Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What 3 teams do you "HATE" the most?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DevilSpawn View Post
    I see the misunderstanding, I was actually comparing the Raiders to the Broncos, so I should've said "the more successful franchise between the two."

    I read a stat that even surprised me, something that would keep Baph off my back for years to come. The Raiders are 17-4 in their first playoff game. Among teams who have made the playoffs three or more times, the Raiders' .810 winning percentage in opening playoff games is the best in NFL history. The Baltimore Ravens are second, posting a 7-2 record (.778). It makes sense now that I think about it but I would've thought that went to the Niners or Ravens. In opening playoff games, the Broncos are 9-10, Chargers are 8-8 and since the Chiefs are 5-11.

    Yeah and please explain since 2003 what have the Raiders done? This isn't the 70's and 80's anymore. LOL typical Raidah's fan living in the past and forgetting that today exists. Sorry but Stabler, Hendricks, Biletnikoff, Long, Allen, Plunkett, and many other "Legends" or should I call Raidahs aren't even around anymore. Have fun in this decade because your team will continue to be a circus factory for years to come....
    Denver Broncos and New York Mets. Pass me a drink.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BmoreBroncosFan View Post
      This isn't the 70's and 80's anymore. LOL typical Raidah's fan living in the past and forgetting that today exists. Sorry but Stabler, Hendricks, Biletnikoff, Long, Allen, Plunkett, and many other "Legends" or should I call Raidahs aren't even around anymore. Have fun in this decade because your team will continue to be a circus factory for years to come....
      Talking about the past? I never mentioned those names. I didn't even mention those decades. I'm showing you why, because of your wasted opportunities these last ten years, you're still an inferior franchise to us. All of those players are retired. I'll use a better roster comparison in a moment.

      Originally posted by BmoreBroncosFan View Post
      Yeah and please explain since 2003 what have the Raiders done?
      Sure. We've lost historically. Along the way versus Denver, we've had the biggest bust in NFL history knock you out of the playoffs... TWICE... in different fashions no less. Dude literally stepped out of a phone booth to knock you out of the playoffs. Our kicker tied the NFL record in YOUR stadium. Do I need to hammer the 59-14 beating in YOUR stadium over and over again and again? These events shouldn't happen against a team like us but leave it up to your Broncos to be our historic victims. Otherwise we've gone 49 and whatever.

      Now it's your turn. What exactly have YOU have done since 2003 that's even noteworthy? I'll start.

      Your team has had one less and done playoff games "since 2003" than the Raiders have had in 53 year history. Pathetic.

      We currently have as many players on our last Superbowl roster than you have playoff wins "since 2003". That would be Woodson and Janikowski, not Brown and Blanda.

      You've have as many one and dones as the Chargers "since 2003", the very team this forum has ridiculed for the choking factor. Add the fact that Rivers has more playoff wins during that time means that you're not even in the Chargers' realm since 2003.

      You can say we'll be a circus for the near future just as I'll say you'll average about 2 playoff wins the next thirteen years. One playoff win if Tebow isn't traded back to Denver.

      Comment


      • You can have all the cap room in the world but if there are no quality QBs available (none in 14, and only Stafford in 15) then who are you hoping for? Its setting up nicely for the Raiders to overspend in FA. Sure they will inevitably land a nice few pieces, but creating your roster through FA sets you up to be as succesful as the Jets and Eagles of the past few years.

        And I wouldnt beat your chest about Russel beating us a couple times...... Dont forget the Raiders are in the elite company of teams who actually lost a division title to Tim Tebow.

        Do the Russel memories hurt? sure they do....does the ass kicking we took 59-14 sting? Absolutely....
        But at the present time we are set up nice, plus we are fortunate enough to have several young pieces in place. The Raiders have 70 mil and no prospects.
        Its going to take every bit of that 70 mil plus about 3 legendary drafts in a row to make a dent........I wouldnt hold my breath
        Last edited by atwaterandstir; 06-16-2013, 08:34 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by atwaterandstir View Post
          And I wouldnt beat your chest about Russel beating us a couple times...... Dont forget the Raiders are in the elite company of teams who actually lost a division title to Tim Tebow.
          There's a HUGE difference between the two. Tebow showed leadership skills that year, despite the fact that his quarterback skills lacked. He has other qualities as an athlete that other teams will take a chance on. He'll probably be in the league another 5 years and may play a key role for the Pats. Russell has none of those qualities, and he can't crack a roster. No one should lose to Russell at home twice... except the Broncos and the Chiefs amazingly.

