Las Vegas Raiders Thread

He made the best of a bad Defense, to be honest. Given the fact that the Offense couldnt stay on the field, our defense was consistently worn down every game. I think with a decent team he would be a success.

eire4 wrote: »

What are peoples thoughts on the Raiders stadium issues. It looks like one more year at the current stadium but that is clearly just putting the issue off for a year. Should the Raiders stay or move?

I don't think that they had much choice about signing up for another year in the current stadium if they intend/hope to stay in the Bay area. Mark Davis seems to prefer the option of staying in Oakland and they have been exploring the various options connected with making this happen, in terms of the construction of a new stadium on a greenfield site close to Oakland or on the same site as at present. Naturally, funding a new stadium has and will continue to be the biggest hurdle to overcome, as the city of Oakland is unlikely to be able/willing to contribute much and the NFL is unlikely to commit any funds until firm figures are available on the total cost of the project and how the rest of it are to be financed.

I would be very surprised if the 2015 season isn't the Raiders final season in the current building, without this issue being sorted. Al Davis always believed that he had some hold over the LA market, as the last NFL team to be based there, so if the stadium issue isn't resolved in Oakland I could see Mark Davis and the Raiders being involved in serious discussions about going back there. If not Los Angeles, then there was the report of interest from San Antonio and there were even rumours in the past of a move to other cities such as Sacramento or even Portland.

There have been several reports that the urgency to get a true franchise quarterback had been strongly linked to the stadium situation, in that a team without such a quarterback is likely to continue to struggle, which impacts on the finances of the team, but a team with a young franchise quarterback (Derek Carr) in place and other young budding stars on the roster, could be about to start a long term revival, making the team much attractive to investors willing to finance a new stadium.

heyjude wrote: »

I don't think that they had much choice about signing up for another year in the current stadium if they intend/hope to stay in the Bay area. Mark Davis seems to prefer the option of staying in Oakland and they have been exploring the various options connected with making this happen, in terms of the construction of a new stadium on a greenfield site close to Oakland or on the same site as at present. Naturally, funding a new stadium has and will continue to be the biggest hurdle to overcome, as the city of Oakland is unlikely to be able/willing to contribute much and the NFL is unlikely to commit any funds until firm figures are available on the total cost of the project and how the rest of it are to be financed.

I would be very surprised if the 2015 season isn't the Raiders final season in the current building, without this issue being sorted. Al Davis always believed that he had some hold over the LA market, as the last NFL team to be based there, so if the stadium issue isn't resolved in Oakland I could see Mark Davis and the Raiders being involved in serious discussions about going back there. If not Los Angeles, then there was the report of interest from San Antonio and there were even rumours in the past of a move to other cities such as Sacramento or even Portland.

There have been several reports that the urgency to get a true franchise quarterback had been strongly linked to the stadium situation, in that a team without such a quarterback is likely to continue to struggle, which impacts on the finances of the team, but a team with a young franchise quarterback (Derek Carr) in place and other young budding stars on the roster, could be about to start a long term revival, making the team much attractive to investors willing to finance a new stadium.

Thanks for the thoughts there. Interesting times ahead one way or another stadium/location wise for the Raiders. One thing I do wonder about with LA is that its almost as if the league likes having that open market in LA there as a chip to all but blackmail some cities into giving money for new stadiums with the implied threat of hey well if you won't do it the team will move to LA in the background. Having said that I could easily see the Raiders moving back to LA and considering how long the malaise surrounding the team has been going on building a new young team in a new environment does have its obvious attractions and the Raiders would be moving to a much bigger market where they do have a certain fan base in place if they do end up moving back to LA.

Its going to be an interesting Free Agency. Reggie is buying to keep his job, not the best circumstances to be entering Free Agency.

The Raiders will have close to the most to spend in free agency and unlike the Jaguars,who currently have more cap space, the Raiders actually HAVE to spend heavily to reach the floor set by the CBA. So they are being strongly linked with Ndamukong Suh, who will be by far the most sought after free agent available in free agency, unless he reaches agreement with the Lions on a long term deal before free agency starts on March 10th ?

