The Tankathon thread,i.e., the 2026 Draft
- KillerRaider30
- Posts: 7,589
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:24 pm
- Has given High Fives: 624 times
- Received High Fives: 551 times
- Cruisin with Tooz
- Posts: 1,713
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:43 am
- Has given High Fives: 223 times
- Received High Fives: 496 times
That's going to be hard to do with Minshew. Im sure Maxx will also be extra motivated too.DanKD wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 1:21 pm Still likely to be Kelces last game and he will want to get one more win over the Raiders
- 3rd and Long
- Posts: 1,019
- Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2020 9:26 am
- Has given High Fives: 42 times
- Received High Fives: 61 times
Good thing the Raiders can't score points. That should help KC beating us
- These users gave a High Five to the author 3rd and Long for the post:
- Sloth_Fratelli
-
Raider Nation
- Posts: 1,792
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:44 pm
- Location: Arvada, Colorado
- Has given High Fives: 103 times
- Received High Fives: 49 times
Good news, Washington just beat the Giants! With Washington’s win, I can see a pretty possible path to the Raiders picking at #2 if we win 1 more game.chucker wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 9:02 am I don't
Among the 3 win teams, I think the best chance of a win is the Saints over the Panthers - I just don't believe in the Panthers, despite a solid record. I still think the 3 win teams might be a factor in our draft pick - we could win one more, despite what most fans want.
- ALLRAIDERWORLD21
- Posts: 4,105
- Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 10:02 pm
- Has given High Fives: 502 times
- Received High Fives: 644 times
Well, even if Mahomes could come back, he’s done the rest of the year. We will be facing Minshew the last game and probably most of the Chiefs second string —told you all not to chalk the KC game up as an automatic loss.
- Trainnvain
- Posts: 1,435
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 6:00 pm
- Has given High Fives: 245 times
- Received High Fives: 174 times
In a normal power structure GMs don’t tell coaches who to play, the coaches decide. I’m sure they discuss the roster during the week but final say is up to the coach, especially in the Raiders situation with a rookie GM and a HOF level head coach.Cruisin with Tooz wrote: Sat Dec 13, 2025 6:46 pm For the cheap seats it doesnt require a conspiracy. It requires a subordinate who is not insubordinate. That is why I qualified my position by writing "In a normal power structure". That means Im not even referring to the current incarnation of the Raiders. Im talking about how a tank could happen in other circumstances without a conspiracy. That renders your third paragraph irrelevant to my scenario where you misconstrue my post as pertaining to the dynamic with Carroll and Spytek.
The reason you get frustrated debating when someone pushes back on you is because you have a tendency to conflate your opinion with fact. I dont want to awaken you to a rude disillusionment, but your opinions are not the be-all end-all of discussions. And debating me is very different than debating a wall. You have some chance of beating a wall in a debate. But I think it was a good idea for you to tell Jesus all about your problem. If anyone can help you, he can.![]()
-
Dr Death
- Posts: 4,273
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2024 10:51 am
- Has given High Fives: 4299 times
- Received High Fives: 1119 times
Browns and Giants both f[raiders_icon]cked us over like I knew they would. 
- raiderjohn
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:21 pm
- Has given High Fives: 1 time
- Received High Fives: 119 times
Spyteks Tampa and Michigan connections, he should be able to find 10 or so practice squadders to poach and put on our 53 man roster. We get a look at a handful of players, that probably drums down our talent level a bit.Trainnvain wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 1:29 pm In a normal power structure GMs don’t tell coaches who to play, the coaches decide. I’m sure they discuss the roster during the week but final say is up to the coach, especially in the Raiders situation with a rookie GM and a HOF level head coach.
- Cruisin with Tooz
- Posts: 1,713
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:43 am
- Has given High Fives: 223 times
- Received High Fives: 496 times
Youre the 2nd poster who has done this. If I have specifically qualified my post to exclude the current version of the Raiders, why do you use the current version of the Raiders to try to rebut what I wrote? In a normal power structure, the HC is a subordinate of the GM and the GM has hire/fire power over him.Trainnvain wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 1:29 pm In a normal power structure GMs don’t tell coaches who to play, the coaches decide. I’m sure they discuss the roster during the week but final say is up to the coach, especially in the Raiders situation with a rookie GM and a HOF level head coach.
And when youre 2-11 the priorities change. The priority is no longer "this year". Its "next year". So the priority changes from winning (early in the season when there is hope) to evaluating the roster and allowing backups to gain experience (late in the lost season). As the head of the management, its the duty of the GM to set the organization's priorities. Hopefully the HC recognizes this and complies with the GM's directive. But in a normal and desirable organizational power structure you dont want a weak GM that the HC puts on the pay no mind list. The GM is the rudder that steers the ship.
