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!

     

All aboard the Wilks Wagon


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, frankw said:

Say what you want about Wilks time in Arizona but at least he didn't act like a little bitch after he got fired. And he damn sure didn't make anywhere near 60 million bucks.

I would struggle to find an example of a former head coach acting like as big of a bitch as Rhule after getting canned.

Publicly, anyway. 

I mean....name another "I was wronged" media tour?

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I mean he kinda sued the team that fired him.  

Not at all comparable. He took legal action over a matter that is still very valid within the league. Meanwhile a used car salesman like Matt Rhule goes from one top paying job to another with his awful record and shirks all responsibility while being offered a platform and a shoulder to cry on. It definitely gives credence to the concerns of Wilks and Flores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frankw said:

Not at all comparable. He took legal action over a matter that is still very valid within the league. Meanwhile a used car salesman like Matt Rhule goes from one top paying job to another with his awful record and shirks all responsibility while being offered a platform and a shoulder to cry on. It definitely gives credence to the concerns of Wilks and Flores.

So when Hackett gets fired this year with the exact same record should he sue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

So when Hackett gets fired this year with the exact same record should he sue?

That’s pretty different. Hackett’s team had Super Bowl run expectations and their window is now (Russ isn’t getting any younger). They are probably going to let Russ give some input into the next coach, because they are stuck with him for better or worse. Plus there isn’t a pattern for not giving white, offensive minded coaches a chance at HC. Just look at Arizona and McDaniels getting another chance in Vegas. If anything it’s the opposite.

I don’t want Wilks as our HC because I feel like it just brings us back to Rivera in terms of style and being a very boring, conservative HC. However, I do think there is some substance as a whole to that lawsuit (especially if that Miami poo is true).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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...