          Originally posted by atwaterandstir View Post
          You can have all the cap room in the world but if there are no quality QBs available (none in 14, and only Stafford in 15) then who are you hoping for? Its setting up nicely for the Raiders to overspend in FA. Sure they will inevitably land a nice few pieces, but creating your roster through FA sets you up to be as succesful as the Jets and Eagles of the past few years.
          We don't know how the draft picks will pan out, so that's one unknown. The money will probably be spent wiser now instead of overpaying for bums and compromising the rest of the roster. As for the QB, we still don't know. The whole Flynn got beat out by Russell Wilson line is tired because Russell Wilson turned out to be dynamic.

          Originally posted by atwaterandstir View Post
          Do the Russel memories hurt? sure they do....does the ass kicking we took 59-14 sting? Absolutely....
          But at the present time we are set up nice, plus we are fortunate enough to have several young pieces in place. The Raiders have 70 mil and no prospects.
          Its going to take every bit of that 70 mil plus about 3 legendary drafts in a row to make a dent........I wouldnt hold my breath
          The QB can be decent enough, we almost made the playoffs with Carson Palmer and the worst defense in our history. We actually were contending with Jason Campbell. Both had horrific defenses that were both a few plays away from 10-6. Our front office hasn't been smart since the Superbowl run, but this new regime may be. And who knows what this year's draft class will be like.

          The QB doesn't have the be elite, clutch should be good enough. The team however has to be solid and the front office smart. I mean Mark Sanchez won 4 playoff games on the road. Mark Sanchez.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DevilSpawn View Post
            There's a HUGE difference between the two. Tebow showed leadership skills that year, despite the fact that his quarterback skills lacked. He has other qualities as an athlete that other teams will take a chance on. He'll probably be in the league another 5 years and may play a key role for the Pats. Russell has none of those qualities, and he can't crack a roster. No one should lose to Russell at home twice... except the Broncos and the Chiefs amazingly.


            We don't know how the draft picks will pan out, so that's one unknown. The money will probably be spent wiser now instead of overpaying for bums and compromising the rest of the roster. As for the QB, we still don't know. The whole Flynn got beat out by Russell Wilson line is tired because Russell Wilson turned out to be dynamic.


            The QB can be decent enough, we almost made the playoffs with Carson Palmer and the worst defense in our history. We actually were contending with Jason Campbell. Both had horrific defenses that were both a few plays away from 10-6. Our front office hasn't been smart since the Superbowl run, but this new regime may be. And who knows what this year's draft class will be like.

            The QB doesn't have the be elite, clutch should be good enough. The team however has to be solid and the front office smart. I mean Mark Sanchez won 4 playoff games on the road. Mark Sanchez.
            Ah of course Matt Flynn.....
            Well lets look at the direction the Raiders will go. If Matt Flynn steps in and plays well (which is of course possible, but not likely with the lack of any good support) then the team will look at giving him every chance to succeed. Perhaps a large contract for lets say Hakeen Nicks, well one certainly wont be enough (unless Cribbs, Moore and Ford ease your mind)... Moore showed some promise, but he also had Carson Palmer throwing him the ball. And as of right now, Flynn is no Palmer.

            Well -if Flynn looks to be the real deal then maybe a couple of high priced OL to protect Flynn? Problem is the FA class is pretty weak as well (now sure guys could step up and the market could be better than it looks, but right now its bleak) OL is a serious need because the Raiders dont have much to build on in that aspect either.

            Well that leaves RB....do they resign McFadden and Reece and hope the injury bug doesnt appear yet again? I would assume they do, because lets face it the crop of 2014 RBs is even weaker than the QBs and OL.

            DL? Resigning Lamar Houston will be a top priority because he is as good as any FA DE available in 2014. Justin Smith, Justin Tuck, and Brett Keisel are the other top options, and maybe SF lures Smith across the Bay, but it will take a large contract to pull him away from a (likely) SB contender.

            DT has some promising names (most notably BJ Raji) but I doubt the Packers let him hit the market and if he does its going to take a huge contract.

            The secondary pretty much all got released and the good ones rarely hit the market....let alone 3 or 4 of them.

            So yes the Raiders have plenty of money to spend, but no real "anchors" to target.
            Its shaping up for a massive spending spree on mediocre players with a big name or two sprinkled in.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DevilSpawn
              13-7 all the while losing to busts and backups? Even Jason Campbell was 3-0 against you as a Raider. Who DOES that? Is Josh McCown still in the league, the dude that almost swept you were it not for a brilliant coaching move? Oh wait just checked, he's backing up Jay Cutler, which is what Jason Campbell did last year.

