DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Good Ol' Trent Richardson

I think more than anything it is the way the message is conveyed. I often criticize, but no one has ever called me negative.

Agreed, it has more to do w/personalities than it does w/right and wrong.

deleted

Vers, I by no mean want to go back and count. If I'm not mistaken, each regime starting with Savage only had one success story.

Thomas
Mack
Hayden (maybe Cameron and Gordon)
Trading TRich for a first
Shelton?

So you only saw Hoyers weaknesses and poor play after he left?

Come on Tab.

That's funny because if you read the thread you'll see what a great addition I believe you are to the board. I gave you kudos.

I have at no time said you were a bad poster or lied in your posts.

What I have said, and it's true, is that you show one side of the equation as long as people are here and then suddenly become more objective when they leave. I've said there's nothing wrong with that. It's how you wish to post. That's not a negative thing to me.

But you can go on putting words in my mouth and saying things that were never said or even implied if you wish. I've seen others play the victim on here before. It's nothing new.

Let me tell you a few facts here. You know this game and the positions of the game better than almost anyone on this board. That's a fact. You know full well how to evaluate a player. Fact. You understand the schemes and what works as well as what doesn't work. That's someone who knows football.

You can't pretend you have some miraculous epiphany of how someone preformed once they leave. I'm neither saying that's a good thing nor a bad thing. Just the reality of it. I don't know what it is about that which offends you so.

You've admitted you're a homer. Nothing wrong with that. You've stated that as long as a player is here you'll support them. Nothing wrong with that. You've admitted that once they leave you have no feelings towards that player one way or the other. Nothing wrong with that.

When Hoyer was here, you supported him heavily. When he left you broke down his game with what appeared to me to be zero bias. Now I see nothing wrong with that. I simply commented on the obvious results of the very things you yourself stated.

I don't know if you need medication or what, but you're taking this far too personally. None of it was meant as a nock or an insult.

Please get your panties out of a wad.

Of course, if you make a thread about anyone BUT Brian Hoyer, You'll get nothing but Brian Hoyer comments. Absolutely amazing....

I disagree w/that comment. You did not treat Banner's regime the same as you have others. Not even close. The crazy thing is that I think he was actually the best of all of them. He just never got a chance.

Banner was great he fired 2 head coaches and 2 gms in 8 months of being on the job.

No offense, but who cares about Banner.

Banner is just another in a long line of failed front office types. In the end, he had a very limited impact on the team, with only, IIRC, 5 players he brought in still remaining on the roster only 1 1/2 seasons later. (Kruger, D. Bryant, Mingo, A. Bryant, Poyer)

He made a couple of solid moves, and some really bad moves. He's gone ... just like every other front office type before him. He failed. He's gone.

Jim would have had more rushing ,receiving yards had the season than been 16 games as TRich totals are tallied.

That's an impressive short-list of players to me.

What's ODD to me is that typically when we speak of who brought what players to the team we talk about a GM, (i.e. Clark, Savage, Heckert, etc.) In the case of the "Banner era" we are talking about the CEO not the GM. (We had a GM but he was kept in the background).

I don't care who you are or where you're from or what you drink, that is very un-typical for an NFL franchise. That's all I've got to say about that.




In as far as "regime wars" go I think that's an unfair, made-up division of people in order to corral certain posters into a certain category which then can be used to pigeon-hole them into a certain agenda making their opinions seem less than valid.

The idea that some/many posters seem to have liked every other regime carries a negative connotation. It's not like anyone set out to like every other regime, it just worked out that way due to the people who manned them and how they were viewed by fans.




On the other hand, I think there are psychological reasons why such a thing may exist if I may explain.



For instance, say I like the current regime. I think they're on the right track and can get us winning if given time. They are not given time as they are fired.

Now my favorites are gone and they're replaced by these "chumps" in whom I don't believe can do as well as the last regime. Of course they don't do well because it's a start-up re-boot so most of my assessment of them is geared toward the negative because I thought the last regime to be better. Neither are they given time to improve as they too are fired.

Now, I'm glad those idiots are gone and I'm looking forward to what this new regime can do. Of course they don't do well either because it's another start-up re-boot but most of my assessment of them is geared toward the positive because I want them to be better than the last regime, which I hated. Un fortunately, for me, these guys are fired too.

And so it goes. Another start-up re-boot. Another failure. Another start-up re-boot another failure. Each of the regimes I liked are replaced by a regime I hate, (because they replaced the regime I liked), and then in turn the regime I hated is ultimately replaced by a regime I like, (because they replaced the regime I hated), and it goes on and on which every start-up re-boot and it's been going on since Modell started giving his regimes a short leash thinking he's going to keep replacing regimes until he finds the "right one".

As has been said, there's been a long line of failed regimes. But it is possible that any one, or more than one, of them could have been successful had they been given the time to implement their plan.

