• This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Sports Trash Talk (6 Viewers)

BarrieJ3 said:
Strange you think more deepshots wouldn’t have helped seeing as I think he was 3 for 4, long TD called back, complete, def PI, and overthrown.
Click to expand...
Aged like wine :D

Let the man throw the damn ball. 21-30 for 350 yards. 9 incompletions are under ran route, interception, 2 hit at the throw/batted down, 5ish drops/hit the hands, one bad throw.
RocAFella1 said:
@BarrieJ3 how bout them Cheefs
Click to expand...
Woooooooooo I'm so pumped!!!!!!!
 
And as a Raiders fan, I full expect for us to go to overtime and lose. Just please, please, please don't tighten up and just run, 2 yard dump off, run, punt.

edit:Whee!
 
Last edited:
MAHOMES 100.jpg
 
I think if any possibly opportunity presents itself, Derek Carr is gone at the end of this year fo sho. I'm ride or die Raiders, and I know Gruden is a play it close to the vest kinda guy, but I just don't trust him one damn bit.

I watch post game interviews every week, watch what I can during the week, and the whole thing sounds/feels fake. He's an offensive genius, but all his little gimmicks and never throwing the ball further than 3 yards didn't work out the first couple of years. Head Coach and GM bring in the highest paid backup who they gush over (Mariota). They get some better weapons, and both the team personnel and gameflow start to dictate the QB has to throw. The QB throws pretty damn well, and the team's offense hums along pretty well, but there's never a real compliment.

They ask Gruden about going for it on 4th and 1 to seal the game, and of course he's going to mention not wanting to give the ball back to Mahomes, but then kind of compares Mahomes and Carr. They ask specifically about what the win means for someone like Carr, and he deflects saying that it's a great win to show the young guys. I've never once heard Gruden really compliment Carr or talk about him as a true leader (even in the Gruden way of doing it).

But get the other guys on the podium, and they all mention something. The guy is a leader, the guy didn't falter/he wasn't worried, we put trust in Carr, etc.

SOMETHING is off. Gruden likes rookie deals and veterans he can plug and play, I think he personally detests paying a chunk of salary on someone like Carr. I wish team/local beat reporters could share what really goes on.

(and if you haven't listened to rookies speak, you should. It's amazing the professionalism and polish with which they deliver responses these days. Everyone tries to catch them - how big was your return to the team this week? - but they do an awesome job of team first non specific answers. They'd make great politicians)
 
BarrieJ3 said:
I think if any possibly opportunity presents itself, Derek Carr is gone at the end of this year fo sho. I'm ride or die Raiders, and I know Gruden is a play it close to the vest kinda guy, but I just don't trust him one damn bit.

I watch post game interviews every week, watch what I can during the week, and the whole thing sounds/feels fake. He's an offensive genius, but all his little gimmicks and never throwing the ball further than 3 yards didn't work out the first couple of years. Head Coach and GM bring in the highest paid backup who they gush over (Mariota). They get some better weapons, and both the team personnel and gameflow start to dictate the QB has to throw. The QB throws pretty damn well, and the team's offense hums along pretty well, but there's never a real compliment.

They ask Gruden about going for it on 4th and 1 to seal the game, and of course he's going to mention not wanting to give the ball back to Mahomes, but then kind of compares Mahomes and Carr. They ask specifically about what the win means for someone like Carr, and he deflects saying that it's a great win to show the young guys. I've never once heard Gruden really compliment Carr or talk about him as a true leader (even in the Gruden way of doing it).

But get the other guys on the podium, and they all mention something. The guy is a leader, the guy didn't falter/he wasn't worried, we put trust in Carr, etc.

SOMETHING is off. Gruden likes rookie deals and veterans he can plug and play, I think he personally detests paying a chunk of salary on someone like Carr. I wish team/local beat reporters could share what really goes on.

(and if you haven't listened to rookies speak, you should. It's amazing the professionalism and polish with which they deliver responses these days. Everyone tries to catch them - how big was your return to the team this week? - but they do an awesome job of team first non specific answers. They'd make great politicians)
Click to expand...
Jon Gruden - whether or not you like him, you know he is smart. Derek Carr has proven that he is (while maybe not great) worthy of being a starting quarterback in the NFL. After this season he has 2 years left on his deal and only 2.5 million dead if the team has to cut him. That alone makes Carr a VALUABLE trade asset. If you can get a decent little haul for him ......... well .......... why not?
 
