Raiders close to signing Mariota

[big2033]

7 minutes ago, rns90 said:

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.

 

The Bears are still starting Mitchell Trubisky and we're going into year four and they've finally brought in competition ... Nick Foles. Not exactly a big replacement.

 

They're going to keep giving him every chance to hold on. And in terms of promising moments he's had a much worse career than Mariota.

Edited March 24, 2020 by big2033

[BudsOilers]

16 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. 

 

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.

 

I do get that although I disagree on the fan front as they are largely irrelevant and in most cases flat out ignorant.   You are giving fans way too much credit for influence.  Ownership, however, is a totally different story and it's where the economics are a real factor.  Plus the FO is also invested on justifying their past decisions.  If I'm paying Mariota $ 21 M and Tannehill $ 2 M, it's not a good optic or highlight on a resume if you immediately determine the vastly cheaper player is the starter.  Easing into it is more palatable for the FO.  Typically, this is where the FO and the coaches tend to split as the coaches simply are worried about winning in the present. 

 

The reality, however, is that both Mariota and Winston were the first two QB's to actually play on the 5th year option.  Every other high pick QB was either extended or had the 5th year option declined.  It was revolutionary territory on how long a team needs to figure out the player.  In both cases, the team probably knew the answer but fought it and one year later both guys will be backups on another team.

 

 

[Titans279]

5 hours ago, Jonboy said:

@BudAdams I know you’ve been waiting for this!

 

 

Thank you for being another draft bust? Lol

[BudsOilers]

They should just copy/paste the template that @MIKE75 used to routinely post.

[Titans279]

29 minutes ago, big2033 said:

 

The Bears are still starting Mitchell Trubisky and we're going into year four and they've finally brought in competition ... Nick Foles. Not exactly a big replacement.

 

They're going to keep giving him every chance to hold on. And in terms of promising moments he's had a much worse career than Mariota.

Teams invest a lot in their highly drafted QBs and probably wait too long to cut the cord on them. It’s not just Tennessee. 

[TerryBoats]

2 hours ago, rns90 said:

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.

If you watched his tape the first 2 years, I could see a coach accepting that challenge.  But his accuracy was so bad during the past 2, and his efficiency so bad the season before that, I would have to pass. 

 

I'm pretty surprised that he didn't retire.  He threw LaFluer under the bus for "putting him in a box", then threw Smith under the bus by claiming that he didn't trust what he was seeing.  Just imagine him trying to do the same with Gruden.  But maybe the success that Tannehill had made him want to end on a higher note.  

[BudsOilers]

1 minute ago, Titans279 said:

Teams invest a lot in their highly drafted QBs and probably wait too long to cut the cord on them. It’s not just Tennessee. 

 

Teams, especially bad ones, routinely fuck this up - poor evaluations/projection, denial of the player's abilities, defending the past decision making.

 

Of course, the flip side is that Belichick benched franchise QB Drew Bledsoe in the same calendar year that he had been made the highest paid player in the NFL for unknown Tom Brady after Bledsoe recovered from his injury.  Seattle decided to start rookie 3rd rounder Russell Wilson over Matt Flynn, who months earlier had signed a big multi-year contract.

 

 

[TerryBoats]

12 minutes ago, BudAdams said:

 

Teams, especially bad ones, routinely fuck this up - poor evaluations/projection, denial of the player's abilities, defending the past decision making.

 

Of course, the flip side is that Belichick benched franchise QB Drew Bledsoe in the same calendar year that he had been made the highest paid player in the NFL for unknown Tom Brady after Bledsoe recovered from his injury.  Seattle decided to start rookie 3rd rounder Russell Wilson over Matt Flynn, who months earlier had signed a big multi-year contract.

 

 

Flynn was guaranteed $9M on a 3 year deal.

Edited March 24, 2020 by abc2330

[BudsOilers]

10 minutes ago, abc2330 said:

Flynn was guaranteed $9M on a 3 year deal.

 

Flynn still made a ton more at the time than the 3rd round pick did.  The point was that the team played the better player, not the one making the most money.  Going into that TC, Flynn was the unquestioned starter.

