Oakland Raiders Forum | Message Board - Where the Raider Nation lives!

**OWShaddock** · Quote #61 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposeablehero

Thats good and all, but i never once stated he never earned a shot, but, saying he will be great because of 2 games is ridiculous as well. Also, MANY times a coach chamge will see change immediately, the Rams this alone is a prime example. Either way, I am entitled to my feeling that Cable is Not the answer, and time will show if that feeling is right or wrong, i hope i am wrong.

I don't see too many posts saying "Cable will be great because of two games." Rather, the consensus among the pro-Cable crowd is that he deserves the job based on how well the team was playing at season's end, particularly in light of some of the other options (i.e. Gilbride). Nobody is saying he will be great because nobody knows.
The Rams? Yeah, they won two games immediately after Haslett was hired. Then proceeded to lose their last 10 games of the season.
Contrast that with the Raiders under Cable, who struggled mightily initially, but went 3-3 in their final six games.

Quote:

Who said I knew what was going on in peoples heads, the lackidasical play on the field and comments Aso made certainly showed an unmotivated team.

Umm ... you said you knew what was going on in people's heads.
Motivation is a mental state.
You're making judgments about players' motivation, or lack thereof.
Therefore, you are making judgments about their mental state. And to make a judgment about another's mental state, you must know their thought process. To know their thought process, you obviously must know what's going in in their heads.

Which comments from Aso are you speaking of? Link, please.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation of how a totally unmotivated team suddenly found motivation at the end of the season.

**ekgraider** · Quote #62 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 16 to 88

You missed my point.

1). Sometimes GM's are hired BEFORE an HC and other times not.

2). AGAIN, Davis NEVER stated (at least to my knowledge) he was bringing in a GM.

Regarding us needing a GM.

I don't disagree we need a GM. I believe we do.

That is all.

He did mention it, after the lane kiffin press conference. Im to lazy to go find a link. Infact monte poole mentions it again in his most recent article.

disposeablehero · Quote #63 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:07 AM

Yes, Al DID mention it regarding a GM.

**16 to 88** · Quote #64 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposeablehero

There was NOT a new playbook.

I could be wrong but I seem to remember that they did indeed bring in a new playbook during the bye week.

That's why I mentioned it as well.

**OWShaddock** · Quote #65 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposeablehero

Captain obvious in the house.

If it's so obvious, why then do certain posters (who shall go unnamed) keep whining about the hiring of a GM?
Seems like it's no so obvious to everyone.

RoshamBO34 · Quote #66 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposeablehero

There was NOT a new playbook.

Well i saw one guy here say there was and i thought i had heard the same thing.

**16 to 88** · Quote #67 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekgraider

He did mention it, after the lane kiffin press conference. Im to lazy to go find a link. Infact monte poole mentions it again in his most recent article.

Interesting.

First I have heard of this.

disposeablehero · Quote #68 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OWShaddock

If it's so obvious, why then do certain posters (who shall go unnamed) keep whining about the hiring of a GM?
Seems like it's no so obvious to everyone.

Because the point is people want Al to step back and hire someone else to be GM, if you need that spelt our for you then, well, lol. Al is not able to do it by himself, at leats not well. People know full well Davis is the current GM, they want someone else, Davis needs help.

RaiderFanInMD · Quote #69 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekgraider

He did mention it, after the lane kiffin press conference. Im to lazy to go find a link. Infact monte poole mentions it again in his most recent article.

This is what he said after the PC:

Quote:

-Q: Do you think this organization have a need for any more football people?

-DAVIS: Yes, I do. There’s one guy I’m looking at now.

-Q: A senior executive?

-DAVIS: It would be an executive role, yeah.

-Q: Would you wait until the off-season before making the move?

-DAVIS: Yeah, I’d wait ‘til this off-season. Yeah, I’ve talked to the person, pretty much. It’d be unique. He’s local.

-Q: Can you give us a name?

-DAVIS: Local.

