Las Vegas Raiders Thread

Leslie91

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I'm not a Raiders fan but I always liked the team. I won't be able to continue that if this happens because I'm not a fan of Las Vegas and what it stands for. Imo it's a horrible place and all they want in that City is to suck all the money out of people through gambling. It's preying on a weakness that some people don't even realise they have until they get to Vegas and it's too late.

Agree Las Vegas is a bit of a cesspit but the Raiders have no other option.. they have to take this one. In fact their deal in moving to Las Vegas is so good for Mark Davis he'd be a fool not to take it.

golfball37

Apart from Andre Agassi Las Vegas has no Sporting heros or history. This is a big chance for the Raiders to leave a lasting legacy on the biggest city in the world without a Professional Sports franchise. Its a no brainer really finacially.
Things like the black hole are irreplaceable though and the Bay Area needs the Raiders. Its a tough balancing act.

heyjude

Since the NFL announced at the start of January, the 2017 opponents for each NFL team, Raider fans took some consolation that their two toughest non-division games during the 2017 season, against the Patriots and Cowboys, would both be played at home in Oakland, until today that is.

Today it was announced that like last season, the Raiders will again be surrendering a home game against a playoff team in order to fly 5 hours to face the Patriots, at over 7,000 ft altitude in the heavily polluted air of Mexico City. Last November, they beat the AFC South winners Houston in Mexico(in what was nominally also called a home game for Oakland).

Why are they being sent to Mexico for the second season in a row, what about other teams from California such as the Rams, Chargers and 49ers, or the Cowboys or Cardinals, whose states border Mexico ? and why is the home game they choose always seem to be against one of their toughest opponents, when true home field advantage means the most and a game that season ticket holders most look forward to ?

To my mind, this takes away any home field advantage for the game and so gives an advantage to New England(did Robert Kraft ring Goodell to thank him ? :rolleyes:) And to those who would compare it to teams playing in London, I would say that anyone that compares playing at sea level in London to playing at over 7,000ft in Mexico fails to understand how difficult it is for the biggest players such as defensive linemen and pass rushers to keep going in such thin air(which should suit Tom Brady). Hopefully the Raiders don't play an east coast game or Monday night game immediately before flying to Mexico and have their bye week just afterwards, as last season they had their bye before going to Mexico, where they played on Monday night. Has any other NFL team been asked to play a home game outside the US on a Monday night before ???????? No, as all other NFL games played outside the US have been played on Sunday.

golfball37

heyjude wrote: »

Since the NFL announced at the start of January, the 2017 opponents for each NFL team, Raider fans took some consolation that their two toughest non-division games during the 2017 season, against the Patriots and Cowboys, would both be played at home in Oakland, until today that is.

Today it was announced that like last season, the Raiders will again be surrendering a home game against a playoff team in order to fly 5 hours to face the Patriots, at over 7,000 ft altitude in the heavily polluted air of Mexico City. Last November, they beat the AFC South winners Houston in Mexico(in what was nominally also called a home game for Oakland).

Why are they being sent to Mexico for the second season in a row, what about other teams from California such as the Rams, Chargers and 49ers, or the Cowboys or Cardinals, whose states border Mexico ? and why is the home game they choose always seem to be against one of their toughest opponents, when true home field advantage means the most and a game that season ticket holders most look forward to ?

To my mind, this takes away any home field advantage for the game and so gives an advantage to New England(did Robert Kraft ring Goodell to thank him ? :rolleyes:) And to those who would compare it to teams playing in London, I would say that anyone that compares playing at sea level in London to playing at over 7,000ft in Mexico fails to understand how difficult it is for the biggest players such as defensive linemen and pass rushers to keep going in such thin air(which should suit Tom Brady). Hopefully the Raiders don't play an east coast game or Monday night game immediately before flying to Mexico and have their bye week just afterwards, as last season they had their bye before going to Mexico, where they played on Monday night. Has any other NFL team been asked to play a home game outside the US on a Monday night before ???????? No, as all other NFL games played outside the US have been played on Sunday.

The Monday night thing is irrelevent really as travel time from Oakland to Mexico City is less than it would be most of the other franchises.

Prefab Sprouter

So, how do we feel about the team now that the off-season has kicked in? Will Murray stay with us?, we are already being seen as a potential fit for Adrian Peterson now he will be hitting Free Agency. And can we keep both Carr and Mack happy with contract extensions whilst addressing the Defense? There's a lot going to happen over the next few weeks!

