2017 NFL off-season thread / We have moved threads, mod please lock!

[651akathepaul]

Is a SB appearance in the last 16 years really relevant though? What players on that SB team still play? The Raiders sucked for 13 straight years you say, but now they're good again, so they become more relevant?

"The Lions were just as trash for much of that same period and are now an adequate team."

In those past 13 seasons you alluded to as being trash for trash, the Lions have made the playoffs 3 times to the Raiders 1. One could argue the potential of Oakland for the future, but injuries or not, they still lost a playoff game just as Detroit did last season, so outside of paper football they hold no real proven edge over Detroit. It's all optimism. Optimism is concluding a most favorable outcome that is not yet realized, so again, where's the relevance?

The Raiders being "built to last" is about as relevant as their QB's health, right? Point is, you never know what happens and optimism can't me mistaken for actual results, just as past success is no indicator of current relevance.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

The Raiders right now aren't better than Lions were in 2011

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

What the **** have the Raiders done in Calvin's time in the NFL that justifies them being a better franchise than the Lions?

Why are we limiting the question to Calvin's time in the NFL?

Because that's a relative bracket of time specific to the career span with which Johnson played in.

I said the Raiders are a great franchise. I didn't qualify that by saying the Raiders were great when Calvin played; obviously they were not. But what is clear is that the Raiders and the Lions are very different in what each has and has not accomplished.

True, but not imperative to the now or in that case, the then. The Browns were once a great franchise just as the Patriots were once the laughing stock. History has a way of diluting current reality just as a most recent perception eclipses previous understandings, so it's hard to equate those opinions with relevance in sports when era's are probably more suitable.

Okay, let's get specific then:

The Raiders went to the Super Bowl in the last 16 years; I don't even want to look up when the Lions last did that. The Raiders were garbage for something like 13 years after that, but aren't anymore. The Lions were just as trash for much of that same period and are now an adequate team. I also think it's fair to say that the Raiders are built to last with multiple long term pieces plugged in. Can the Lions say the same thing? I don't know.

The Raiders literally haven't done **** since being embarrassed in the Super Bowl. I would rather not make it that to make it and get embarrassed by my old coach.

The Raiders are under such ****** ownership the team is moving.

I need to know what great players the Raiders have locked up long term.

LOL.

I love it. "I would rather not make it". Nice, thanks for letting us know.

Moving is moving, it's not the first time the team has done it and frankly we enjoy having one of the few fan-bases that are loyal to the team no matter where they play. I wonder if the Lions can say the same thing.

I guess great players leaving the Lions (or ending their careers early) might be a concern, but I can't say I feel the same way about our situation. You say that last bit as if we should be concerned that Carr, Cooper, Mack would ever get a chance to play elsewhere. Nope.

 

[sohi 23]

Raiders being good got people in their feelings again.

I love it

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Is a SB appearance in the last 16 years really relevant though? What players on that SB team still play? The Raiders sucked for 13 straight years you say, but now they're good again, so they become more relevant?

"The Lions were just as trash for much of that same period and are now an adequate team."

In those past 13 seasons you alluded to as being trash for trash, the Lions have made the playoffs 3 times to the Raiders 1. One could argue the potential of Oakland for the future, but injuries or not, they still lost a playoff game just as Detroit did last season, so outside of paper football they hold no real proven edge over Detroit. It's all optimism. Optimism is concluding a most favorable outcome that is not yet realized, so again, where's the relevance?

The Raiders being "built to last" is about as relevant as their QB's health, right? Point is, you never know what happens and optimism can't me mistaken for actual results, just as past success is no indicator of current relevance.

The Raiders are relevant now because they are good now. I don't think that's a difficult concept to grasp.

Optimism because the team is young and competitive. If you need absolute results i.e. a Super Bowl win then I guess everyone needs to shut up about their team and sit on their hands.

Again, are we in the position of being quiet because we can't see the future? What's the point of sports discussions/banter if we're not willing to see the present for what it is and extrapolate from that? If the Raiders are awful again going forward then so be it; I don't think many are willing to bet that will be the case though.

 

[651akathepaul]

Raiders being good got people in their feelings again.

I love it

That's your conclusion? ]

Of the jumpman school of thought. "People hate me because they need me."

The Raiders as they are today was a very small part of the conversation and if one and done in the playoffs is your proof that the Raiders are back, then you might need to check the structural integrity of your soapbox before it crumbles.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

If y'all are so got damn loyal why do the Raiders consistently have some the worst attended games in the NFL?