Early in the year when winning is the priority, sure the GM isnt going to be telling the HC who to play, because winning that upcoming game is the HC's province. But when the season is lost winning becomes secondary to preparing for the future. It becomes all about the upcoming draft and free agency. And that is not the HC's province. That is the GM's province. So late in a lost season the GM has to be mandating who is playing, because he cant prepare for the draft and FA without that information.
-
chucker
- Posts: 17,038
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:53 am
- Has given High Fives: 2049 times
- Received High Fives: 2754 times
Looks like the Titans will be facing Minshew next Sunday..... which is nice.
- These users gave a High Five to the author chucker for the post:
- Rabidraider
- Cruisin with Tooz
- Posts: 1,713
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:43 am
- Has given High Fives: 223 times
- Received High Fives: 496 times
Do tell. There were 8 teams with less than 4 wins at the start of play today. Was reduced that number to 7 and we are ahead of Ari by tiebreaker if we win a 3rd game. A 3rd win, presumably vs NYG, then puts at #6. NO has game vs NYJ and Ten. As long as NO doesnt sweep those 2 games, we would move up to #4. We would still be behind NYG, Cle and either NO, Ten or NYJ(depending on who won the 2 NO games). To move up to #2, would require 2 of those 3 teams to lose another game. There are always possible scenarios with 4 games left, but realistically we wind up #4 if we beat the giants. And now the KC game is back in play. Just like last year, we may wind up winning the final 2 meaningless games on the schedule and go from #1 pick to #9.Raider Nation wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 1:24 pm Good news, Washington just beat the Giants! With Washington’s win, I can see a pretty possible path to the Raiders picking at #2 if we win 1 more game.
All we have to do is finish this thing by losing the head to head vs. the Giants.Dr Death wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 1:34 pm Browns and Giants both fcked us over like I knew they would.![]()
Jets are 100% trading in front of us if current order holds.
I think the Giants can beat Minnesota though.
-
Raider Nation
- Posts: 1,792
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:44 pm
- Location: Arvada, Colorado
- Has given High Fives: 103 times
- Received High Fives: 49 times
NYG (Vik, Oak, Dal) 2 winnableCruisin with Tooz wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 3:02 pm Do tell. There were 8 teams with less than 4 wins at the start of play today. Was reduced that number to 7 and we are ahead of Ari by tiebreaker if we win a 3rd game. A 3rd win, presumably vs NYG, then puts at #6. NO has game vs NYJ and Ten. As long as NO doesnt sweep those 2 games, we would move up to #4. We would still be behind NYG, Cle and either NO, Ten or NYJ(depending on who won the 2 NO games). To move up to #2, would require 2 of those 3 teams to lose another game. There are always possible scenarios with 4 games left, but realistically we wind up #4 if we beat the giants. And now the KC game is back in play. Just like last year, we may wind up winning the final 2 meaningless games on the schedule and go from #1 pick to #9.
Oak (Tex, NYG, KC)
Tenn (KC, NO, Jack) 2 winnable
Clev (Buff, Pitt, Cinci) 1 winnable
NO (jets, Tenn, Atl) 3 winnable
Jets (NO, Pats, Bills) 1 winnable
AZ (Atl, Cinci, Rams) 2 winnable
Was (Phi, Dal, Phi) probably 1 winnable
We could easily win 1 game and still get the first or second pick in the draft…. Obviously we would need Cle to beat Cinci (very possible) and the jets to beat NO ( very possible).
- These users gave a High Five to the author Raider Nation for the post (total 2):
- chucker, KillerRaider30
-
Raider Nation
- Posts: 1,792
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:44 pm
- Location: Arvada, Colorado
- Has given High Fives: 103 times
- Received High Fives: 49 times
Not to mention, Jack, Bills & Rams could be resting players in week 17.Raider Nation wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 3:28 pm NYG (Vik, Oak, Dal) 2 winnable
Oak (Tex, NYG, KC)
Tenn (KC, NO, Jack) 2 winnable
Clev (Buff, Pitt, Cinci) 1 winnable
NO (jets, Tenn, Atl) 3 winnable
Jets (NO, Pats, Bills) 1 winnable
AZ (Atl, Cinci, Rams) 2 winnable
Was (Phi, Dal, Phi) probably 1 winnable
We could easily win 1 game and still get the first or second pick in the draft…. Obviously we would need Cle to beat Cinci (very possible) and the jets to beat NO ( very possible).
- Opoponax50
- Posts: 5,689
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:16 am
- Has given High Fives: 1116 times
- Received High Fives: 571 times
Shadeur Sanders clowned us. Minshew shouldn't have much trouble. Unlike us, KC actually has dignity. They'll do everything they can to win.
- These users gave a High Five to the author Opoponax50 for the post (total 2):
- Sloth_Fratelli, Viper