Your mind also apparently glossed over the fact that we lost the best quarterback the Raiders had since Jim Plunkett after the 2003 season. Lets see how the Pats will look after they lose Brady. It's not like the Pats were some big time winner before Brady, right?No. It was intended to highlight a specific point in time. And i mentioned the superbowl appearance the following year (had completely forgotten that at first, but said it pretty clearly when I readdressed it). That seemed to be the time period when the Raiders went from formidable team and contender to their current state, I'd just glossed over in my mind that there was one more year of good play first.And speaking of a "half-assed swipe", so what did you think, that your mentioning the Tuck Rule game would get me foaming at the mouth?
Had you written the above instead of this:
...it might have saved you looking like a hater, an unobservant hater.
One last thing; I didn't think my "swipe" was half assed at all.
My challenge to you remains. Lets see if you're man enough to admit you were wrong about the Raiders if they make you eat the words in your original post on the subject.Ok, it certainly makes things easier when you just admit it was trolling, saves a lot of effort. Thanks!
Alidar, you're absolutely right. Losing Gruden was actually the first step toward our decline. Losing Gannon was second.
Yes we did. I'de have to google to recall who we picked. Off hand though, I don't think we did much with those picks.
Phillip Buchannon. He was a typical Al Davis pick in the 2000's; very talented but not much of a football player. All those picks could have revitalized the franchise if used properly. Instead we got one good player out of the whole thing.
Glad to see you backing off the initial little passive-aggressive barbs thrown in response to my post pointing out the Raiders' apparent improvement on and off the field.
Oh, I definitely am.