So my question is, should the Raiders make a big splash and sign Suh (even though it will likely cost over $100m/6 years to make that happen) or would they be better leaving Suh and using the money on other players instead ?

Originally I would have favoured signing Suh, for if you leave aside his disciplinary problems, he is the premier DT in the league and would instantly upgrade your defence against both the run and pass, while also enabling Khalil Mack and Sio Moore to more plays off the edges, through the attention he attracts. He would also be a star on a team without many stars.

Now I'm not so sure that signing Suh makes as much sense, the counter argument is that(moneywise) you could sign Devin McCourty, Randall Cobb and go a long way towards signing Julius Thomas for the sort of money that Suh would want or if you don't like that mix, you could choose any 2 or more of the top 20 free agents. The Raiders have so many needs that most of the top 20 free agents would be a huge upgrade, so why upgrade at one position when you could upgrade at several for the same price.

I think they need to sound out which of the top free agents would be prepared to come to Oakland and whether the right mix of willing quality free agents would offer more than Suh brings. But they will be wary after last year, even though there was nobody of Suh's quality available then, as last year they signed a load of predominantly mid market free agents and few if any of them made an real impact. If he can stay out of trouble, then they know what Suh will bring, so if JDR and McKenzie do not go after Suh, they have to be certain to sign several players that collectively will bring even more. If Suh is their target, then I'd look to see a huge front loaded contract as Suh is 28 and they will be planning for when Derek Carr and Khalil Mack's contracts come up for renewal in a few years time, when they won't want a huge cap hit from Suh's contract if he is still around.

Prefab Sprouter wrote: »

Personally I would prefer that they didnt go after Suh. Yes, we have huge cap space, but we have so many holes to fill, that it would be completely detrimental to bring in one superstar at the expense of the squad. I would far rather see Cobb and Thomas or pick any 3 or 4 decent player to arrive instead of Suh being completely honest. I dont doubt his ability but Albert Haynesworth going to Washington was considered to be a great bit of business and look how that turned out. There will be a number of teams competing for his signature and we really dont need to get involved in a bidding war for a player.

Would tend to agree with you there. The Raiders need to spend the money much more wisely this year. Find younger players who have a point to prove who can buy into turning a whole franchise around not big name supserstars who will demand even a premium to come to the Raiders with no guarantee of production.

Its a bit disconcerting after all the build up about how the Raiders were going to make a big splash in free agency, that with 2 days to go before free agency starts, the US media seems to be full of reports of this player or that having agreed to join various teams and not a single report of the Raiders being actively linked with anyone. I'm hoping that many of these reports are just smoke and mirrors, an attempt by teams to spread misinformation about how certain players have agreed to join them, in an attempt to avoid an auction developing, but I can't help getting an uneasy feeling that yet again after all the build up, the team may go after a raft of second tier free agents, like they ended up with last year.

The Raiders were being strongly linked with N. Suh and he must have had some interest in playing for the Raiders as he had agreed to visit Oakland this week, yet the media is now filled with stories that its a done deal that he will sign for the Dolphins. Its hard to believe that his agent has already fielded final offers from all interested teams and without visiting the teams involved he has chosen to join Miami, just as it is hard to believe that if the Raiders were serious about signing him, that they could have been outbid by the Dolphins, who have far less cap space. I suppose we'll know on Tuesday, whether the stories were true or not.

The top of the free agent pool has already thinned a bit as teams have re-signed their own free agents to new contracts, removing Randall Cobb, Mark Ingram and several others. So the Raiders need to create a splash early in free agency, to show they are serious about upgrading under Jack Del Rio and also to show they are not just going to overpay for second tier talent.

Intentional or not, the ownership and management of the Raiders have encouraged the teams' fans to believe that the team was going to be a major player in free agency and whether it is financially prudent or not, that means making a few headline signings. Having built the fan base up to expect some star signings, it could seriously backfire if the 'star signing' turns out to be the 5th ranked free agent tight end or 7th ranked free agent middle linebacker. It could also backfire on the field, as the likes of Derek Carr and Khalil Mack would have been reading about how the team going to be signing big names to play alongside them and they will also be disappointed if that doesn't transpire.