Blackhorse Slim

Don't think there will be any issues with Carr or Mack, both are eager to stay, neither will look for ridiculous paycheks, although they will want to get paid. We have cap space to look after them, and they are both seen as priorities by the Raiders.

I think Murray will end up staying, although on less money than he would like. With AP and Jamaal Charles available his value in free agency will have gone down a little. The Raiders will want to keep him, but he's not a priority. There will be cheaper alternatives in the draft and FA, although defense is a more pressing need.

I don't think AP is an ideal solution, his injury problems and lack of pass protection skills mean we would have to keep Murray as an option, or rely on Olawale more. With defense issues to address I don't think we can afford it... If we could add AP to our options, try to keep him fit by using Murray as our workhorse and rotating Washington/Richard, that would be an incredible offense, but I don't see it happening.

Prefab Sprouter

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

Don't think there will be any issues with Carr or Mack, both are eager to stay, neither will look for ridiculous paycheks, although they will want to get paid. We have cap space to look after them, and they are both seen as priorities by the Raiders.

I think Murray will end up staying, although on less money than he would like. With AP and Jamaal Charles available his value in free agency will have gone down a little. The Raiders will want to keep him, but he's not a priority. There will be cheaper alternatives in the draft and FA, although defense is a more pressing need.

I don't think AP is an ideal solution, his injury problems and lack of pass protection skills mean we would have to keep Murray as an option, or rely on Olawale more. With defense issues to address I don't think we can afford it... If we could add AP to our options, try to keep him fit by using Murray as our workhorse and rotating Washington/Richard, that would be an incredible offense, but I don't see it happening.

Peterson would have to take a pay cut to play for us, it depends how he views his next move. Some teams would pay him a fortune on a one or two Year deal, but I'm sure he's fed up playing in a near one dimensional offense where the defence consistently stacks the box. I'm not sure he's a worthwhile addition from McKenzie's viewpoint, but I can see why we would be appealing to him. A young up and coming team, a damn good offensive line and a decent offence with a reasonable shot at the playoffs. I wont be too upset if he doesn't sign, nor will I be too excited if he signs.

As regards Mack and Carr, I am also optimistic that we will retain their services. Carr has been making really positive noises and I would imagine that Carr's deal will be done this offseason and Mack's next year.

There are still holes to fill in the roster but we do have a decent cap and McKenzie has shown that he values, above all, prudency and thats great to see. We arent mortgaging the farm in order to bring some big name on board, which is what Al used to do in his latter years. I'm looking forward to Free Agency and the Draft!

eire4

Prefab Sprouter wrote: »

Peterson would have to take a pay cut to play for us, it depends how he views his next move. Some teams would pay him a fortune on a one or two Year deal, but I'm sure he's fed up playing in a near one dimensional offense where the defence consistently stacks the box. I'm not sure he's a worthwhile addition from McKenzie's viewpoint, but I can see why we would be appealing to him. A young up and coming team, a damn good offensive line and a decent offence with a reasonable shot at the playoffs. I wont be too upset if he doesn't sign, nor will I be too excited if he signs.

As regards Mack and Carr, I am also optimistic that we will retain their services. Carr has been making really positive noises and I would imagine that Carr's deal will be done this offseason and Mack's next year.

There are still holes to fill in the roster but we do have a decent cap and McKenzie has shown that he values, above all, prudency and thats great to see. We arent mortgaging the farm in order to bring some big name on board, which is what Al used to do in his latter years. I'm looking forward to Free Agency and the Draft!

I thing your pretty much on the money all round there. I think deals will be done with both Carr and Mack which pay them well but don't cripple the teams ability to add quality around them on both sides of the ball. The Murray situation is one that could go either way. It would be good if something worked out and he stayed but it looks like a toss up right now and Peterson which sounds great in theory for the reasons you state is actually probably not what the teams needs right now. Other then sorting out the RB situation and maybe an upgrade at tight end the main focus has to be on the defense for the Raiders to build on such a good 2016 and be a genuine superbowl contender next season.

Prefab Sprouter

Yes, I expect to see a top heavy Defense draft. I'm not an experienced draft watcher but some reports are stating that this one is deep for Defensive Backs and that would be good news indeed.

