Rocky Landing

Right. Why even bother trying to win the game? With all due respect, I see this attitude (all too prevalent) as gutless.

I wonder if Orton would say, "screw it," decline his option if he were benched for this game? Obviously (to me, anyway), I would hope that we find a better option at QB before next preseason. But, if we don't, which is not unlikely, I would hate to walk into next season betting "all-in" on EJ, again. KO may very well be starting week one, 2015.

I'm trying to figure out if I might feel myself rooting for the Pats to win the Super Bowl. If they did, would, perhaps, Brady decide to retire? You know, on a high note, and all that?

This sort of parsing, and hand-wringing analysis would be a discussion IF we were looking at tie-breakers. We're NOT. I'm being a realist when I say that we are an 8-7 team. I'm being a pessimist when I say we are going to finish as an 8-8 team, because I believe that the odds of us winning in Foxboro on Sunday are slim, indeed. That is it. People who don't believe that we have improved over last year have an all-too-common short term memory problem. NONE of our wins this season were irrelevant, or gifted to us, any more than any of our losses were stolen from us. You don't have t be happy with 8-8. But calling us anything less than that is cynically disingenuous.

Whether or not you agree with the OP, I have to say this is the most non-sensicle response to anyone I have read in any thread, for... oh, at least a day or two... Essentially, you are saying, "if you take away half of our wins, we've only won four games." Those are some mighty insightful statistics, there.

EJ's ineptitude has been greatly exaggerated by some, and utterly forgotten by others.

Yeah, that should go really well...

You probably say this every year.

I can't remember where I read it, but I did read something (conjecture?) about an announcement about a team moving coming after the Super Bowl. The timing of the thing is the biggest hurdle, I think. Either, a team has to announce that they are moving, and play out the next season or two in a city that hates them, or move and play in one of the interim facilities, neither of which are too attractive, although the Rose Bowl is a MUCH nicer facility than the Coliseum. Neither are up to par with an NFL franchise. I would think the latter plan would be the most economically attractive. But, it will be a hardship for whichever team shows up. Of course, that's not the only hurdle, political, or otherwise. With the speed that these issues are resolving, I would say 2017 at the earliest. But, who knows? There may be a "strike while the iron is hot" thing going on, and at some point, the City of LA, or AEG, or Kroenke, or the Raiders, or whoever is going to have to crap or get off the pot. It most certainly is not a dead issue-- AEG did get a contract extension in October-- but, maybe it doesn't happen in the foreseeable future?

I believe that 2015 has been taken off the table entirely. It has also been widely reported that no team will be approved without a stadium deal. Here is a link to one of the best articles I have read on the subject: http://www.ibtimes.com/nfl-los-angeles-team-2015-stadium-deal-team-owners-are-relocation-hurdles-1763060

The two locations that have been proposed as interim facilities should a team move to LA are the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and the Pasadena Rose Bowl.

I think there is a very typical, knee-jerk reaction that when there are problems, firing someone is a "step in the right direction." Has Marrone improved from last season to this? Has Hackett improved from last season? Starting from square one rarely takes a team to the next level- especially when the team has been moving in the right direction. Unless one equates "accountable" with getting fired, I don't see how Marrone/Hackett have not been accountable in their respective roles.

There are certainly a myriad of theories to answer that question. I find the notion that LA is populated by a rare breed of uninterested fan to be intellectually lazy. Certainly, I would agree that "big city" fans tend to be a little more bandwagonish (didn't Fireman Ed quit the Jets last year?). But, I still maintain that LA would embrace a team, and that the reasons are far more political, and economic. Here is a pretty good link that illustrates the political aspect: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/09/the-politics-behind-why-los-angeles-doesnt-have-an-nfl-team/ I agree with the assessments of many pundits that there is a greater financial push now for a team to move to LA than there has been in the last 20 years. It does seem to be a slow process, though.

I would be interested in learning what CJ's numbers are for his runs up the middle. If they averaged over a yard, I would be surprised. If they averaged negative yards, I would not be surprised.

