Raiderstation

Tank is full speed ahead!

WNYRAIDER wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 6:31 am ....I still believe we would have been aggressive with the new regime, and while we heard of the supposed list provided by our new DC of what he needed to make it work on that side of the ball, I would imagine that kk also wanted some kind of commitment beyond what we would do with the 1st pick. ....on the flip side, the de that we signed is one which may have not been had we known.... ....there weren't more than maybe one or 2 moves we made that weren't geared towards real team needs, and with those one or 2 perhaps being to compensate for his expected loss.....

I agree - I think Paye is the one guy we would not have been in on, but for the Maxx trade. He also might be the guy who helps keep Maxx healthy because his presence might help to give Maxx some rest. I really think they need to sit Maxx down and tell him that 100% of snaps isn't good for him and that it's gonna change. This reset as a result of the aborted trade might help that discussion (and it might not, because he's stubborn as f[raiders_icon]ck).

16 to 88 wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 6:31 am Riddle me this, you are a team of football minds sitting around the table debating well before free agency what moves to make for your team. It is decided that the likelihood that of your superstar DE being traded is through the roof it's just a matter of the best offer so you base all your moves off of that. He gets traded, you implement your plan and you go out and sign players based off of that and then the slimy dirt ball of an organization you dealt him too that has done this in the past now backs out of the deal. You would have went in a different direction free agency wise if you were unable to deal him. That was the whole purpose of dealing him in the first place.

The vast majority on this board, league wide NFL circles and the talking heads all know the ravens totally goofed us up. The only question that remains is did they do it on purpose or did they realize after the fact. You see, I don't look at the ravens organization and say to myself, self, this organization is stupid. In fact I believe they are a bunch of sharks. So let's assume for a second a team that has had the success they have had is not stupid. I'm in the camp that they did this on purpose. And even if it was not on purpose, they realized there own mistake and/or wanted to go in another direction and it was a moment of them successfully stuffing the shit back in the horse and goofing us up in the progress, well, that is bad as well. Either way is bad and with 100% certainty if somebody did it to them they would be enraged. And, rightfully so.

I think they had buyers remorse but when Hendrickson did not move on day one, they went to work on his agent and made the deal while waiting for the Maxx physical. Once the physical came back with a flag or two, they were able to cut bait. I do not think they went into the Maxx deal with the intention of screwing us. I think they realized they could get a similar guy for less and keep their picks. Dirty? Sure. Within the CBA? Yes. Can the next CBA address this? I for the life of me do not know how you could keep this from happening again. We agreed to a deal with a player and backed out once the physical was done. Was ours legit? Well, same player ended up signing with another team. They are medical opinions. And opinions can vary.

chucker wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 6:25 am What's wild about this whole saga is that if we had decided all along not to trade Maxx and then made all of these moves, we'd have to convince him that things are different. And Maxx, it seems, was done and wanted to move on. Now, because it's the Ravens that kept him from getting moved to a "contender", it feels like he may view it as a fresh start on an ascending team in a way that never would have happened without this weird journey.

I also wonder if we'd have been as aggressive in FA with Maxx on the roster - I kinda doubt it. In the end, it might be the Ravens who helped the Raiders accelerate the journey back to relevance. Regardless, f[raiders_icon]ck the Ravens.

I’d also say watching the Ravens get decimated in FA didn’t help things considering all he keeps saying is he wants to win.

16 to 88 wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 6:31 am Riddle me this, you are a team of football minds sitting around the table debating well before free agency what moves to make for your team. It is decided that the likelihood that of your superstar DE being traded is through the roof it's just a matter of the best offer so you base all your moves off of that. He gets traded, you implement your plan and you go out and sign players based off of that and then the slimy dirt ball of an organization you dealt him too that has done this in the past now backs out of the deal. You would have went in a different direction free agency wise if you were unable to deal him. That was the whole purpose of dealing him in the first place.

The vast majority on this board, league wide NFL circles and the talking heads all know the ravens totally goofed us up. The only question that remains is did they do it on purpose or did they realize after the fact. You see, I don't look at the ravens organization and say to myself, self, this organization is stupid. In fact I believe they are a bunch of sharks. So let's assume for a second a team that has had the success they have had is not stupid. I'm in the camp that they did this on purpose. And even if it was not on purpose, they realized there own mistake and/or wanted to go in another direction and it was a moment of them successfully stuffing the shit back in the horse and goofing us up in the progress, well, that is bad as well. Either way is bad and with 100% certainty if somebody did it to them they would be enraged. And, rightfully so.

I think it was a combination. They realized they got fleeced in the trade, Trey’s value came down, they got destroyed in FA and they not only lost Linderbaum, they lost him to the team that fleeced them in the Maxx trade.

Attyla wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 6:58 am I think they had buyers remorse but when Hendrickson did not move on day one, they went to work on his agent and made the deal while waiting for the Maxx physical. Once the physical came back with a flag or two, they were able to cut bait. I do not think they went into the Maxx deal with the intention of screwing us. I think they realized they could get a similar guy for less and keep their picks. Dirty? Sure. Within the CBA? Yes. Can the next CBA address this? I for the life of me do not know how you could keep this from happening again. We agreed to a deal with a player and backed out once the physical was done. Was ours legit? Well, same player ended up signing with another team. They are medical opinions. And opinions can vary.