tabletalker7 said:
Jon Gruden - whether or not you like him, you know he is smart
Click to expand...
Time and results will prove whether his efforts and focus works these days or not. He's not a player's coach, and he's not organization friendly. Most GM/Coach positions do not work these days, as roles are so specialized. See Bill OBrien and Doc Rivers as recent examples. Gruden has his fingerprints over every move, and their focus has been on putting together a team of football playing jessies. The problem is, the big question mark draft picks have proven to be questionable and not genius more oft than not. The Jessies can't stay on the field.

tabletalker7 said:
Derek Carr has proven that he is (while maybe not great) worthy of being a starting quarterback in the NFL. After this season he has 2 years left on his deal and only 2.5 million dead if the team has to cut him. That alone makes Carr a VALUABLE trade asset. If you can get a decent little haul for him ......... well .......... why not?
Click to expand...
But you're not wrong on exercising options and realizing greatest value of assets. New England has done it for years. Seattle does a great job of it. Colts suck and have been injury plagued, but they don't do a bad job. Most in depth analysis has shown how crazy difficult it is to win a championship these days when position X makes Y% of yearly cap. BUT, those other places continue to be FA destinations. Because of the ownership, coaching staff, and administrations. They are mostly known as being upfront with their athletes, and they run solid programs so that when players leave they are often still wanted and can often cash in elsewhere. The raiders are not a free agent destination. They ride rookie contracts and veteran rehab projects.

The Raiders are a joke, in recent history they are one of thee most futile professional sports teams by an extremely large number of measurements. It was not long ago where it was a great game if we scored a touchdown, and early season hopes were that you won a game or two by season's end. Carr is a face of the franchise who represents the grueling endurance to the play the right way for a loser. He's a bit more than capable of starting, we're talking previously league MVP status, and when given even half a cupboard can go toe to toe with the Rogers' and Mahomes'.

Mariota was talked up 10x bigger than Carr, given the biggest backup contract there is, gets injured, and Carr is trying to ball out. Given Chucky's history with large contract players, as well as the usually not great breakup that happens (which then generates stories of discontent, which can lower player value), to put his name on the franchise by taking advantage of Carr's value and trading at the end of the year would be disasterous. We are not New England, every year isn't championship or bust, Chucky doesn't have any relevant (read recent) success - we are not in a position to sacrifice or f**k over the guy that has led us out of the dark ages.

(Maybe I'm just salty that in a year where my top running back was Doug Martin in the last year of his career and my top wide receivers were Jordy Nelson (also in his last year), Marcell Ateman, and Seth Roberts, they couldn't even just leave Janikowski and Marquette King on the team for fun)
 
BarrieJ3 said:
Time and results will prove whether his efforts and focus works these days or not. He's not a player's coach, and he's not organization friendly. Most GM/Coach positions do not work these days, as roles are so specialized. See Bill OBrien and Doc Rivers as recent examples. Gruden has his fingerprints over every move, and their focus has been on putting together a team of football playing jessies. The problem is, the big question mark draft picks have proven to be questionable and not genius more oft than not. The Jessies can't stay on the field.


But you're not wrong on exercising options and realizing greatest value of assets. New England has done it for years. Seattle does a great job of it. Colts suck and have been injury plagued, but they don't do a bad job. Most in depth analysis has shown how crazy difficult it is to win a championship these days when position X makes Y% of yearly cap. BUT, those other places continue to be FA destinations. Because of the ownership, coaching staff, and administrations. They are mostly known as being upfront with their athletes, and they run solid programs so that when players leave they are often still wanted and can often cash in elsewhere. The raiders are not a free agent destination. They ride rookie contracts and veteran rehab projects.

The Raiders are a joke, in recent history they are one of thee most futile professional sports teams by an extremely large number of measurements. It was not long ago where it was a great game if we scored a touchdown, and early season hopes were that you won a game or two by season's end. Carr is a face of the franchise who represents the grueling endurance to the play the right way for a loser. He's a bit more than capable of starting, we're talking previously league MVP status, and when given even half a cupboard can go toe to toe with the Rogers' and Mahomes'.

Mariota was talked up 10x bigger than Carr, given the biggest backup contract there is, gets injured, and Carr is trying to ball out. Given Chucky's history with large contract players, as well as the usually not great breakup that happens (which then generates stories of discontent, which can lower player value), to put his name on the franchise by taking advantage of Carr's value and trading at the end of the year would be disasterous. We are not New England, every year isn't championship or bust, Chucky doesn't have any relevant (read recent) success - we are not in a position to sacrifice or f**k over the guy that has led us out of the dark ages.

