So where do the Raiders play next year? The situation is weird to say the least
BillJones
Posts: 33,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
Fox Sports was just talking about where the Raiders will be next year. They might play in a baseball stadium in Oakland next year, or .... they could become the London Raiders. I know a lot of the players will love to work with with jet lag ... NOT From my experience the trip over is harder than the trip back.
Even if they stay in Oakland, who wants to be a fan of a team that is leaving town? I’ve never seen a pro team “hang fire” with an announced move like this. All of the other times I’ve seen, a team announces that they are leaving at the same time they are getting out of town ASAP.
And I really can’t understand why the NFL wants to be in Los Vegas anyway. With gamblers only a short distance away in the gambling capital of American and having lived during the college basketball gambling scandals of the late 1950s, I don’t understand why the NFL wants to take the chance. This is even more probable if the Raiders are bad, which is a distinct possibility. Bad teams have a betting thing called “the spread” which can be manipulated. For guys who might well be out of the league shortly, the temptations might be too great.
Comments
I have been a Raider fan since George Blanda was the regular QB
It's been years since I was cheering for a winning team.
Quite frankly the Raiders are playing in the toilet !!!!
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I'm not a Raider hater, but I lose all respect for any team that leaves their city. The fans should take it as a slap in the face.
And yes, if the Cowboys ever left Dallas I would drop them in a heartbeat!
It feels to me that the Raiders have left Oakland and come back 30 freaking times. Who cares where they end up.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Where ever they be it shall be Raider Nation
Maybe the Raiders are the true “America’s team.”
Good answer.
We all know and agree that last season the Philadelphia Eagles were now America's team.
However as Patton once said, "All glory is fleeting."
An 8 hour time zone difference for west coast teams is ridiculous. That is one painful jetlag.
The “glory” part is certainly the truth. Look at Patton. After becoming one of the primer generals of World War II, he gets his neck broken in what could have been a freak accident or sabotage.
Freak accident.
If "they" wanted Patton out of the picture, then they would have designed a much better way to try to kill him other than an automobile accident.
I once visited Patton's grave in Luxembourg. Patton wanted to be buried along with the troops he led in battle.
My answer reflected opinions expressed in Bill O'Reilly's book, "Killing Patton." I think that was probably an accident, but given the way Stalin operated through his life, nothing was off the table with him.
Did Patton lead from the front of the troops or the rear? I'm asking because I really don't know, but
suspect he wasn't exactly the first one to charge the enemy.
Patron led from the front as much any Allied General did. Generals don't and can't lead from the front lines. If they did, too many would become casualties which would be a disaster for any military operation. If you can eliminate the senior officers, you would be in a strong position to win the battle.
I like Bill O'Reilly a lot, but didn't read his book on Patton because I had already previously read a number of books on WW2 which included much info about Patton.
Would Stalin liked to have seen Patton dead? Yes, that I would believe for a number of reasons. However Stalin basically got almost everything he wanted from winning WW2, and knew that the Allies had no interest in further war in Europe right after Germany surrendered.
So Stalin had no logical reason to kill Patton at the time of the auto accident. And Stalin was a very logical individual, albeit "logical" in the sense of a ruthless, murderous dictator.
Stalin?
Stalin had donald trump go back in time to cut pattons brake lines I suppose?
I believe > @BillJones said:
These days, I guess. But Stonewall Jackson and other civil war generals sure lead from the front lines.
I think the senior officers should be on the front lines, if the soldiers can be replaced then so can they.
Eisenhower and Patton and the other generals get too much credit, they weren't the ones being shot at.
Perhaps for a similar reason why NFL head coaches don't play in the football games.
Patton was the last US general to win a battle I think. Thats why they had to rub the guy out. The whole point of the military industrial complex is not to win anything that would dry up the flow of future sales
Yea, I think it was around the same time that the New York Jets last won a Super Bowl.
Generals most certainly are not interchangeable. Check out the early history of the Civil War when it was going badly for the Union. Lincoln went through McDowell, McClellan, Pope, Hooker and Meade before he finally appointed Grant who “pressed the thing” and ended the war.
When Stone Wall Jackson died at Chancellorsville. Lee commented that “Jackson may have lost his left arm, but I have lost my right arm,” with Jackson out of the war. Some say that the war in the West might have gone differently for the South had Albert Sidney Johnson not been killed at Shiloh.
As for Eisenhower, his ability to pull together the large and sometimes fragile egos that made up the military hierarchy of the allies was key to winning the war. Patton, Bradley and most assuredly Douglas MacArthur could not have done it. Perhaps Marshal could have done it, but he played a key role in winning war stateside.
No, generals are not interchangeable no more than Presidents of the United States or of large corporations. That’s why the great ones have gotten press in the history books as well as some of the bad ones.