 

[EddieDoyers]

My real question is why is SneakerPro so salt city today?
First the John Stockton slander, now the Raiders aren't good enough to get Megatron

 

[Chester McFloppy]

Raiders go > .500 for the first time since 2002 and all of the sudden chests are puffed out? People in their feelings because of the RAIDERS?



Yikes.

Little brother of the bay area syndrome in full effect.

 

[651akathepaul]

Is a SB appearance in the last 16 years really relevant though? What players on that SB team still play? The Raiders sucked for 13 straight years you say, but now they're good again, so they become more relevant?

"The Lions were just as trash for much of that same period and are now an adequate team."

In those past 13 seasons you alluded to as being trash for trash, the Lions have made the playoffs 3 times to the Raiders 1. One could argue the potential of Oakland for the future, but injuries or not, they still lost a playoff game just as Detroit did last season, so outside of paper football they hold no real proven edge over Detroit. It's all optimism. Optimism is concluding a most favorable outcome that is not yet realized, so again, where's the relevance?

The Raiders being "built to last" is about as relevant as their QB's health, right? Point is, you never know what happens and optimism can't me mistaken for actual results, just as past success is no indicator of current relevance.

The Raiders are relevant now because they are good now. I don't think that's a difficult concept to grasp.

Optimism because the team is young and competitive. If you need absolute results i.e. a Super Bowl win then I guess everyone needs to shut up about their team and sit on their hands.

Again, are we in the position of being quiet because we can't see the future? What's the point of sports discussions/banter if we're not willing to see the present for what it is and extrapolate from that? If the Raiders are awful again going forward then so be it; I don't think many are willing to bet that will be the case though.

You asked why the comparison of Johnson's tenure to Oakland's franchise and I explained to you the relevance, so who is having a hard time grasping the conversation, you or me? Nothing you said addressed the topic. You're excited...Cool, man. Happy for you. That has **** to do with Oakland's history.

 

[raider5]

If y'all are so got damn loyal why do the Raiders consistently have some the worst attended games in the NFL?

Ask our bowl cut owner why he got tarps up when we got a 15,000 waitlist on season tickets

 

[sohi 23]

Is a SB appearance in the last 16 years really relevant though? What players on that SB team still play? The Raiders sucked for 13 straight years you say, but now they're good again, so they become more relevant?

"The Lions were just as trash for much of that same period and are now an adequate team."

In those past 13 seasons you alluded to as being trash for trash, the Lions have made the playoffs 3 times to the Raiders 1. One could argue the potential of Oakland for the future, but injuries or not, they still lost a playoff game just as Detroit did last season, so outside of paper football they hold no real proven edge over Detroit. It's all optimism. Optimism is concluding a most favorable outcome that is not yet realized, so again, where's the relevance?

The Raiders being "built to last" is about as relevant as their QB's health, right? Point is, you never know what happens and optimism can't me mistaken for actual results, just as past success is no indicator of current relevance.

Can't let you disrespect my man Seabass like that

But what kinda logic is this? Lmao. How many 49ers are still on that super bowl team from 5 years ago? Bowman and Staley? Is that it? The NFL is fickle and constantly changing. I don't think JDR is the greatest coach & have my doubts about whether he can lead us to a Super Bowl, but Khalil Mack is gunna be a hall of famer & Carr is gunna be leading the Raiders for the next 10 years. In addition, Reggie McKenzie is one of the best GMs in football and I have complete trust he's going to have the Raiders looking right as long as he's in charge. Mark Davis is a ****ball but that doesn't matter, he doesn't stick his head in football decisions and plays his role, Vegas situation aside.

And duh, if our QB goes down we are ******. That's reality for 31/32 teams.

 

[sohi 23]

Raiders go > .500 for the first time since 2002 and all of the sudden chests are puffed out? People in their feelings because of the RAIDERS?



Yikes.

Little brother of the bay area syndrome in full effect.

I'm actually in the Bay Area. Raiders tickets go for 2-3 times the price of Niners tickets. The Niners play in a brand new stadium and the Raiders play in a dump. Lmao.

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Raiders go > .500 for the first time since 2002 and all of the sudden chests are puffed out? People in their feelings because of the RAIDERS?



Yikes.

Little brother of the bay area syndrome in full effect.

I frankly don't think it's a big deal; I just said something that I feel is true about the Raiders and their status in the NFL and throughout the country at large. We're not the Jaguars or Cardinals or Bengals with just regional influence. We're a major franchise of the league and I don't think anyone can convincingly argue against that.

