I got a quick question?

[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.

[RaiderInNY]

The difference is, we won with guys who were "characters" and had their issues...

The NFL player is different these days.

Sistrunk wasnt a malcontent, he was weird, but not a malcontent and he gave it his ALL on the field.

These days, they arent many of these type of players -- and yes, players change as do the times.

Perfect example, C.Woodson was a partier, a guy didnt study and thought he could get over with his ability....WRONG! He showed a lack of respect for coaches and was wrong for not studying etc,

Stabler was a drinker, a partier and outwardly did his thang in his nightlife like Woodson, but unlike Woodson, was a leader on the field, in the locker room and was a positive aura.

Nowadays, you dont see that!

And thats the problem.

We didnt have malcontents....we had outcasts that had personalities but understood what it is to win and respect the game, teammates and coaches!

There is a difference between these renegades and malcontents!!!!

Oh, and Im not an older gentleman who is bitter about this generation of sports...

[Brown Rice]

The game has changed. It's more of a mental game than it has ever been. You need smart players who will study tape and adhere to what's necessary to give themseles the edge because you can't simply rely on your physicality or "reckless abandon" on the field.

[Turd Ferguson]

I think we still like the malcontents that will still make a contribution. When players like Moss become disgruntled it seems to take a toll on their care for even playing hard.

[Brown Rice]

Originally Posted by RaiderInNY

The difference is, we won with guys who were "characters" and had their issues...

The NFL player is different these days.

Sistrunk wasnt a malcontent, he ws weird, but not a malcontent and he gave it his ALL on the field.

These days, they arent many of these type od players -- and yes, players change as do the times.

Perfect example, C.Woodson was a partier, a guy didnt study and thought he could get over with his ability....WRONG! He showed a lack of respect for coaches and was wrong for not studying etc,

Stabler was a drinker, a partier and outwardly did his thang in his nightlife like Woodson, but unlike Woodson, was a leader on the field, in the locker room and was a positive aura.

Nowadays, you dont see that!

And thats the problem.

We didnt have malcontents....we had outcasts that had personalities but understood what it is to win and respect the game, teammates and coaches!

There is a difference between these rengades and malcontents!!!!

Oh, and Im not an older gentleman who is bitter about this generation of sports...

Well said RiNY

[Undertaker]

Originally Posted by RaiderInNY

The difference is, we won with guys who were "characters" and had their issues...

The NFL player is different these days.

Sistrunk wasnt a malcontent, he was weird, but not a malcontent and he gave it his ALL on the field.

These days, they arent many of these type of players -- and yes, players change as do the times.

Perfect example, C.Woodson was a partier, a guy didnt study and thought he could get over with his ability....WRONG! He showed a lack of respect for coaches and was wrong for not studying etc,

Stabler was a drinker, a partier and outwardly did his thang in his nightlife like Woodson, but unlike Woodson, was a leader on the field, in the locker room and was a positive aura.

Nowadays, you dont see that!

And thats the problem.

We didnt have malcontents....we had outcasts that had personalities but understood what it is to win and respect the game, teammates and coaches!

There is a difference between these renegades and malcontents!!!!

Oh, and Im not an older gentleman who is bitter about this generation of sports...

Well that was a great answer. I dunno, I just really believe in what John Madden said when he said that the character guys were the leaders and all the outlaws and renegades did what they did but still played on Sundays and didn't do anything too crazy.

I just feel as though that when I watch the Raiders today, i'm not really watching the Raiders I wasn't alive to see. You know what I mean? I mean, guys were afraid and jealous of the Raiders because we let guys be themselves and do what they do but they were still successful. Me, i'm not afraid of taking a chance on some players. Randy Moss didn't work out and he showed his true colors as being a bitch, but other guys might be different. Give this team the right leadership at the head coach position and on the field and we wouldn't have a problem.

[Gen_Man]

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.

[RaiderInNY]

Originally Posted by Gen_Man

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.

[OWShaddock]

Originally Posted by RaiderInNY

Stabler was a drinker, a partier and outwardly did his thang in his nightlife like Woodson, but unlike Woodson, was a leader on the field, in the locker room and was a positive aura.

The old story goes that Ken Stabler used to study his gameplan by the light of a tavern jukebox.
Well, maybe that's true ... but at least he was studying his gameplan.

[LARAIDER]

Originally Posted by Gen_Man

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.

good stuff Gen.

[Undertaker]

Welp thanks, just asking a question. Now my next question is, if the Raiders were to have a player on the team that was a Top 5 talent at their position but was a jerk to his opponents, got drunk all the time, and had off the field problems at times like arrests or whatever, would you or would you not be a fan of this person?

What i'm getting at is if this player does their job great on the field but is a loudmouth, a partier, has a criminal record, and with a mic in his face can say crazy things would you like'em?

[AdAstra]

Originally Posted by Undertaker

...and had off the field problems at times like arrests or whatever

You kinda had me up until this one. Having a good time off the field shouldn't include being arrested...should it?

The 70s "renegade" Raiders were wild, but at the end of the day they were a team that looked out for each other and played together in order to win. The current crop of malcontents on any NFL roster is seemingly MUCH more interested in promoting themselves than in helping their team, or, for that matter, winning games.

Interesting question that will likely bring different answers from different age groups.

Peace.