(Maybe I'm just salty that in a year where my top running back was Doug Martin in the last year of his career and my top wide receivers were Jordy Nelson (also in his last year), Marcell Ateman, and Seth Roberts, they couldn't even just leave Janikowski and Marquette King on the team for fun)
Click to expand...
While your thoughts might be right on Jon Gruden, I can tell you this. The Raiders are avoided by FA not because of Gruden, but because the owner is broke! The Carr contract was written like it was because Mark Davis didn't have any tangible assets other than the team, and that was the only way they could afford it. Everyone knew Kalil Mack was worth every cent a team could throw at him, and yet the dominant speculation when he was traded is that Mark Davis couldn't afford to pay him to keep him! Now Gruden's picks may not be pretty (Josh Jacobs speaks to the contrary), but until ownership gets their finances in order no one is going to stay there or go there. The Raiders have no choice but to use the draft to turn things around. With that in mind, and how NE only signed Cam for one year, isn't it smart for Gruden to consider a 2021 first and 2022 fourth from the Patriots for Carr and a 2022 fifth?
 
tabletalker7 said:
While your thoughts might be right on Jon Gruden, I can tell you this. The Raiders are avoided by FA not because of Gruden, but because the owner is broke! The Carr contract was written like it was because Mark Davis didn't have any tangible assets other than the team, and that was the only way they could afford it. Everyone knew Kalil Mack was worth every cent a team could throw at him, and yet the dominant speculation when he was traded is that Mark Davis couldn't afford to pay him to keep him! Now Gruden's picks may not be pretty (Josh Jacobs speaks to the contrary), but until ownership gets their finances in order no one is going to stay there or go there. The Raiders have no choice but to use the draft to turn things around. With that in mind, and how NE only signed Cam for one year, isn't it smart for Gruden to consider a 2021 first and 2022 fourth from the Patriots for Carr and a 2022 fifth?
Click to expand...
You're talking about speculation and conjecture. I'm talking about trends and historicals.

Also, Josh Jacobs was the consensus number 1 running back in the draft. It was a draft where almost noone had a glaring need at running back, and the raiders finished the season literally without a RB (lynch hurt, martin retiring). So I don't think that a RB desperate team drafting the number 1 RB with their late first round pick speaks to the contrary or any masterful genius.

I don't know of any players that signed contract and haven't been paid on the Raiders? I fail to see why players would take that into account at all when looking at Oakland (now LV) as a landing destination, especially when the focus is often one to two year prove it deals. And all this while there are literally players who are in lawsuits to receive pay, bonuses, etc. from other teams in the league. I'm all for debate, but bruv, just doesn't make much sense.

edit: and no. I'm not giving up Carr in his prime for a first round pick when I have Sam Darnold, Minshew, Jones, Lock, Mayfield, Tannehill starting in the league, multiple injuries to QBs, and a lack of backups. Bananas.
 
Last edited:
BarrieJ3 said:
You're talking about speculation and conjecture. I'm talking about trends and historicals.

Also, Josh Jacobs was the consensus number 1 running back in the draft. It was a draft where almost noone had a glaring need at running back, and the raiders finished the season literally without a RB (lynch hurt, martin retiring). So I don't think that a RB desperate team drafting the number 1 RB with their late first round pick speaks to the contrary or any masterful genius.

I don't know of any players that signed contract and haven't been paid on the Raiders? I fail to see why players would take that into account at all when looking at Oakland (now LV) as a landing destination, especially when the focus is often one to two year prove it deals. And all this while there are literally players who are in lawsuits to receive pay, bonuses, etc. from other teams in the league. I'm all for debate, but bruv, I don't think you have a great grasp on any of these topics.
Click to expand...
Bro, even ESPN reported that Carr extension was worked the way it was to help ownership. The next year was the Jon Gruden 10 year 100 million contract. The next year Kalil Mack holds out saying "pay me or trade me" at the same time a big bulk payment on the 1.1 billion of Raider money was due for Allegiant Stadium, then sprinkle in some Antonio Brown train wreck and dude your owner is broke! And seriously man, I verified all this on Google while typing this out; this is all public knowledge by now. My Bills had a similar problem (not that Ralph Wilson was broke, he was just too cheap to spend any money on players) and once the Pegulas bought the team, they just drill for more oil and natural gas if they need to pay talent. What does Mark Davis have to back him, other than the team?
 
The Davis' have long been known to not have the financial prowess or backing of other owners. This goes back decades, their greatest equity is the literal team.