[TerryBoats]

8 minutes ago, BudAdams said:

 

Flynn still made a ton more at the time than the 3rd round pick did.  The point was that the team played the better player, not the one making the most money.  Going into that TC, Flynn was the unquestioned starter.

Russell Wilson is one of the best football players of all time, and Flynn is worse than Mariota and the team had no affiliation with him prior to that year and spent peanuts on him in FA.  Not even remotely comparable.

Edited March 24, 2020 by abc2330

[wiscotitansfan]

47 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

Teams invest a lot in their highly drafted QBs and probably wait too long to cut the cord on them. It’s not just Tennessee. 

It's not just Tennessee but it's comical to act like the decision to play Mariota as long as he did was remotely logical.

 

By week 3 you could tell he was going to sink the season, it's a business decision to play him but it was very very poor football management trotting him out there killing the rest of the teams chances to win.

[wiscotitansfan]

8 minutes ago, abc2330 said:

Russell Wilson is one of the best football players of all time, and Flynn is worse than Mariota and the team had no affiliation with him prior to that year and spent peanuts on him in FA.  Not even remotely comparable.

You obviously dont remember how that situation played out in real time and just going off what you know now.

 

With that logic, defending Mariota's place in the starting lineup is even more nonsensical if you want to evaluate QB decisions via hindsight

[big2033]

45 minutes ago, BudAdams said:

 

Teams, especially bad ones, routinely fuck this up - poor evaluations/projection, denial of the player's abilities, defending the past decision making.

 

Of course, the flip side is that Belichick benched franchise QB Drew Bledsoe in the same calendar year that he had been made the highest paid player in the NFL for unknown Tom Brady after Bledsoe recovered from his injury.  Seattle decided to start rookie 3rd rounder Russell Wilson over Matt Flynn, who months earlier had signed a big multi-year contract.

 

 

 

EVERY. TEAM. There's no other way. That's why drafting one is a risk. Period. 

 

Flynn was drafted in the 7th round by Green Bay ... why is this an example?

[big2033]

1 hour ago, BudAdams said:

 

I do get that although I disagree on the fan front as they are largely irrelevant and in most cases flat out ignorant.   You are giving fans way too much credit for influence.  Ownership, however, is a totally different story and it's where the economics are a real factor.  Plus the FO is also invested on justifying their past decisions.  If I'm paying Mariota $ 21 M and Tannehill $ 2 M, it's not a good optic or highlight on a resume if you immediately determine the vastly cheaper player is the starter.  Easing into it is more palatable for the FO.  Typically, this is where the FO and the coaches tend to split as the coaches simply are worried about winning in the present. 

 

The reality, however, is that both Mariota and Winston were the first two QB's to actually play on the 5th year option.  Every other high pick QB was either extended or had the 5th year option declined.  It was revolutionary territory on how long a team needs to figure out the player.  In both cases, the team probably knew the answer but fought it and one year later both guys will be backups on another team.

 

 

 

Unless upper management has already given up on the QB ... every coach, staff, and GM brought in to a team with a fresh top draft pick at QB get the job with the disclaimer that they'll give that player EVERY opportunity. 

 

You go down with the ship and try to win while doing it. That's the risk a staff takes. Luckily Vrabel was able to win WHILE Mariota struggled. If that wasn't the case I guarantee it would've been clean house at the end of Mariota's tenure.

 

And, unless I'm wrong, I don't believe rookie contracts always had 5th year options ... so calling it revolutionary is a little much. That said, both players were tweeners in terms of success/failure.

 

Winston would have huge highs and lows, Mariota would small flashes surrounded by conservative mediocrity. They both dangled carrots in front of their franchises.

Edited March 24, 2020 by big2033

[big2033]

I say all this to say I'm not sure what this staff could've done differently. Maybe get Mariota in a game or two earlier ... but the smartest play for their franchise as a whole to move forward was let him burn.

 

Mariota made it hard by playing it so safe, but it caught up to him.

Edited March 24, 2020 by big2033