              Well since we have backups on our roster this year, our chances are looking good vs Denver LMAO!
              I do have to admit that reading your posts is much more enjoyable than posts from typical Raiders fans. You can actually present intelligent arguments...which is great, because communicating with some of your Raiders brothers is akin to trying to communicate with a caveman from the stone-age. But I do have some issues with some things you've said.

              1. Now that you clarified your stance earlier...about the Raiders being more successful than the Broncos, that makes more sense and unfortunately, I have to agree with you. But...

              2. You're giving a lot of credit to Raiders QBs and QBs in general...too much credit in my opinion. It looks to me you're making the same mistake Baph does around here and handing out way too much blame and credit to QBs for wins and losses. I suspect if the games where Russell beat the Broncos were looked at more closely, I'll bet other Raiders players or Broncos mistakes might have been more the cause for those Raiders wins than anything Russell did. I remember that '09 Raiders/Broncos game in Denver where Russell was benched for part of the game. Raiders won that game, but I think little of that win can be attributed to Russell. And if Russell was so "great" when he played Denver, he would've played that way (at least, sometimes) against other opponents. If you're using Russell as a funny asterisk or footnote in the Broncos/Raiders rivalry...ok. But I hope you're not seriously saying Russell was some kind of Joe Montana only when he played the Broncos. His wins against Denver sound more like a silly coincidence to me.

              3. Your Bowlen/Davis comparison is a bit off, in my opinion.

              a. Al knew how to build good football teams in the 60s, 70s, 80s and briefly in the early 2000s, but clearly became entrenched in his ways, even when they didnt work anymore. Bowlen never did this.

              b. Bowlen never had a 10 year span of embarrassing football like Davis did.

              c. Bowlen in hiring Elway transformed his crappy 4-12 football team in 2010 into a 13-3, #1 seed in only two years. Something Davis couldnt do in almost 10 years.

              d. Bowlen believed and believes in hiring the best people to run his franchise with a mostly "hands-off" style, while Davis would only hire weak individuals that would always bow to his will and outdated strategies. Bowlen was always open to change if it meant winning more games.

              e. Davis would undermine his coaches constantly...Bowlen never did that.

              When comparing styles...Bowlen was and is much more equipped personality-wise to be a winning owner than Davis was in the last 20 years.
              Last edited by mct1967; 06-17-2013, 11:01 AM.

              Comment


              • me = Faiders, Patties, and the Cowgirls.
                Originally posted by broncos SB2010
                I doubt Chubb is high on their radar.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by atwaterandstir View Post
                  Ah of course Matt Flynn.....
                  Well lets look at the direction the Raiders will go. If Matt Flynn steps in and plays well (which is of course possible, but not likely with the lack of any good support) then the team will look at giving him every chance to succeed. Perhaps a large contract for lets say Hakeen Nicks, well one certainly wont be enough (unless Cribbs, Moore and Ford ease your mind)... Moore showed some promise, but he also had Carson Palmer throwing him the ball. And as of right now, Flynn is no Palmer.

                  Well -if Flynn looks to be the real deal then maybe a couple of high priced OL to protect Flynn? Problem is the FA class is pretty weak as well (now sure guys could step up and the market could be better than it looks, but right now its bleak) OL is a serious need because the Raiders dont have much to build on in that aspect either.

                  Well that leaves RB....do they resign McFadden and Reece and hope the injury bug doesnt appear yet again? I would assume they do, because lets face it the crop of 2014 RBs is even weaker than the QBs and OL.

                  DL? Resigning Lamar Houston will be a top priority because he is as good as any FA DE available in 2014. Justin Smith, Justin Tuck, and Brett Keisel are the other top options, and maybe SF lures Smith across the Bay, but it will take a large contract to pull him away from a (likely) SB contender.

                  DT has some promising names (most notably BJ Raji) but I doubt the Packers let him hit the market and if he does its going to take a huge contract.

                  The secondary pretty much all got released and the good ones rarely hit the market....let alone 3 or 4 of them.

                  So yes the Raiders have plenty of money to spend, but no real "anchors" to target.
                  Its shaping up for a massive spending spree on mediocre players with a big name or two sprinkled in.
                  Solid post, I agree with a few points. Thing is, the needs for next offseason will depend on who pans out this year, if any of the young players will step up. Houston, McFadden, Reese, Veldheer and a couple of others will probably be the main targets. Not sure on McFadden though, if he can't stay healthy this year he may be shown the door. I don't think Reggie spends heavily on big names like Davis did. Maybe, but not to the likes of Javon Walker.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mct1967 View Post
                    I do have to admit that reading your posts is much more enjoyable than posts from typical Raiders fans. You can actually present intelligent arguments...which is great, because communicating with some of your Raiders brothers is akin to trying to communicate with a caveman from the stone-age. But I do have some issues with some things you've said.
                    Thanks, I appreciate it. If you're talking about Raiderjoe, he's adopted lol.

