Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

rayzor: "We don't want no team that's ok with losing"


rayzor
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you're losing going down swinging that's one thing. But to just get beaten like a drum and the other team never even has to show any concern that you are a threat and then you have players complaining about fans that is as sad as it gets. Something has to give here.

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stbugs said:

Hah, and I was told that tanking in 2020 would ruin the culture! We tried to win with a team that wasn’t complete and didn’t have enough talent. Now we’ve got a team that’s quit yet again (they quit at the end in 2018 and 2019 too), but we aren’t like a typically bottom tier team that has loads of draft picks and tons of cap space. We traded those away and spent a ton on shitty FAs. So glad we didn’t tank and ruin our culture! 😂 

I shudder at the thought of Matt Rhule being given a third year.  This organization could be handicapped for years thanks to Matt's ineptitude.

  • Pie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rayzor said:

Seriously I'm tired of it. That's the culture we had before Cam and Luke.

Its a culture that needs to die now. 

This will happen only when we get rid of the coach that set the bar of expectation on any other thing than winning.

Winning over whining.

Honestly I’d be down for Greg HC, Cam QB, Luke option DC, Player, over this poo show we have at this point. Get a fugging stalwart OC/DC in and amp the GM position.

Follow the canes blueprint. It’s better than this garbage we have now. 

Edited by Harbingers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Waldo said:

I was thinking the same thing. We don't have the cap to go wild. We can really go after Reddick but at a premium that's it for big money.

Well there are the crazy bad Hurney deals but he is gone right? Right???

I want to see this buying in Rhule is talking about.

And Reddick probably has a 4 year window to win a ring, he should go to a contender. Just because he played at temple doesn't mean he owes Rhule anything loyalty wise. If he had had a bad year Rhule would have thrown him under the bus already

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jackie Lee said:

And Reddick probably has a 4 year window to win a ring, he should go to a contender. Just because he played at temple doesn't mean he owes Rhule anything loyalty wise. If he had had a bad year Rhule would have thrown him under the bus already

I agree, I have no idea what will happen now. We probably will end up paying Jackson lol. Reddick is the one worth trying to keep for sure.

Edited by Waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sean Payton's Vicodin said:

Tepper is so bad, we're gonna have a decade like the bengals did in the 1990s. He fuged up everything

I hope not. If that's the case it will be because we hired the wrong coaches and hung on to them for too long.

4 years max to get a Lombardi. If that's your goal, you have to keep the contracts to 4 years.

2 years to start winning. That's all. It shouldn't take more than 2 years to have a winning record. 

First year is the freebie. You asses needs and start to lay your foundation. 2nd year you have at least a winning record. 3rd year playoffs at a minimum and understand that the window for a championship is closing. 4th year it has to happen or it won't.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jackie Lee said:

And Reddick probably has a 4 year window to win a ring, he should go to a contender. Just because he played at temple doesn't mean he owes Rhule anything loyalty wise. If he had had a bad year Rhule would have thrown him under the bus already

60% of our roster should go to contenders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...