of a complete idiot. We also just don't always happen to get the best choices and when in Oakland was a bit cash strapped.[/quote]Well sonuva gun. Yeah, that should be 12 & 14. I need to hire a proofreader and editor. Age is robbing me blind on the daily.
He had to flip the roster/front office, surely that's a few years of rope. (Dennis years)
So now we are down to around 10 years of not good enough.
He hired Jack, Gruden, McD, Pierce and Pete.
Jack was a decent candidate, wasn't a total flop at all, just not good enough to get us there.
Gruden, similar to Jack, he was out of football for a long time, but the team was improving steadily, then the NFL caught Gruden in the Washington investigation. Gruden would probably still be here, good or bad.
McD, ok did the coach learn from his first failure? This happens. He was well respected as a OC. Total disaster. Mark aborted quickly 1.5 years.
Pierce makes the team look really strong to end the season, gets a year to prove it, didn't. IMO it was still a reasonable think to see where it went, cost us one season.
Pete his record speaks for itself, if he bombs it wasn't a bad hire, just didn't work out.
This isn't the workings of a complete idiot. We also just don't always happen to get the best choices and when in Oakland was a bit cash strapped.[/quote]Well sonuva gun. Yeah, that should be 12 & 14. I need to hire a proofreader and editor. Age is robbing me blind on the daily.
-
Sir Raider Duck, OMS
- Posts: 10,545
- Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:58 pm
- Location: The Principality of Sealand
- Has given High Fives: 318 times
- Received High Fives: 272 times
[quote=raider_kin post_id=1289852]I'm cautiously optimistic; still not all that happy with the draft. Our 2nd rounder should have been a defensive stud, not WR.[/quote]If it was Spytek and Carroll's opinion that Bech was the guy on the board who would most improve the team, you take Bech, full stop.
-
raider_kin
- Posts: 4,366
- Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:01 am
- Has given High Fives: 2718 times
- Received High Fives: 1190 times
[quote=Sir Raider Duck, OMS post_id=1289915]If it was Spytek and Carroll's opinion that Bech was the guy on the board who would most improve the team, you take Bech, full stop.[/quote]Allow me to retort: they were obviously giving priority to the offense. Yes, the O will be a lot better this year, probably a bunch of fun to watch, but our D is going to suck ballz.
-
JRaider17
- Posts: 12,850
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 6:19 pm
- Location: New Jersey
- Has given High Fives: 5 times
- Received High Fives: 298 times
[quote=raider_kin post_id=1289918]Allow me to retort: they were obviously giving priority to the offense. Yes, the O will be a lot better this year, probably a bunch of fun to watch, but our D is going to suck ballz.[/quote]Defensive line will go as far as the health of the defensive line.
-
GoodTimeCharlie
- Posts: 4,980
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:26 pm
- Location: Atop the commode
- Has given High Fives: 1559 times
- Received High Fives: 1601 times
I don’t know how far this can be extrapolated, but every year for about the 1st four games, all the talking heads will go on and on about how maybe this is the year that Defenses have caught up to the Offenses.
They do this because defenses are always strongest out of the gate. Offenses take longer to gel. Happens every year.
Not sure if our FO planned it, but if offenses always take longer to become a cohesive unit, not just preseason, but across the season/s, (especially for a team being rebuilt) then it makes the most sense to go heavy offense in year 1. Year 2 you grab your future QB in the first round then bang the defense, and watch your team solidify. Year 3 everyone is on the same page and you just need to have your new starting QB plug-in.
An added benefit to this is the additional years a FO is usually rewarded due to having a new starting QB. As long as the team is showing promise, a FO has given themselves a solid 4 to 5 years to make it all work.
Just some thoughts.
They do this because defenses are always strongest out of the gate. Offenses take longer to gel. Happens every year.
Not sure if our FO planned it, but if offenses always take longer to become a cohesive unit, not just preseason, but across the season/s, (especially for a team being rebuilt) then it makes the most sense to go heavy offense in year 1. Year 2 you grab your future QB in the first round then bang the defense, and watch your team solidify. Year 3 everyone is on the same page and you just need to have your new starting QB plug-in.
An added benefit to this is the additional years a FO is usually rewarded due to having a new starting QB. As long as the team is showing promise, a FO has given themselves a solid 4 to 5 years to make it all work.
Just some thoughts.
-
Rabid Raider
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2024 8:08 am
- Location: Osborn Island
- Received High Fives: 1 time
-
srv5490
- Posts: 3,471
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:14 pm
- Location: Returning Videotapes
- Has given High Fives: 46 times
- Received High Fives: 168 times
[quote=Rabid Raider post_id=1289933]I want one more Superbowl win before I croak.[/quote]I want them to win one more SB before you croak, too. I also want you to croak in early spring of 2025.
Nothing personal, I'm just getting impatient. If/when that happens, I wall always remember it as the "Rabid Raider Game".
Nothing personal, I'm just getting impatient. If/when that happens, I wall always remember it as the "Rabid Raider Game".
-
Attyla
- Posts: 52,647
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:31 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1238 times
- Received High Fives: 2960 times
[quote=srv5490 post_id=1289934]I want them to win one more SB before you croak, too. I also want you to croak in early spring of 2025.
Nothing personal, I'm just getting impatient. If/when that happens, I wall always remember it as the "Rabid Raider Game".[/quote]you want a guy to die but it is not personal?
Nothing personal, I'm just getting impatient. If/when that happens, I wall always remember it as the "Rabid Raider Game".[/quote]you want a guy to die but it is not personal?
-
DanKD
- Posts: 3,687
- Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:18 pm
- Has given High Fives: 41 times
- Received High Fives: 1422 times
Not only that but we are already past early spring 2025 so he wants him to die like right now.
-
srv5490
- Posts: 3,471
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:14 pm
- Location: Returning Videotapes
- Has given High Fives: 46 times
- Received High Fives: 168 times
[quote=Attyla post_id=1289937]you want a guy to die but it is not personal?[/quote]C'mon man, we're talking about a Super Bowl win here. Most of you guys would trade my life for a preseason win, and I wouldn't take that personal at all. At least not if it was because the starters won the game. I suppose I'd be a little offended if it was for one of those come from behind by the camp fodder types of preseason wins.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty skeptical that I'll get to see another SB win by this franchise. Best I can hope for is that I develop Alzheimer's severe enough that my mind is living in the era of the Madden led Raiders.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty skeptical that I'll get to see another SB win by this franchise. Best I can hope for is that I develop Alzheimer's severe enough that my mind is living in the era of the Madden led Raiders.
-
srv5490
- Posts: 3,471
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:14 pm
- Location: Returning Videotapes
- Has given High Fives: 46 times
- Received High Fives: 168 times
[quote=DanKD post_id=1289938]Not only that but we are already past early spring 2025 so he wants him to die like right now.[/quote]LOL, it always takes me a little while to figure out the change of year, but it usually sticks well before June. Maybe it's a first step down the journey I noted above.