I fail to see how you think that that is effecting whether free agents see OAK/LV as a landing destination. They have 6 million in cap space. They aren't spending or paying less than other teams? They don't sign or cut people going, oh man we need to save a million bucks here? They are literally operating in the same space as the poorest or richest owner in the league. There are teams that are literally holding up pay of players over interpretation of terms in a contract, the Raiders not among them.

Me saying you don't make much sense has nothing to do with whether or not Raider's ownership is wealthy independent of the team, it has to do with the fact that you think Mark Davis' personal financial projections directly correlates with whether or not the Raiders are a FA destination :ROFL: :ROFLMAO: (and not the organizational structure, team culture, coaching styles, coaching staff, impact on career, playing time, previous Free Agent signees, etc.)
 
Man ... If you think a FA, who already knows he is shortening his lifespan by playing football in the first place, isn't going to make sure the owner can actually pay up before he discusses any potential contract?!? Who's fooling who here man? I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. I have been known to do mechanic work from time to time, and I have turned people down because I was afraid they might not be able to pay. You think a FA, with millions on the line and an agent making 10 percent, isn't doing the same thing I am?
 
Okay dude, good talk :tup: The raiders aren't in the top half of the league regarding fining their own players or voiding guarantees based on behavior/ethics, and have literally no history of not paying someone. There are also standards in place via NFL bylaws as well as NFLPA agreements that either prevent solvency or help guarantee agree pay terms. Add to that that there are literally current teams with actual payment problems at this time, which has 0 impact on their incoming FA prospects.

You can spout off random shit repeatedly that has no bearing on statistics or fact, or is what *you* would do, but that has no relevance in the real world. I have never heard even a whisper of any agent (who would be the one both in the know and worried, not the player) advising a player to avoid a team (specifically LV) due to solvency issues. There have been many circumstances of player and agent alike avoiding the Raiders for other previously detailed reasons, but hey those are just objective facts, yuck.

Gl to the Bills. I'll read your book one day about these apparent stories that I've never remotely heard of before, it'll be enlightening for me.
 
BarrieJ3 said:
Okay dude, good talk :tup: The raiders aren't in the top half of the league regarding fining their own players or voiding guarantees based on behavior/ethics, and have literally no history of not paying someone. There are also standards in place via NFL bylaws as well as NFLPA agreements that either prevent solvency or help guarantee agree pay terms. Add to that that there are literally current teams with actual payment problems at this time, which has 0 impact on their incoming FA prospects.

You can spout off random shit repeatedly that has no bearing on statistics or fact, or is what *you* would do, but that has no relevance in the real world. I have never heard even a whisper of any agent (who would be the one both in the know and worried, not the player) advising a player to avoid a team (specifically LV) due to solvency issues. There have been many circumstances of player and agent alike avoiding the Raiders for other previously detailed reasons, but hey those are just objective facts, yuck.

Gl to the Bills. I'll read your book one day about these apparent stories that I've never remotely heard of before, it'll be enlightening for me.
Click to expand...
https://www.raidersbeat.com/raiders-still-dealing-with-cash-flow-issue-after-move-to-las-vegas/

And seeing as how this came from "Raiders Beat", it is obvious there are serious problems there. Maybe you should read this. Maybe, just maybe
BarrieJ3 said:
it'll be enlightening for me.
Click to expand...
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/sacram...raiders-deals-include-no-signing-bonuses/amp/

We’ve been through this before, many times, and will probably do so many more times. Actually quite a few teams have like happenings. Several generally refuse any signing bonus for short term deals that leave too much in dead money.

But sure, I could see Covid and the leagues recent push towards not paying “guarantees” as guarantees if games aren’t played making bonuses an issue. Literally due to a current ongoing pandemic, and AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, not something that has historically impacted any team as a landing spot for FA compared to the litany of more suitable and widely more documented reasons. But a good link nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
BarrieJ3 said:
But sure, I could see Covid and the leagues recent push towards not paying “guarantees” as guarantees if games aren’t played making bonuses an issue. Literally due to a current ongoing pandemic
Click to expand...
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28927076/sources-nfl-teams-put-coronavirus-clauses-deals
Bonuses were not a problem this free agency period.