Link

RaiderMac · Quote #70 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposeablehero

Because the point is people want Al to step back and hire someone else to be GM, if you need that spelt our for you then, well, lol. Al is not able to do it by himself, at leats not well. People know full well Davis is the current GM, they want someone else, Davis needs help.

He wont hire a GM, so why argue over something this stupid.

If anything, the new person in the front office will probably have the same responsibilities that Bruce Allen had when he was here, that's bringing in free agents and taking care of their contracts and draft picks contracts.

Free agency and draft pick signings has been a problem for the Raiders since B.Allen left for Tampa, but to think that coaches being picked by this "GM" is going to happen, your dreaming like the rest of Raider Nation.

If its one thing that needs to happen, its the move in bringing in a guy who handles what I've just stated.

**OWShaddock** · Quote #71 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposeablehero

Yes, Al DID mention it regarding a GM.

No, he didn't.
Here's the transcript:

-Q: Do you think this organization have a need for any more football people?

-DAVIS: Yes, I do. There’s one guy I’m looking at now.

-Q: A senior executive?

-DAVIS: It would be an executive role, yeah.

-Q: Would you wait until the off-season before making the move?

-DAVIS: Yeah, I’d wait ‘til this off-season. Yeah, I’ve talked to the person, pretty much. It’d be unique. He’s local.

As you can see, no mention of the words "general" or "manager." Rather, Al says he's looking to hire a football person to serve as an executive.

Al Davis, after the cameras were off: “(Kiffin) conned me like he conned all you people” | Talking Points

disposeablehero · Quote #72 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaiderMac

He wont hire a GM, so why argue over something this stupid.

If anything, the new person in the front office will probably have the same responsibilities that Bruce Allen had when he was here, that's bringing in free agents and taking care of their contracts and draft picks contracts.

Free agency and draft pick signings has been a problem for the Raiders since B.Allen left for Tampa, but to think that coaches being picked by this "GM" is going to happen, your dreaming like the rest of Raider Nation.

If its one thing that needs to happen, its the move in bringing in a guy who handles what I've just stated.

Someone fails at comprehension, never once said it WAS gonna happen, just that it should have a long time ago, it os obvious to most Davis will never relinquish control. Not sure where you are gettign the idea I am thnking it is gonna happen.

raiderwood · Quote #73 (**permalink**) 01-09-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1truraidersfan

I think AL was just blowing smoke up everyones ass when he said he was looking at a possible GM. He just doesnt want to relinquish control.

Spot on. Plus IMO Al doesn't want to share his successes with anyone, should he pull of another Super Bowl victory. You know somewhere in his mind, he's thinking that he wants the glory and doesn't want people saying a GM saved the Raiders.

Second, I have two stances on Cable...

1) Look at the 4 wins. The Jets were flat, and ultimately they went 0-5 on the west coast, losing to SEA, SF, SD as well. Not a strong victory, and we scored only 16 pts with OT. Denver and Tampa both played like 4-12 teams when we played them. All 3 teams folded in December, and all failed to make the playoffs when it was all but guaranteed that they were in at week 12. The wins were against bad teams. Don't look at their records as an indicator of who we beat. The Houston game was an impressive win, because they were white hot at the time. The offense played well enough to win, something they hadn't done in the previous 10 games. We would've lost our final 2 games had our offense played as it had the previous 14 games. Kudos to Cable, and ultimately, a win's a win.

2) I don't know if Cable has the ability to evaluate talent in a timely manner. Case in point: the Kwame Harris move came WAY too late. You wonder if Al had something to do with that decision taking so long to be made. After every fan pleaded for him to be benched all season, Cable states "Kwame Harris is the Left Tackle of the Oakland Raiders." Sounds like an Al Davis-ism to me! Kiffin wasn't like that. He identified those who were best at their position, or those who would be better used in other positions (Gallery).

In the end, the Raiders aren't that far off. Who knows whether Cable is the answer or not? He will not bring a dynamic offense. We have to look at our big name players to make an ordinary offense extraordinary. What he will bring is continuity, something this team desperately needs. My vote is to keep him, but if we bring in somebody else, so be it.