"...the Raiders, and that's a limited, strange, isolated clan." No argument there! My point regarding the UCLA, and USC games is that there are football fans in LA. I know more than a few people who go to those games who are not alumni. But, more to your point, LA is a great sports town. And, there would be some deep pockets marketing an LA franchise. I remember reading somewhere, quite a while ago, that it is now a league rule that when a team relocates, they are required to change their name. But, I don't remember where I read that, and I'm not sure if it's true. But, if a team did move to LA, I suspect they would change their name, and be heavily marketed. And, even a die-hard Bills fan like yourself, with over 28,000 posts, would start to pay attention to them. You'd (maybe secretly, at first) start to root for them when they were playing anyone but the Bills. Fan bases aren't created overnight. The next time you are in Los Angeles, go to a Dodgers game, or a USC, or UCLA game, or the Clippers, or Lakers, or Kings, and your questions will be answered. Edit: For that matter, go to the NHRA Winter Nationals in Pomona, and see how many people are willing to spend their hard earned dollars to be utterly assaulted by the top-fuel dragsters!

I've been living in Los Angeles since 1991 (suck an egg, Buffalo Barbarian!), and my feeling is that there is quite a lot of interest from LA NFL fans for there to be a team here. There is an ENORMOUS contingent of the Raider Nation here. And, quite a few fans are still stinging from the exit of the Rams, which felt like a betrayal to many. Be that as it may, to compare the economic, or social, or sports landscape in Los Angeles to that of 20 years ago is inaccurate. There are certainly no shortage of football fans, and I believe any team that arrived in LA would be embraced. Look at the turnout for USC, and UCLA games. I do agree that LA has been used as a pressure tactic to push for public funding in other cities in the past. But, I certainly don't believe that the NFL has been merely stringing along AEG for such purposes. And AEG did receive a six month contract extension for a stadium deal from the LA City council in October. San Diego has certainly made it clear that they have no intention of moving. In fact, I think they may represent a major stumbling block to a team arriving in Los Angeles. According to Chargers executive Mark Fabiani, 30% of the teams local revenue originates in the LA market. Any team that submits a proposal to move needs a super majority for approval, and I suspect that the Chargers might work behind the scenes to undermine that vote. I haven't read that anywhere-- just my conjecture.

Please don't run him up the middle... Please don't run him up the middle... Please don't run him up the middle... Please don't run him up the middle... Please don't run him up the middle... Please don't run him up the middle... ................................................,

A la Brad Smith?

I agree that he has regressed. But, so has our run game, and I feel like the O-line has regressed as well, even with Urbik starting. Cordy Glenn, especially, looked awful on Sunday. It is not just Orton who needs to snap out of it.

Sure. But, the speed at which that pocket often collapsed on Sunday had nothing to do with Orton's mobility, or lack thereof. Also, I think it's unfair to characterize Orton as "immediately hunching over and waiting for the sack." He has actually been pretty good at getting rid of the ball without intentional grounding.

I'm not disagreeing with that, and I am not "excusing" Orton. But, Orton isn't terrible. He's average. I haven't seen "staring down his receivers" as one of his major deficiencies. Hell, he never has time to stare down his receivers. What I do see as his major deficiencies are poor mobility, and an utter inability to throw on the run, or even throw without setting his feet. ALL of his decent throws (and let's be honest- he's had plenty) have occurred when he has had time to set his feet. These are deficiencies that would be mitigated, and far less critical with some decent protection, and a stable pocket. Am I wrong?

Three field goals qualifies as "absolute domination?" That would have to include a terrible O-line, and a constantly unstable pocket.

You would be more convincing if you at least tried to sound like you weren't on a crusade.

I think this game is going to be much closer than people expect, unless the Raiders are playing for first overall draft pick. And I don't think they are going to. I think they're going to stick with Carr at QB, and not go for Mariota. One win will not make even close enough of a difference in their draft options to make easing off a home game worth it. Especially considering the drama surrounding their stadium, and the tenuous nature of staying in Oakland. The Raiders are going to show up on Sunday to win one at home. Unfortunately, that's a big "if."

I would to add O-line to this. In fact, I think Orton (who's biggest downside is his lack of mobility, IMO) would be a much more effective QB with a stable pocket.