Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertaker
When did we as a fanbase all of a sudden began to think lowly of what other people call "malcontents"? Better yet, when did the Raiders stop becoming a place where these type of people could find success? Has it come with the coaching changes and the lack of leadership on that level?
I mean, we as a team have been the home to some of the baddest and most outspoken players in the leagues history and I believe that the fact that we turned those type of people into winners made our franchise all the more illustrious.
I dunno, maybe it's just me. But I think us Raider fans calling anyone a malcontent is calling the kettle black since we have celebrated a lot of our best players who weren't exactly classy and I love'em all the same. I mean, if a guy that can help you win games like to go out afterwards and get wasted that's his right as a damn American. One of the best things about the Raiders is that we didn't hold the players to some super high standard and let them be individuals as long as we won games.
Anyways, it was just something I was wondering and i'm sure some people know where it stems from. This isn't a thread to bash any posters or anything like that I just want to get the opinion of those posters that always talk about "class acts" and "character" and how they feel about some of the Raider legends not being those types and how that is any different from how we should approach non-Raiders with similar tendencies in today's NFL.
|
Please!-- we had characters, players who had personalites, we didn't have CANCERS which you are suggesting. Malcontents happens to be a player who becomes disruptive in a lockeroom; if Moss or Porter would pull some of this stuff that they pulled throughout the season, they wouldn't last that long on the Raiders. You forget the type of coach and the type of work that was required during the golden era of football. You need to pick up Kenny Stabler's book to get a decent idea of the things these players went through on the field.