Blackhorse Slim

Something I would love to see is a deep-threat receiver, allowing Cooper to move into the slot. Carr clearly has the arm to go deep, with Musgrave gone we'll hopefully see this a bit more, and while Cooper and Crabtree can both go deep I think Cooper in particular would be devastating in the slot.
Obviously, after last season defense comes first. Donta Hightower or a tackle like Dontari Poe (both free agents, but won't be cheap) could make a big difference, along with Mario and hopefully Aldon Smith back.

Edit: just saw that Terrelle Pryor is a free agent, did well in his first season as a wideout playing for the worst team in the NFL. Return to raiders, but as a receiver this time? Would be funny at least!

heyjude

The Raiders finished last season with big question marks over their defence and a clear need to improve their interior pass rush, to upgrade at middle/inside linebacker and to strengthen their secondary.

Denico Autry(DE) had an original round tender placed on him and is expected to return.

All three exclusive rights free agents: Seth Roberts(WR), Gabe Holmes(TE) and Denver Kirkland(OT/OG) were offered contract tenders to retain them.

But for a team with so many needs on defence, the start to free agency has been underwhelming, leaving aside their reluctance to overspend.

Here's the status on the teams free agents:

Starting OLB Malcolm Smith - left to join the 49ers
DT Stacy McGee - left to join Redskins
OT Menelik Watson - left to join Broncos
LB/Special Teams Daren Bates - left to join Titans
S/Special Teams Brynden Trawick - left to join Titans
Nickel/Cornerback DJ Hayden - left to join Lions
S Nate Allen - left to join Dolphins



Free agent signings:
OT/OG Marshall Newhouse - from Giants

OLB Aldon Smith - expected to return from suspension this month, involved in incident in San Francisco in past few days that may delay / eliminate his return from suspension

Remaining free agents
QB Matt McGloin
WR/Special Teams Andre Holmes
LS Jon Condo
MLB Perry Riley
HB Latavius Murray - scheduled to visit Seattle
TE Mychal Rivera
CB SaQwan Edwards

Of the remaining free agents, McGloin will not return, Rivera may not return, but I think they may try to retain Holmes and Riley. They would like to keep Murray, but it may cost too much. They may look for a cheaper option than Condo and Edwards likely won't make it to the 53 man roster anyway. They haven't said it, but the possible/probably non return of Aldon Smith must be a big disappointment, especially given his cap friendly contract.

I understand that some teams are paying crazy money(such as $3m a year each for Bates and Trawick) and with contracts coming up for Derek Carr and Khalil Mack, they don't want to overspend, but not signing anyone on defence while allowing 6 players to leave, means you are depending on finding diamonds in the rough from the remaining free agents on the market or counting on hitting home runs across the board in the draft to fill out your roster and you've also lost valuable depth.

The only positive so far is that its reckoned that as things stand, the Raiders would qualify for 3 compensatory draft picks in the 2018 draft(in rounds 5-6).

heyjude

Well the Raiders finally got into the free agent market in the past few days, making several signings but unlike previous years, no big headline, big money signings.

Thus far, all the signings have been on offence with TE Jared Cook(from the Packers), OT/OG Marshall Newhouse (from the Giants), WR/KR Cordarrelle Patterson(from the Vikings) and there have been reports that the team has been linked with QB EJ Manuel(from the Bills).

The signing of Patterson will provide the deep threat that will allow Cooper to move into the slot, while using Patterson on kick returns will allow Jalen Richard to concentrate on punt returns and his role as a running back. The signing of Cook means that Rivera won't return at TE.

In the past few days, Andre Holmes has signed for the Bills(with Patterson replacing him) and running back Latavius Murray has signed for the Vikings.

Media reports have suggested that Marshawn Lynch might be interested in coming out of retirement, the Seahawks still own his rights, but they only have $14m in cap space left and Lynch's contract, if he returns would count $9m against that and with the Seahawks having signed Eddie Lacy, Lynch's place has been filled. There have been suggestions that the Seahawks might try to trade him(and his $9m salary cap hit), but if Lynch didn't like the trade he could retire again, so if he comes back they could be forced to waive him. Lynch comes from Oakland, grew up a Raider fan and his Beat Mode business is based in Oakland, so what about Beast Mode in Silver and Black ?

Nobody knows what sort of football shape Lynch is in, but he should be healthy after a year out, he would be motivated in Oakland and is almost certainly a better past protector than Adrian Peterson, so if the price is right, I'd say go for it. Lynch wouldn't be expected to carry 25-30 times a game, with Richard and Washington sharing the load and he'd be a real factor in the red zone as Murray was last year.