But they never are and the fans are being played as the team spirals downward with each change.



Regime wars, if there is such a thing, is not the fault of the fans who get caught-up in it. It's a psychological roller coaster created by clueless owners acting like fickle women jumping from boyfriend to boyfriend looking for Mr. Right.

There's the problem, it's not any of the regimes, it's each of the owners starting with Modell who made the short-leash on regimes seem like the normal thing to do.

Post. Of. The. Year.

so you think bringing in farmer and pettine is a very limited impact on the team. ok.......

Could you please point out where YTown said that...

"No offense, but who cares about Banner.

Banner is just another in a long line of failed front office types. In the end, he had a very limited impact on the team, with only, IIRC, 5 players he brought in still remaining on the roster only 1 1/2 seasons later. (Kruger, D. Bryant, Mingo, A. Bryant, Poyer)

He made a couple of solid moves, and some really bad moves. He's gone ... just like every other front office type before him. He failed. He's gone."

i guess you cannot read bbrowns32? {{{DUH}}}

I like Farmer and Pettine, but they have yet to give us a winning season, so I would say their impact has been limited as of yet, meaning Ytown's statement does hold water.

Well, one could say that their first year in charge (Farmer and Pettine) they did improve the team to 7 wins which is not great, but an better than the last 5 or so years.

So if you are looking at trends (and one year does not make a trend really) it's improved.

THey get to 9 or more this year, and I'm really going to feel excited..

no one said good or bad impact. but GM and coach has more impact than any player. so........ no. doesnt hold water.....

and he didn't say MORE or LESS impact THAN players. He said limited, and so far IMO their impact had been limited.

Have they shown improvement over previous combos? Sure, but we have yet to know if the 7 wins were an anomaly or not. Ending with 5 straight losses doesn't lend one to believe things are still on the upswing. I like to think we have a better roster than in the past, and I like the leadership of Pettine and think he WILL improve this team. But as of today, his record shows limited improvement.

I thought it was obvious that I was speaking of players.

Sorry if I did not make that clear enough.

farmer changed 60% of the roster so far. you think that is limited impact? pettine second year putting his coaching style in. you think that is limited impact? now if people cannot see the impact banner has to this day on this team well........

So what are saying? Banner made a negative impact that has held the team back to this day?

well he brought in farmer so yea i guess you could say negative impact.

So in your eyes Banner was a bad FO guy?

I ask you a question in a polite manner and then you respond with this? I will ask you no more...

good.

So be it...

Well if you thought Banner was good you obviously have an agenda against Haslam who ran him out of town so quickly.

must have been right before they brought in farmer?

So you are saying their plan before they brought in Farmer was to FAIL?

'That’s so Raiders: Trent Richardson got $600,000 guaranteed'

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...partner=ya5nbcs

Posted by Michael David Smith on September 1, 2015, 7:09 AM EDT

Trent Richardson has already been released by the Raiders after just a few months in Oakland, and he pocketed $600,000 for his trouble.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who watched him play in Indianapolis that Richardson wasn’t even good enough to make the 75-player cutdown, let alone make the Raiders’ 53-man roster. Richardson averaged just 3.1 yards a carry for the Colts.

But what is surprising is that when the Colts cut Richardson this offseason, the Raiders quickly swooped in and signed Richardson to a contract with a $600,000 guarantee. Given the way Richardson had played for the Colts, you’d think he’d have to settle for a league-minimum salary. But the Raiders thought otherwise.

Richardson is also still owed his $3.184 million salary from the Colts this season, as that salary was fully guaranteed with no offsets as part of his rookie contract as the No. 3 overall pick with the Browns. He’s doing very well for himself.

The Raiders, on the other hand, now have egg on their faces. Oakland hasn’t had a winning record since 2002, and the Raiders are widely regarded as one of the league’s worst franchises. Young players like Derek Carr, Amari Cooper and Khalil Mack are giving the Raiders hope, but there’s still a perception that the front office just doesn’t get it. And guaranteeing Richardson $600,000 is the kind of move that makes that perception hard to shake.



(end)

Well, we guaranteed a wide receiver that had zero TDs last year over $9 million, so what can we really say about $600k?

I hope we don't say, "oops".

And he's already the one WR who I wish we didn't have.

I'll admit I never really cared for Bowe, I do believe Crabtree will have a better year than Bowe...We definitely rushed signing Bowe, and wish we would have waited and just got Crab...Considering Crab is what 4 years younger, came for a 1/4 price, and both players are rather similar (Not burners, similar size, will make a bonehead drop every here and there, both have/had a diva label) I will give Bowe credit as he seems to be very healthy, well until becoming a Brown lol...I for some reason see Hawkins, Gabriel, Hartline leading us in yards this year...all over Bowe.