If you are referring to Saffold he was a free agent. Maxx was not. He was traded, Saffold was free to sign with any team, had other suitors and ended up where he ended up. You can't say the same about Maxx's situation, completely different. And nobody but nobody believes those dirt ball sharks physical came back with "a flag or two". lol They only did it because it had value in it for them. Certainly you are not believing the whole flag story are you?

Viper wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 7:11 am I think it was a combination. They realized they got fleeced in the trade, Trey’s value came down, they got destroyed in FA and they not only lost Linderbaum, they lost him to the team that fleeced them in the Maxx trade.

Yes, definitely could have been to this I am reconciled. Either way it was bad. And of course, they have a history of doing this very thing.

Here's a good article..... it's from the Athletic, but this one is free. It has a lot of reaction from agents and executives around the league and their views on what happened with the Ravens and the trade. It's worth a full read but I won't post the whole thing here.

Multiple agents, executives and coaches referred to Baltimore rescinding its trade offer as “bad business,” with one prominent agent noting that NFL transactions are a matter of repeating business, where relationships and trust matter. A veteran agent called the move a shock, but “not a surprise when you think of who is involved.” That was consistent with what two executives said about the Ravens’ reputation for, as one put it, “f—ing with people.”

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/711050 ... ction-nfl/

chucker wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 7:18 am Here's a good article..... it's from the Athletic, but this one is free. It has a lot of reaction from agents and executives around the league and their views on what happened with the Ravens and the trade. It's worth a full read but I won't post the whole thing here.


https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/711050 ... ction-nfl/

Yeop, completely unethical organization. Their moral compass seems to spin freely as integrity appears to be optional.

16 to 88 wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 7:13 am If you are referring to Saffold he was a free agent. Maxx was not. He was traded, Saffold was free to sign with any team, had other suitors and ended up where he ended up. You can't say the same about Maxx's situation, completely different. And nobody but nobody believes those dirt ball sharks physical came back with "a flag or two". lol They only did it because it had value in it for them. Certainly you are not believing the whole flag story are you?

None the less, that happened. It was a deal we made and backed out due to medical. And another team came to a different conclusion. That happens with soft tissue injuries. Not every doctor will come to the same conclusion.

But do I think the Ravens jobbed us? Probably. Do I think they went into this with that intention? No. Can anything be done about this? No. The doctor who performed the physical is one of the best when it comes to evaluating knees. This is not some low level doctor. This was a surgeon who had done hundreds of knee procedures. And it would not be him saying Maxx's knee will not recover. All he had to say is Maxx has not yet recovered. That is all it takes. The window is why this happened. The NFL, through no fault of their own, has a fairly small window between the end of the season and the beginning of free agency. Many soft tissue injuries cannot heal inside that window. Teams have to take those medical reports and look at the projections. Will the player recover in time. Will he be fully recovered or not. These are where teams roll the dice a bit. The Ravens used that report to "justify" cancelling the deal.

So while you are correct that the two situations are not identical, the essence of the situations bares enough similarity in that the medical opinions were used to reverse course. The trade portion of this, while somewhat relevant does not affect the ability to reverse course. Is it ethical? On the doctor's part yes. On the team's part?? Probably not however we did not see the report from the doctor. HIPAA does play a part in that. But without that, we are using educated guesses based on the series of events once the trade was cancelled.

The protections afforded to people through HIPAA will slightly protect the Ravens because they cannot reveal what part of the report was the basis for the reversal to the public. They can to the league through the CBA rules, but that is where the limits are.

chucker wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 7:32 am

Things have a way of working out sometimes. Before the trade Crosby very deliberately wouldn't say that but now it seems like him and the Raiders are in alignment.

chucker wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 6:43 am I agree - I think Paye is the one guy we would not have been in on, but for the Maxx trade. He also might be the guy who helps keep Maxx healthy because his presence might help to give Maxx some rest. I really think they need to sit Maxx down and tell him that 100% of snaps isn't good for him and that it's gonna change. This reset as a result of the aborted trade might help that discussion (and it might not, because he's stubborn as f[raiders_icon]ck).

100% ?...no, but at least 90% ?, yes.

I'm sure he's going to be much better after full rehab, but we don't need someone perceived to be a part time player and neither will another likely trade for him if he's part time.

But hey, I understand what you're saying and agree to a degree...and with us going to a 3-4 defense he'll probably wasn't going to play every snap anyway.

raiders r in a good position despite the madmax stuff going on, we added a lot of talent on both sides of the field but really improved our defense a lot especially with max manning his role as a pass rusher...i think koonce was a goner until the max trade happened, then we resigned him...now if we could sign a big run stuffing nt our front 7 is gonna be a force

raidersince63 wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 7:48 am 100% ?...no, but at least 90% ?, yes.

I'm sure he's going to be much better after full rehab, but we don't need someone perceived to be a part time player and neither will another likely trade for him if he's part time.

But hey, I understand what you're saying and agree to a degree...and with us going to a 3-4 defense he'll probably wasn't going to play every snap anyway.

30 million means he is gonna retain his usual role, kwitty and koonce can be rotated run/pass situations

mstrbass2000 wrote: Thu Mar 12, 2026 7:51 am raiders r in a good position despite the madmax stuff going on, we added a lot of talent on both sides of the field but really improved our defense a lot especially with max manning his role as a pass rusher...i think koonce was a goner until the max trade happened, then we resigned him...now if we could sign a big run stuffing nt our front 7 is gonna be a force

Draft a NT, there are a lot of good one's in the draft and the top of the 4th round will still have them