 

[651akathepaul]

Is a SB appearance in the last 16 years really relevant though? What players on that SB team still play? The Raiders sucked for 13 straight years you say, but now they're good again, so they become more relevant?

"The Lions were just as trash for much of that same period and are now an adequate team."

In those past 13 seasons you alluded to as being trash for trash, the Lions have made the playoffs 3 times to the Raiders 1. One could argue the potential of Oakland for the future, but injuries or not, they still lost a playoff game just as Detroit did last season, so outside of paper football they hold no real proven edge over Detroit. It's all optimism. Optimism is concluding a most favorable outcome that is not yet realized, so again, where's the relevance?

The Raiders being "built to last" is about as relevant as their QB's health, right? Point is, you never know what happens and optimism can't me mistaken for actual results, just as past success is no indicator of current relevance.

Can't let you disrespect my man Seabass like that

But what kinda logic is this? Lmao. How many 49ers are still on that super bowl team from 5 years ago? Bowman and Stanley? Is that it? The NFL is fickle and constantly changing. I don't think JDR is the greatest coach & have my doubts about whether he can lead us to a Super Bowl, but Khalil Mack is gunna be a hall of famer & Carr is gunna be leading the Raiders for the next 10 years. In addition, Reggie McKenzie is one of the best GMs in football and I have complete trust he's going to have the Raiders looking right as long as he's in charge. Mark Davis is a ****ball but that doesn't matter, he doesn't stick his head in football decision and plays his role, Vegas situation aside.

And duh, if our QB goes down we are ******. That's reality for 31/32 teams.

You didn't make one new point that I didn't already say. Appreciate the validation though.

The Niners suck, so when they're good again, it will have nothing to do with that SB team, which was the exact point I was making. It holds no relevance.

The rest of the **** you said is what you hope for and could happen, but projecting 10 years out like that is blind optimism. Sports don't work like that.

 

[SneakerProSr.]

My real question is why is SneakerPro so salt city today?
First the John Stockton slander, now the Raiders aren't good enough to get Megatron

John Stockton is actually great though he just ain't better than Isiah Thomas.

The Raiders have not accomplished anything of note in 30 years.

Dude talking about the Lions letting great players go when the only Hall of Famer that has played most of his career for the Raiders recently went to Green Bay in his prime.

 

[651akathepaul]

Raiders go > .500 for the first time since 2002 and all of the sudden chests are puffed out? People in their feelings because of the RAIDERS?



Yikes.

Little brother of the bay area syndrome in full effect.

We're a major franchise of the league and I don't think anyone can convincingly argue against that.

No one is.

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Is a SB appearance in the last 16 years really relevant though? What players on that SB team still play? The Raiders sucked for 13 straight years you say, but now they're good again, so they become more relevant?

"The Lions were just as trash for much of that same period and are now an adequate team."

In those past 13 seasons you alluded to as being trash for trash, the Lions have made the playoffs 3 times to the Raiders 1. One could argue the potential of Oakland for the future, but injuries or not, they still lost a playoff game just as Detroit did last season, so outside of paper football they hold no real proven edge over Detroit. It's all optimism. Optimism is concluding a most favorable outcome that is not yet realized, so again, where's the relevance?

The Raiders being "built to last" is about as relevant as their QB's health, right? Point is, you never know what happens and optimism can't me mistaken for actual results, just as past success is no indicator of current relevance.

The Raiders are relevant now because they are good now. I don't think that's a difficult concept to grasp.

Optimism because the team is young and competitive. If you need absolute results i.e. a Super Bowl win then I guess everyone needs to shut up about their team and sit on their hands.

Again, are we in the position of being quiet because we can't see the future? What's the point of sports discussions/banter if we're not willing to see the present for what it is and extrapolate from that? If the Raiders are awful again going forward then so be it; I don't think many are willing to bet that will be the case though.

You asked why the comparison of Johnson's tenure to Oakland's franchise and I explained to you the relevance, so who is having a hard time grasping the conversation, you or me? Nothing you said addressed the topic. You're excited...Cool, man. Happy for you. That has **** to do with Oakland's history.

You either missed my point or did a piss-poor job of 'explaining' to me the relevance.

The overall history of the Raiders and Calvin Johnson's time in the league have no relationship to one another. Again, to be clear to you, I was talking about the history of the Raiders at large, and I acknowledged that they were no good when Calvin was playing. My question to SP was why are we limiting the Raiders history to his time as a player, as again, the two things do not relate to one another. Unless you think it's appropriate to limit what the Raiders have been to a player's eight year career?