But what about the defence ? They've lost a lot of depth at safety, tackle and nickel corner as well as a starting outside linebacker and they can't all be filled by draftees. I know they are hoping that Mario Edwards Jr can stay fit, Jared Ward(with a years' experience and lots of off-season conditioning) and Darius Latham(going into his second season) will do better at the tackle spots, but at linebacker, safety and at defensive back, the team is pretty thin, so its going to be an interesting few weeks before the draft.

The Raiders can also possibly be due four compensatory picks in the 2018 draft(1 in the 5th round and 3 in Round 6) See http://overthecap.com/draft

ceadaoin.

eagle eye wrote: »

Well I'm not a Raiders fan but I always liked the team. I won't be able to continue that if this happens because I'm not a fan of Las Vegas and what it stands for. Imo it's a horrible place and all they want in that City is to suck all the money out of people through gambling. It's preying on a weakness that some people don't even realise they have until they get to Vegas and it's too late.

That's really not what Vegas stands for. The majority of revenue comes from non gaming these days, with gambling revenue falling every year.

Most Las Vegas residents don't want this move, given that tax payers will almost certainly be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for it and will see little of the benefits.

eire4

Judging from the leaks coming out in the media the Raiders could well be the Las Vegas Raiders as early as next Monday. All the signs are pointing to the Raiders move to Nevada being approved.

Kev8360

eire4 wrote: »

Judging from the leaks coming out in the media the Raiders could well be the Las Vegas Raiders as early as next Monday. All the signs are pointing to the Raiders move to Nevada being approved.

Yep - just passed 31-1. Not sure how I feel about this move. There never seemed to be any real chance the team would stay in Oakland - but I hoped when the LA deal fell through last year something would come up to keep Raiders where they belong.

The Las Vegas Raiders ....... that's going to take some time to get used to

Realt Dearg Sec

Seems to me like when the chargers moved fans were very hostile to it, even on boards lots of fans said they doubted they'd keep following the team, maybe even the sport. My impression is that with the raiders people are disappointed of course, but maybe less inclined to abandon the team itself, the raiders being more of an idea and an ethos than a team representing a place. What is yeer response as fans?

heyjude

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Most Las Vegas residents don't want this move, given that tax payers will almost certainly be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for it and will see little of the benefits.

Most of the cost will be paid for via a hotel room tax(so paid for by visitors not locals), but given the likely ticket prices it will be interesting to see how many locals will be able to afford to take in regular Raider home games, as many of the service jobs in Las Vegas are low paid.

Kev8360 wrote: »

Yep - just passed 31-1. Not sure how I feel about this move. There never seemed to be any real chance the team would stay in Oakland - but I hoped when the LA deal fell through last year something would come up to keep Raiders where they belong.

The league/other owners screwed the Raiders last year, both the Raiders and Chargers were looking for a new stadium, they put together the Carson plan and it was expected to be approved but instead the Rams project was approved, the Chargers were given time to decide if they wanted to be a tenant in the Rams stadium and the Raiders were expected to wait until the Chargers reached a decision, before they would know if they could move to LA or be back to square one in Oakland. As it ultimately turned out that they were leaving Oakland in either case, having their own purpose built stadium in Vegas was far more attractive to Mark Davis than being Stan Kroenke's tenant in LA. There is also the added advantage that Nevada has no state income tax, while in California its 13%, so thats a big help when approaching free agents.

Kev8360 wrote: »

The Las Vegas Raiders ....... that's going to take some time to get used to

Well we'll all have plenty of time for it to sink in, as the Raiders will be playing in Oakland for at least the next two(and possibly 3 years), while the new stadium is being built and as Roger Goodell said today, while they are still playing in Oakland, they'll continue to be known as the Oakland Raiders.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Seems to me like when the chargers moved fans were very hostile to it, even on boards lots of fans said they doubted they'd keep following the team, maybe even the sport. My impression is that with the raiders people are disappointed of course, but maybe less inclined to abandon the team itself, the raiders being more of an idea and an ethos than a team representing a place. What is yeer response as fans?

