Raiderstation

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

That's going to be hard to do with Minshew. Im sure Maxx will also be extra motivated too.

Good thing the Raiders can't score points. That should help KC beating us

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Browns and Giants both f[raiders_icon]cked us over like I knew they would.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Looks like the Titans will be facing Minshew next Sunday..... which is nice.

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.

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.

Lose out to draft Mendoza, trade Crosby for picks for the OL.

Dr Death wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 1:34 pm Browns and Giants both fcked us over like I knew they would.

All we have to do is finish this thing by losing the head to head vs. the Giants.
Jets are 100% trading in front of us if current order holds.
I think the Giants can beat Minnesota though.

Cruisin 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.

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).

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).

Not to mention, Jack, Bills & Rams could be resting players in week 17.

DanKD wrote: Sun Dec 14, 2025 1:20 pm Got to hope Minshew wants to stick it to the raiders

Shadeur Sanders clowned us. Minshew shouldn't have much trouble. Unlike us, KC actually has dignity. They'll do everything they can to win.