Your "explanation" was worthless.

 

[sohi 23]

What are we really talking about here? Did y'all not see Al davis last few years? Bruh had no future plans, had gone senile and was trynna build a contender in a day every year.

That era of Raiders football is over. I love Al Davis, but the Raiders are a different franchise since he passed. If you can't see that,I can't help you.

I get it tho, same old Raiders... u not gunna change perception until u win a title. Having hall of famers on your team doesn't guarantee ****, but I'd rather ride with Mack, Carr & Reggie over the majority of NFL teams.

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

SneakerProSr. I do have a question outside of what we've been talking about though.

Is it true that Calvin and the Lions have a strained relationship right now?

 

[SneakerProSr.]

What are we really talking about here? Did y'all not see Al davis last few years? Bruh had no future plans, had gone senile and was trynna build a contender in a day every year.

That era of Raiders football is over. I love Al Davis, but the Raiders are a different franchise since he passed. If you can't see that,I can't help you.

I get it tho, same old Raiders... u not gunna change perception until u win a title. Having hall of famers on your team doesn't guarantee ****, but I'd rather ride with Mack, Carr & Reggie over the majority of NFL teams.

In 2011 the Lions had Calvin, Suh and Stafford and had just made the playoffs for the first time in 14 years

Sound familiar?

 

[651akathepaul]

Is a SB appearance in the last 16 years really relevant though? What players on that SB team still play? The Raiders sucked for 13 straight years you say, but now they're good again, so they become more relevant?

"The Lions were just as trash for much of that same period and are now an adequate team."

In those past 13 seasons you alluded to as being trash for trash, the Lions have made the playoffs 3 times to the Raiders 1. One could argue the potential of Oakland for the future, but injuries or not, they still lost a playoff game just as Detroit did last season, so outside of paper football they hold no real proven edge over Detroit. It's all optimism. Optimism is concluding a most favorable outcome that is not yet realized, so again, where's the relevance?

The Raiders being "built to last" is about as relevant as their QB's health, right? Point is, you never know what happens and optimism can't me mistaken for actual results, just as past success is no indicator of current relevance.

The Raiders are relevant now because they are good now. I don't think that's a difficult concept to grasp.

Optimism because the team is young and competitive. If you need absolute results i.e. a Super Bowl win then I guess everyone needs to shut up about their team and sit on their hands.

Again, are we in the position of being quiet because we can't see the future? What's the point of sports discussions/banter if we're not willing to see the present for what it is and extrapolate from that? If the Raiders are awful again going forward then so be it; I don't think many are willing to bet that will be the case though.

You asked why the comparison of Johnson's tenure to Oakland's franchise and I explained to you the relevance, so who is having a hard time grasping the conversation, you or me? Nothing you said addressed the topic. You're excited...Cool, man. Happy for you. That has **** to do with Oakland's history.

You either missed my point or did a piss-poor job of 'explaining' to me the relevance.

The overall history of the Raiders and Calvin Johnson's time in the league have no relationship to one another. Again, to be clear to you, I was talking about the history of the Raiders at large, and I acknowledged that they were no good when Calvin was playing. My question to SP was why are we limiting the Raiders history to his time as a player, as again, the two things do not relate to one another. Unless you think it's appropriate to limit what the Raiders have been to a player's eight year career?

Your "explanation" was worthless.

So, your pointed responses to what I said is just now at a point where you want to suggest that I missed the point? Not sure why you took the offensive earlier then, if I was misguided. That would make no sense -- prolonging something you weren't arguing for in the first place.

 

[sohi 23]

The Raiders were a team players went to to cash out for their last NFL checks.

Now we got Lynch and Calvin coming out of retirement to **** with us. This **** feels good as ****. I'm sorry y'all think it's the same Raiders of the late Al Davis era. That's simply not the case.

 

[HNL HI]

swear this Lions vs RAIDERS debate comes up once a season

in reality both teams ain't been ****, Lions fans sound more hurt about it tho

 

[651akathepaul]

The Raiders were a team players went to to cash out for their last NFL checks.

Now we got Lynch and Calvin coming out of retirement to **** with us. This **** feels good as ****..

Did you proof read this? Players cashing out their last checks with the Raiders and you have two players coming out of retirement to cash what?...The first checks of their new, 10-year careers? This is their last money grab too, SoHi.



I don't believe Lynch's decision is money driven more than it is wanting to play for his home team, but your point wasn't a good one.