BarrieJ3 said:
AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, not something that has historically impacted any team as a landing spot for FA compared to the litany of more suitable and widely more documented reasons.
Click to expand...

https://sportsnaut.com/raiders-news-leveon-bell-not-enough-money/
https://www.raidersbeat.com/report-cash-is-an-issue-for-raiders-chances-of-trading-for-jalen-ramsey/
I can find articles on other teams borrowing money from each other to make payroll, but nothing about cash flow (not salary cap) preventing personnel manuvers like with the Raiders. I remember the letter from the NFLPA telling players not to go to Jacksonville, but that was about Tom Coughlin not cash flow. Hopefully the sale/leaseback of team headquarters in Henderson sures up these issues with Mark Davis (depending on leaseback terms)https://www.newsbreak.com/nevada/la...eback-is-latest-such-deal-in-las-vegas-valley but it is obvious Mark Davis has been operating in a bad environment for a while.
 
On a different note - everybody say a prayer for Dak Prescott. I am known as a Cowboy Hater, but you never, NEVER want to see anyone take an injury like that. Nobody deserves that, and it was a pure fluke accident (it didn't look like that Giants player was trying to do anything other than make a tackle). That was horrible.
 
tabletalker7 said:
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28927076/sources-nfl-teams-put-coronavirus-clauses-deals
Bonuses were not a problem this free agency period.
Click to expand...
It's an extremely different year as bonuses are a focus (they aren't a problem, the problem is the definition and comprehension of the word "guaranteed" - as in guaranteed money is only guaranteed if the NFL plays all it's games).

tabletalker7 said:
https://sportsnaut.com/raiders-news-leveon-bell-not-enough-money/
https://www.raidersbeat.com/report-cash-is-an-issue-for-raiders-chances-of-trading-for-jalen-ramsey/
I can find articles on other teams borrowing money from each other to make payroll, but nothing about cash flow (not salary cap) preventing personnel manuvers like with the Raiders. I remember the letter from the NFLPA telling players not to go to Jacksonville, but that was about Tom Coughlin not cash flow. Hopefully the sale/leaseback of team headquarters in Henderson sures up these issues with Mark Davis (depending on leaseback terms)https://www.newsbreak.com/nevada/la...eback-is-latest-such-deal-in-las-vegas-valley but it is obvious Mark Davis has been operating in a bad environment for a while.
Click to expand...
You're just moving the goalposts again. This is old news. For the now 15th time, the financial issues with the Raiders have never made it a location avoided by Free Agents. If they can't pay someone enough, then they don't sign. But noone is turning the Raiders down because of solvency issues. I don't know how many different ways I can say it.
 
BarrieJ3 said:
You're just moving the goalposts again. This is old news. For the now 15th time, the financial issues with the Raiders have never made it a location avoided by Free Agents. If they can't pay someone enough, then they don't sign. But noone is turning the Raiders down because of solvency issues. I don't know how many different ways I can say it.
Click to expand...
Wow this was so obsurdly wrong it actually made my phone lock up and I had to restart it (not joking, my phone seriously locked up when this opened). I have NOT ONCE "moved the goalposts". I said in the beginning that Mark Davis is broke. I presented you with multiple news articles showing his "cash flow issues". For 15 times you have said "a broke owner doesn't make FA not come here" but it does! The NFLPA collective bargaining agreement has nothing stating what a player or team can do if an owner can't pay (go to nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net and download a copy of it for yourself) and I can't find any indication of it being mentioned in the NFL charter (I can't find a copy of the NFL charter for that matter). NFL owners have always lent each other cash to make payroll (mainly to keep them out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy where a court can now peek into the league offices books, you know like what happened every time an NHL team had to do that) but there is nothing documented to protect players individual payroll in the event of a lack of cash. Now I know league owners increased individual teams debt ceiling to 500 million this past off-season, but just less than half the teams took advantage of the extra leverage, and those were teams (like the Raiders) still dealing with debt from new stadiums. But since you have said it 15 times already, say it once more. HOW DOES A TEAM GET FREE AGENTS TO COME VISIT THEM WHEN IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THE OWNER IS BROKE AND CAN'T PAY THEM WHAT ANY OTHER TEAM CAN?
 
Now it's that Free Agents are going to play for the teams that will pay them the most? Thanks for the revelation.

This is about as good as you making up shit on advanced statistics you're unfamiliar with or that Jacobs was a "pretty" pick. See ya.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

E
Could Biff Tannen Succeed in Today's Sports Betting Market?
Replies
6
Views
214
Benjaminotaur
Benjaminotaur
Gunnar
Betting on American sports
Replies
1
Views
146
doublebooyah85
doublebooyah85
Y
Wedding favor poker chip suggestions
Replies
12
Views
283
yahpokerchips
Y
HiveKueen
Tourney Side games for busted players
Replies
14
Views
344
Defarse
D
kidpurple
Greetings from Arizona
Replies
8
Views
71
97destroyer
97destroyer
Back
Top Bottom