The Raiders have a much more diffuse fan following than the Chargers and the team has moved twice in recent history, so fans are more used to the idea of movement, but I would agree about the Raiders being the embodiment of an idea or ethos, the rebels, the anti-establishment team, personified originally by Al Davis and fostered by the teams successes in the past with players that were very colourful characters that were often castoffs from other teams. As a fan in Ireland it makes little practical difference whether they play in Oakland or Vegas, though the home field advantage could be reduced. I'm sure that they will come to be nicknamed the Sin City Raiders.

adrian522

And just like that the 49ers are the only best NFL team in the bay area.

Itssoeasy

I've seen that the Oakland mayor are quote "exploring legal options"
I've a feeling the city of Oakland could be looking at a Browns type situation.

Prefab Sprouter

I started following the Los Angeles Raiders in 1982, I was vaguely aware of the fact that they had played in Oakland before that, but to me, then, they were the LA Raiders and that was it. Then they moved back and I got used to the fact that they were the Oakland Raiders. They still have a huge fan base in LA (Ironically I watched the ESPN film, Straight out of LA, well worth a watch.) Bottom line is that I dont consider the Raiders to be completely tied to Oakland. I do feel sorry for the Oakland fans, for on the face of it they have been slapped in the face twice.........However.........
i
The Raiders are the only NFL team to share with a Baseball team now, every season there is a Baseball Diamond on the Football pitch (or every season there is a football pitch on the A's diamond at the end of their season!!) Because they dont have their own stadium, the Raiders are always at the bottom of the NFL's revenue earners. Thats not an acceptable situation. And Oakland City Council have constantly thwarted any plans by the Raiders to develop their own stadium. If you want football in your city, you have to be proactive about it. And they werent.

For the next 3 years the Raiders play in Oakland. And they are at the start of a Superbowl window (it could all fall flat, but the likelihood is that they will compete. They arent the Baltimore Colts, they arent just moving in the middle of the night, its being done in a gradual way. Mark Davis isnt running away like a thief in the night. Its ironic that its Al Davis's son, who was allways seen in a very negative light compared to his Dad, who managed to engineer this.

adrian522

Prefab Sprouter wrote: »

I started following the Los Angeles Raiders in 1982, I was vaguely aware of the fact that they had played in Oakland before that, but to me, then, they were the LA Raiders and that was it. Then they moved back and I got used to the fact that they were the Oakland Raiders. They still have a huge fan base in LA (Ironically I watched the ESPN film, Straight out of LA, well worth a watch.) Bottom line is that I dont consider the Raiders to be completely tied to Oakland. I do feel sorry for the Oakland fans, for on the face of it they have been slapped in the face twice.........However.........
i
The Raiders are the only NFL team to share with a Baseball team now, every season there is a Baseball Diamond on the Football pitch (or every season there is a football pitch on the A's diamond at the end of their season!!) Because they dont have their own stadium, the Raiders are always at the bottom of the NFL's revenue earners. Thats not an acceptable situation. And Oakland City Council have constantly thwarted any plans by the Raiders to develop their own stadium. If you want football in your city, you have to be proactive about it. And they werent.

For the next 3 years the Raiders play in Oakland. And they are at the start of a Superbowl window (it could all fall flat, but the likelihood is that they will compete. They arent the Baltimore Colts, they arent just moving in the middle of the night, its being done in a gradual way. Mark Davis isnt running away like a thief in the night. Its ironic that its Al Davis's son, who was allways seen in a very negative light compared to his Dad, who managed to engineer this.

I guess by "be proactive about it" you mean plow hundreds of millions of dollars of public money into an organization making billions every year. And this from a city that is broke. Oakland are 100% correct to not do that. If I were a taxpayer in Oakland the last thing I'd want would be to hand over that kind of money to the NFL or the Raiders.

Prefab Sprouter

adrian522 wrote: »

I guess by "be proactive about it" you mean plow hundreds of millions of dollars of public money into an organization making billions every year. And this from a city that is broke. Oakland are 100% correct to not do that. If I were a taxpayer in Oakland the last thing I'd want would be to hand over that kind of money to the NFL or the Raiders.

Oakland is 100% correct not to do that, you are right. There are more important things than football. And if the city is broke then its a no brainer to keep public money out of it. But if you are the mayor of Oakland dont start launching last minute bids to keep the team and then talking about how they did everything possible to keep the Raiders in Oakland.

