Raiderstation

Reno Hightower wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2026 6:42 pm I never fully understood the particulars of the situation but I seemed bush league that Tatum would use an opportunity to reconcile with Stingley to promote his last book.

Raidernation1979 wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2026 4:17 am I had read somewhere that Tatum was sorry for the outcome but would never apologize for the hit. The hit was legal and didn’t draw a flag. He wasn’t going to apologize for playing the game but he was truly sorry that Stingley was paralyzed

Willmark wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2026 4:49 am Wiz? Maybe
The Judge? One word: stickum
The Assassin: The hit on Stingley.

In the case of Hayes or Tatum neither are getting in. Unfortunate from the football perspective but it is what it is.

Attyla wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2026 4:04 am Tatum did not "set up" that HBO interview, that was the network. Stingley was the one who saw it as a cash grab. We will never know Tatum's motivation, he never spoke about it. Stingley heard about the title of Tatum's third book, "Final Confessions of NFL Assassin Jack Tatum" and that is when he backed out. Funny thing is, the first two books had that same title. It was for the 25th anniversary of the injury. It would have made for really good TV. While Stingley said on multiple occasions that he had forgiven Tatum, I think that may have been more mouth service that sincere. I do know that Jack reveled in is reputation as one of the hardest hitting safeties in league history. So I am of the opinion that he would have been gracious had they met but he would have clung to his reputation. Ultimately, I think the HBO thing, while fascinating, would have been awkward as hell.

raider_kin wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2026 6:22 am First book title: "They Call Me Assassin"

Attyla wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2026 4:04 am Tatum did not "set up" that HBO interview, that was the network. Stingley was the one who saw it as a cash grab. We will never know Tatum's motivation, he never spoke about it. Stingley heard about the title of Tatum's third book, "Final Confessions of NFL Assassin Jack Tatum" and that is when he backed out. Funny thing is, the first two books had that same title. It was for the 25th anniversary of the injury. It would have made for really good TV. While Stingley said on multiple occasions that he had forgiven Tatum, I think that may have been more mouth service that sincere. I do know that Jack reveled in is reputation as one of the hardest hitting safeties in league history. So I am of the opinion that he would have been gracious had they met but he would have clung to his reputation. Ultimately, I think the HBO thing, while fascinating, would have been awkward as hell.

raidersince63 wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2026 5:23 am Yeah, I've always felt that the crucification of Tatum was unjust because people need to realize that the hit that hurt Stingley was perfectly legal back then and that's how the game was played during that era.

And receivers knew back then that if they were brave enough to come across the middle of the field, they were often leaving themselves open to get hammered...It was simply a way of life in those days.

Reno Hightower wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2026 6:46 am Tatums first book was a very good read. I haven't read his last two. Jack has always maintained while he regrets what happened to Stingley he wasn't about to apologize about how he played, which I always thought was reasonable.

I heard he tried to visit Daryl in the hospital and was turned away by Stingley's family and I really don't know the details of any attempts to reconcile. Either way it sucked for all involved but I have enjoyed hearing about Madden's relationship with Daryl and his family. I also imagine Al probably helped behind the scenes like he always did, and kept in on the down low, like he always did.

Attyla wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2026 10:38 am If you had read the articles, you would have understood that the changes enacted had been in review for a couple years. Belichick gets the blame for the changes but that was long after they had begun to fix what they thought was broken. Dropping the voters to 25? I think the number is not that relevant. But I have no problem with any random number. They could have said 37 and made some justification. Limiting the class to 7? Well, artificially that had essentially been the case as you need 80% to get in. Removing the seniors category? While I think there is a good reason to keep it, ultimately let's get the best players in. I go back and forth on Anderson and Plunkett. I can make a case for both but neither case is strong enough to get them in, most days. I am a fan of the Raiders so biased toward my guys and Plunkett won 2 so there is that. If Eli gets in, god forbid, I will be more vocal about Plunkett. Anderson? His case is tricky. He played in an era where completion percentage was not great, but he falls below that. His average of a single TD per game (well, just over that) is not stellar. His INT rate was high, and particularly when it mattered most. But the guy took a lot of sacks, and had 9 in one playoff year. That is really not getting it done when it mattered most. He never really dominated. He was more of an also ran guy. HIs best year was 1981 and it was a good year. No doubt. But most his other years paled in comparison.

Now, that all said, Lester to me, that guy got jobbed because he used stickum and at times played a bit dirty. And Tatum, he got jobbed because of a legal hit and the aftermath. Madden should have let him go into that room to talk to Stingley.