Jump to content

Raiders close to signing Mariota


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, BudAdams said:

 

Oilerman agrees with me that Robinson was the one responsible for Mariota playing the first six games.....

Like I said 6 pages ago, your opinion doesn't matter anymore on this as no one will remember it, we went to the AFCCG, Robinson is being hailed as being brilliant (Tannehill trade, Simmons pick along with his great track record as a drafter) and that he is one of the most secure GMs in the league (and was never close to being on the hotseat.)

 

You've wisely pivoted away from trashing Robinson and are now left to just digging amongst the scraps.

Edited by japan
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 603
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Las Vegas is the funniest American city to imagine Mariota living.

Look at this disgusting fuckweasel.

Posted Images

1 minute ago, japan said:

Like I said 6 pages ago, your opinion doesn't matter anymore on this as no one will remember it, we went to the AFCCG, Robinson is being hailed as being brilliant (Tannehill trade, Simmons pick along with his great track record as a drafter) and that he is one of the most secure GMs in the league (and was never close to being on the hotseat.)

 

Wrong.  As usual, you try to deflect your idiocy by misrepresenting and exaggerating any valid criticisms of your beloved JRob.  You did the same thing with Mariota until the last year.   The end result of the AFCC loss doesn't mean that the self inflicted error was a good decision.  All it means is that Vrabel's snapping point and Tannehill's elite play saved them from having it cost them a promising season.

 

The idea that Robinson and Vrabel would not have had heat on them in 2020 (which is what I said) if they missed the playoffs in a year where Indy lost Luck to a sudden retirement, the Texans were in some disarray, and the Jags imploded is absolutely true.  Missing the playoffs would have been a massive underachievement - the kind of thing that puts regimes under a microscope.  The fact that it would have been self inflicted would have been incredibly stupid.

 

Same with the looking at the Tannehill trade - the move to trade for him was great (and long overdue given the Cassel and Gabbert debacles) but handcuffing him as the backup with no valid competition was dumb as the team had no long term commitment to either guy.  It still is dumb in hindsight.  Mariota started for reasons beyond production - salary certainly was a big factor.

 

14 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

And barring injury there was no way Mariota wasn't going to be given a shot.  These clowns can try and say they knew Tannehill would light it up and they are full of it.

 

 

It was obvious that Tannehill was better than Mariota in TC.  Tannehill playing elite was one thing but he was worlds better than Mariota when side by side.  Giving dumb dumb six games was way too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He wasn't playing great or good by any means. But you had to wait until he was racking up turnovers and completely imploded. That's the only way to leave no doubt to the uninformed fans and owner.  Or, you'd have a fanbase wondering if you would've won more games with wonderboy even if Tannehill went 13-3.

 

This is how it works with QBs drafted high. You hold on for dear life until the rope snaps.

Edited by big2033
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, big2033 said:

He wasn't playing great or good by any means. But you had to wait until he was racking up turnovers and completely imploded. That's the only way to leave no doubt to the uninformed fans and owner.  Or, you'd have a fanbase wondering if you would've won more games with wonderboy even if Tannehill went 13-3.

 

This is how it works with QBs drafted high. You hold on for dear life until the rope snaps.

 

You don't make decisions based on what fans think.  Especially this fan base.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

 

@BudAdams More BS from the idiot.  Maybe we could agree Tannehill should have been in there sooner but Mariota was going to start game one.... period.  TC doesn't mean crap.  Mariota was a 5th year QB making $20 mil and it was his job to lose.  Also, Mariota had a 133 QB rating in our first game.  93.5 the second and 81.7 the 3rd (Jags) but bounced back with a 130 in the 4th game.  No he didn't play great but this idea they should have pulled him based on his play has no merit.  Remember they didn't know Tannehill would look so good.  You don't play musical chairs with the QB in the NFL.  Soon as he imploded against Denver they made a change.  

 

You seriously are going to Passer Rating to defend MM in weeks 2 and 3 when he was HORRIBLE???  Even the Cleveland game was where the team threw something like 5 passes in the 2nd half and 3 were easy TD's (one thanks to Henry's YAC and the two gimmees to Walker.....LOL.

 

I agree that Mariota played because he was making 20 M and IMO that should have enabled him to go into TC as the starter.  Of course, that's where it should have ended.  The team was good everywhere but at QB.  Anyone watching Tannehill and Mariota in preseason could see the gap.  In fact, the first preseason game started the national chatter because MM looked so bad and Tannehill so good.  That's also when the reports came out about the coaches wanting to play the best guy (how coincidental)........  If they would have had an open competition, Tannehill undoubtedly would have won. 