Leslie91

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Seems to me like when the chargers moved fans were very hostile to it, even on boards lots of fans said they doubted they'd keep following the team, maybe even the sport. My impression is that with the raiders people are disappointed of course, but maybe less inclined to abandon the team itself, the raiders being more of an idea and an ethos than a team representing a place. What is yeer response as fans?

There are a couple of differences for me...

While I look at Oakland as the Raiders spiritual home they have moved out of there and back in the past. It means there are Raider fans all over including 100s of thousands in SoCal.

The Raiders also had no other option once the Chargers decided to be Kroenke's bitch. While our (SD) cretin of an owner will tell you that there was no option but move to LA he was wrong/lying. He was the main problem with getting a deal done in SD. Nobody wanted to support this blood sucking parasite. While I don't foresee SD getting a franchise in the near (10yrs) future, I do believe the LA Chargers are doomed to fail once the people there realize what an incompetent greedy bollix the owner is.

The team should be sold and moved back to SD.

ceadaoin.

heyjude wrote: »

Most of the cost will be paid for via a hotel room tax(so paid for by visitors not locals), but given the likely ticket prices it will be interesting to see how many locals will be able to afford to take in regular Raider home games, as many of the service jobs in Las Vegas are low paid..

If the hotel tax does not cover the cost, which is a possibility, then public funds will have to be diverted to pay. Given that nevada already has one of the worst public school systems in the country, many are angry about this.

Not everyone in Vegas is a low paid service worker. There are many who could afford to go. Whether they will want to or not is a different story.

Season tickets for the golden Knights first season have almost sold out. An NHL team coming here was well supported by locals. From what I've seen, that is not the case with the raiders

Blackhorse Slim

So, Beast Mode is looking likely but not done yet - and time is running out before the draft. I'd be excited to see him in silver and black, I think he can add another dimension to our already-strong offense, particularly in cold-weather games where DC seems to struggle and we need an explosive running game. That said, can Marshawn still do it? I really, really hope he gets the chance to try

Prefab Sprouter

Looks like its a done deal: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000802591/article/marshawn-lynch-agrees-to-raiders-deal-teams-to-trade-terms

heyjude

Like most Raider fans I'm lacking the excitement of recent drafts, but then again drafting at 24, you don't get the huge choice of top prospects that drafting earlier gives you, so the excitement doesn't really build until the Raiders pick is near, which will be hours into the draft.

With big contracts due for Carr, Jackson and then Mack, the importance of nailing your top picks to get lower cost starters has increased, so the pressure is on. I don't expect to see Reggie trade up as the cost would be too high and I doubt there is a player that they feel strongly enough about, but if there is an attractive offer to drop back a few spots I could see it happening.

Mike Mayock has the Raiders taking Cam Robinson, who would take the right tackle spot and be a possible replacement at LT for Donald Penn when he retires. I think the offence as a whole is solid though and with Beast Mode now signed, along with the addition of Jared Cook, Cordarrelle Patterson and Marshall Newhouse, there are no obvious weaknesses, so at the top end of the draft we must go all out on defence. We need a middle linebacker, pass rushing defensive tackle, nickelback and depth at outside linebacker and safety, so basically everywhere. I don't know who I'd prefer in the first round, as I've seen question marks over all the main middle linebacker candidates and some of the defensive tackles(but I'd still prefer a linebacker or DT with the first pick, as opposed to a CB or Safety) Outside of the first round, I've seen some good reviews for Jaleel Johnson, Raekwon McMillan and small school TE Adam Shaheen(even though we don't need a TE) and I'm sure we could find a place for a stud running back if one falls far enough(maybe we could even use Connor Cook as trade bait).

ButcherOfNog

Oh dear, a very risky move considering the allegations against Conley. Lots of poorly judged media comments as well which shouldn't be going on until his guilt or innocence is proven.

Prefab Sprouter

ButcherOfNog wrote: »

Oh dear, a very risky move considering the allegations against Conley. Lots of poorly judged media comments as well which shouldn't be going on until his guilt or innocence is proven.

I'm hoping that Reggie has, indeed, done his due diligence and that the guy is at the center of some nightmare that wasnt of his making. It's surprising of him to make that sort of call, lets just hope it pans out.

SexBobomb

I know its only pre-season still but week 1 will be here before we know it and I wasn't blown away by our defence so far, haven't seen any improvements really on last year. Obviously Mack and Irvin will pop up with big plays but we stole a few games last season and I thought we would look to beef up the defence in the off to help us build. What do you guys think ?