The team doesn't just need to be aggressive on the field, they need to be aggressive off the field too, building through the draft is fine but that takes years to achieve and unless the team shows major improvement this coming season, I think Reggie McKenzie's tenure as GM may be over and he has to realise that.

I see MJD has retired.

I hope that something is going on behind the scenes and it will all make sense, when it is finally revealed, but I can't really understand why the team cut Antonio Smith a few days ago(only for him to sign with the Broncos).

I understand that he is 33 years old, was due to count $4m against the salary cap and was horrible against the run last season, but he had a good work ethic, was popular in the dress room, either led or was close to leading the league last season in QB hurries by DTs on a team that managed just 22 sacks and that is struggling to meet the salary cap floor with $20+m to spend.

Smith isn't a 3 down DT due to his limitations against the run, but he provides experience, depth, is a useful player in obvious passing situations and with the team under no salary cap pressure even the $4m saving doesn't seem to provide any obvious benefit, as they have the cash, but also have another hole to fill.

One explanation might be that the staff want to develop younger players for the future, but that suggests they are prepared to lose games to develop players. I would also question if Smith's replacement is currently on the roster( do they think Dan Williams can improve his pass rushing ?) or whether a free agent replacement is currently being lined up. Another rather bizarre explanation might be, that they think they'll get Leonard Williams in the draft, but if they thought that, then why not wait until this happened and then cut Smith.

I also see they have invited Michael Crabtree in for a visit next week. This is wrong for so many reasons, for starters when he entered the draft coming out of college, he specifically told the Raiders not to pick him, he is seen in some quarters as a bit of a diva, he has had injury problems, isn't the dominant No1 receiver we need and is reputedly looking for a big contract. He might be better than what we have but for the money he will likely seek, is he that much better ?. I can't see him getting a great reception from many fans and a small one or two year contract with meaningful incentives should be all thats on offer.

Still no sign of the big name headline free agent signings that we were led to believe would happen and at this stage, camp cuts and post June 1st cuts from other teams are all that is left free agent wise, as there seems to be little interest in chasing those players currently on the market, unless Reggie is playing a patient game to secure lower value contracts.

The Raiders have signed former 49ers wr Michael Crabtree to a one year deal worth $3.2m (or $3m depending on your source) with an additional $1.8m(or $2m) in incentives. I'm not personally overjoyed with the signing, as Crabtree would be viewed by many fans as a Raider hater and so he could be a hard sell to the Black Hole unless he plays really well. But on the upside, its a one year prove yourself deal that could see him earn $5m if he plays lights out football, which would probably then be followed by the multi year deal he sought.

Crabtree had reportedly been seeking $9m a year and had apparently walked away recently from a $3.5m a year deal offered by the Dolphins, but with few suitors for his services he probably had few choices.

The signing doesn't remove the need to pick up a receiver in the draft, but it would perhaps allow them to pick one in the second round if the opportunity came to sign Leonard Williams in the first round.

I like the deal, to be honest. We arent getting tied into a huge contract and he needs to play well to secure his payday. Its a bit like the Richardson deal, although to be honest I have more confidence in Crabtree contributing meaningfully than Richardson. As an aside, I've been use to seeing Al Davis throwing big money to Free Agents and hoping they work out. Its a bit of a change seeing low money contracts being doled out in Oakland and I'm enjoying the change. I just hope the results pay off on the field.

eire4 wrote: »

If they play well and earn new deals its because they have performed and produced well and if not no big risk and money is been taken. .

Of course if they do preform well then next season and we are around the 5 wins etc... they are out the door to better franchises and we are back where we started, a 2 year deal would be my preference, with one year deals we are always going to be rebuilding and in a couple of more years IF we haven't turned it around can you blame Mack for example for maybe shooting out the door?

Sick and tired also of people getting on Crabs case over the draft that year, he may not have won a ring to date but he has had a better time of it compared to us in recent years. So he makes a face as such at the time of the draft when we didn't pick him, but he didn't act the bollox like Eli or Elway or even Jim Kelly for that matter though Kelly forgot the Bills had a 2nd first round pick that year and they took him anyway