                    Originally posted by mct1967 View Post
                    1. Now that you clarified your stance earlier...about the Raiders being more successful than the Broncos, that makes more sense and unfortunately, I have to agree with you. But...

                    2. You're giving a lot of credit to Raiders QBs and QBs in general...too much credit in my opinion. It looks to me you're making the same mistake Baph does around here and handing out way too much blame and credit to QBs for wins and losses. I suspect if the games where Russell beat the Broncos were looked at more closely, I'll bet other Raiders players or Broncos mistakes might have been more the cause for those Raiders wins than anything Russell did. I remember that '09 Raiders/Broncos game in Denver where Russell was benched for part of the game. Raiders won that game, but I think little of that win can be attributed to Russell. And if Russell was so "great" when he played Denver, he would've played that way (at least, sometimes) against other opponents. If you're using Russell as a funny asterisk or footnote in the Broncos/Raiders rivalry...ok. But I hope you're not seriously saying Russell was some kind of Joe Montana only when he played the Broncos. His wins against Denver sound more like a silly coincidence to me.
                    The only point is he's 2-0, with two different types of victories against playoff teams at the time. It's funny to us because of who he is and of course the rivalry. If he was even remotely successful, it wouldn't be as big a deal. But the guy is the biggest waste of space on a football field with no passion, a lethargic attitude and the knowledge of an empty playbook. You're not alone though, he did the same thing to the Chiefs, except earlier in each season. Was he aided by a great run game those games, yes. But he's still arguably the worst bust of all time.

                    Originally posted by mct1967 View Post
                    3. Your Bowlen/Davis comparison is a bit off, in my opinion.

                    a. Al knew how to build good football teams in the 60s, 70s, 80s and briefly in the early 2000s, but clearly became entrenched in his ways, even when they didnt work anymore. Bowlen never did this.

                    b. Bowlen never had a 10 year span of embarrassing football like Davis did.

                    c. Bowlen in hiring Elway transformed his crappy 4-12 football team in 2010 into a 13-3, #1 seed in only two years. Something Davis couldnt do in almost 10 years.

                    d. Bowlen believed and believes in hiring the best people to run his franchise with a mostly "hands-off" style, while Davis would only hire weak individuals that would always bow to his will and outdated strategies. Bowlen was always open to change if it meant winning more games.

                    e. Davis would undermine his coaches constantly...Bowlen never did that.

                    When comparing styles...Bowlen was and is much more equipped personality-wise to be a winning owner than Davis was in the last 20 years.
                    Yeah their styles were completely different, no question. But in a very minor way, I see why Davis was hands on. He was a coach. He was Coach of the Year. He knew his stuff. Even in his last years, players and coaches were surprised at how much football he knew, not the ancient 1983 playbooks, but everything about the present day. I never coached, but I heard coaching never leaves your blood. Bowlen didn't have this knowledge so he was wise to step back and let the people who know football run it unlike a Daniel Snyder who has failed because of his hands on approach.

                    Regarding the turnaround, Peyton Manning for Tim Tebow is a huge reason for the massive turnaround this past year, as Kyle Orton for Jay Cutler was the other way around. Manning is the ultimate difference maker. He begins his seasons with 13 wins, he's that good. Yes the team around him is solid but that's is one hell of an extra dimension. Replace Palmer with Manning on the Raiders in 2011, with McFadden, Moore and Reese and Zach Miller and we're in the same position, even with that awful defense we had. Probably an 11 win team. Replace Manning last year with Carson Palmer, that's not a 13-3 team. By comparison, both were bottom of the barrel teams with an 8-8 season that followed. The QB that succeeded both makes a huge difference.

                    Davis' problem the last 8 years was that, in baseball terms, he was down by 4 and tried to hit a grand slam before loading the bases. He had a 38 year old QB but didn't have the right successor. He came close in 2010 and set up a decent run in 2011 (may have gone 8-8 with Jason Campbell too) but his inability to adapt defensively was a huge problem. This and the free agent busts and bad coaching hires are why Davis lost more games in his last 8+ years than anyone not named Detroit. Ironically, he won more games in the first 40 years than anyone in the league. He's the opposite ends of extreme and regardless of anything, I was glad to be a fan during his reign. It's a sick passion I know but you can't understand it unless you've lived it.
                    Last edited by DevilSpawn; 06-17-2013, 09:39 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X