 

The same gap continued in the regular season.  Mariota legitimately had two good halves in the six games and even in those quarters, the play design enabled wide open easy throws that pumped up those Passer Ratings.......In the other 18 halves or so, Mariota was the same guy we saw for years.  The film didn't lie - open plays left on the field and the successful ones were schemed, horrid point production, etc. 

 

Tannehill exceeding expectations had nothing to do with being better than Mariota.  He always was better and there's plenty of evidence that the coaches knew it.  Mariota played based on BS pedigree/salary.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BudAdams said:

 

You seriously are going to Passer Rating to defend MM in weeks 2 and 3 when he was HORRIBLE???  Even the Cleveland game was where the team threw something like 5 passes in the 2nd half and 3 were easy TD's (one thanks to Henry's YAC and the two gimmees to Walker.....LOL.

It's like he never watched the games.  That Jacksonville game was the pits and is an example of why you shouldn't always trust passer rating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, rns90 said:

It's like he never watched the games.  That Jacksonville game was the pits and is an example of why you shouldn't always trust passer rating.

 

He had something like a 65 rating versus Cleveland until the 4th quarter when they scored on the 75 yard screen pass that went two yards in the air and the two short passes to Walker after Baker started turning the ball over.....

 

Not to mention Mariota is the poster child for things like PFF Rating and QBR based on all of the unnecessary sacks or non effective scrambles on plays where he won't throw the damn ball to an NFL open receiver or a second read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BudAdams said:

Not to mention Mariota is the poster child for things like PFF Rating and QBR based on all of the unnecessary sacks or non effective scrambles on plays where he won't throw the damn ball to an NFL open receiver or a second read.

Which is why it's laughable that some here (and elsewhere) believe he'll somehow become better in OAK.  You can't fix those flaws that he has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BudAdams said:

 

He had something like a 65 rating versus Cleveland until the 4th quarter when they scored on the 75 yard screen pass that went two yards in the air and the two short passes to Walker after Baker started turning the ball over.....

 

Not to mention Mariota is the poster child for things like PFF Rating and QBR based on all of the unnecessary sacks or non effective scrambles on plays where he won't throw the damn ball to an NFL open receiver or a second read.

Mariota has always scored reasonably well per PFF , and QBR as well prior to this year.  At least compared to the perception that several of us had of him.  In no way was Tannehill superior to him in any measure.  Even if he did look better in practice, that hadn't translated to games or to the win column so there was nothing to sell the QB change to anyone.  Using preseason as evidence sure as hell wouldn't justify the change.

Edited by abc2330
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, abc2330 said:

Mariota has always scored reasonably well per PFF , and QBR as well prior to this year.  At least compared to the perception that several of us had of him.  In no way was Tannehill superior to him in any measure.  Even if he did look better in practice, that hadn't translated to games or to the win column so there was nothing to sell the QB change to anyone.  Using preseason as evidence sure as hell wouldn't justify the change.

I was a big mariota defender over the years but by week 5 it was so obvious that he had lost all confidence that it was insane to trot him out there. The guy was so shell shocked he wore his helmet on the sidelines like he was still worried about being hit.

Edited by Callidus
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, abc2330 said:

Mariota has always scored reasonably well per PFF , and QBR as well prior to this year.  In no way was Tannehill superior to him in any measure.  Even if he did look better in practice, that hadn't translated to games or to the win column so there was nothing to sell the QB change to anyone.  Using preseason as evidence sure as hell wouldn't justify the change.

 

Anyone who watched the game film and those outside of Nashville knew Mariota was the problem.  The Sando poll sure knew.  Sounds like the coaches knew too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BudAdams said:

 

You don't make decisions based on what fans think.  Especially this fan base.....

 

I'm going to give you a dose of reality here ... your logic does not matter.

 

It's the way it is. Not just for our franchise but for every franchise.

 

Unless the highly drafted QB pulls a Manziel ... they're going to give him a long rope till it breaks.

 

Accept the reality. It'll happen again and again and again and again. 

 

This is why it's imperative you pick right. You're not drafting a position, you're drafting a face. And barring an absolute trainwreck they'll be given at least the entirety of their contract.

Edited by big2033
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, big2033 said:

 

I'm going to give you a dose of reality here ... your logic does not matter.

 

It's the way it is. Not just for our franchise but for every franchise.

 

Unless the highly drafted QB pulls a Manziel ... they're going to give him a long rope till it breaks.

 

Accept the reality. It'll happen again and again and again and again. 

Yup.  Happened with Young and Locker beforehand, and especially when Mariota had "successes" in the past (which turned out to be a mirage).  The idiots...err paying public are going to wonder why you're not giving him a chance.  He was also a big part of their PR campaign.  I hate that those type of things matter but the Titans are a business as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...