Oakland Raiders Who Play Beyond the Love Of Money

This article is designed to stimulate a process to uncover those Oakland Raiders who are in the game for the love of money, and solely for that reason.

Have you ever gotten the feeling that some of these guys do what it takes to get the job, then after they get the job they "lay back and relax"? Some of them just don't seem to care about winning.

If the young NFL players are in professional football solely for the love of money, you can be sure that the quality of the game will never be the same. If this is the case, then Al Davis will never get two more Vince Lombardi trophies before he departs.

Who are these men? Let's call them out.

In fact, how do they (Al Davis and others) set the amount of a contract in the first place? How do they decide that one guy is more valuable than another? What formula is used to determine the amount of a contract given to a player? Is it correlated with their performance or their popularity?

We want to know the formula.

Just the other day, I told a class about the word "formulate." It means to take a situation and look at it closely and set up an algebraic formula. With such a formula if it is a function of 'x', then if x has a certain value, then the formula yields a numerical output value, called 'y'.

Some functions have more than one input value and I believe that when a franchise sets a value of a player they are dealing with a multivariate-type problem.

There is enough data in the NFL which makes me believe there is some type of formula for determining the amount a young player is offered.

The problem seems to be that the formula that has been used is to "forecast" the value of a player's worth before he actually performs at a certain level. I am going to start doing research to discover that formula, if it exists.

Another way to do this is to produce a scatter diagram of the value of a contract for a given player and somehow compare it to his performance data.

If there is a strong correlation between the two, then good.

If the correlation is poor, say much less than r=1, then cut him, devalue him, or give him a second chance and develop or train him. The symbol 'r' usually stands for the correlation coefficient.

With that in mind, there has to be a formula to adjust or diminish the amount of a contract once it is clear that the player is not performing up to his potential.

Now this formula needs to be consistent.

These questions probably open up a can of worms. And worms corrode a situation. Similarly, a player who consistently performs poorly causes the morale and worth of a team to corrode.

After a little research, I am encouraging us to list those players who are not performing up to potential, and who are not demonstrating their worth.

Who are they? Start the list in the comment section.

Finally, we want players who play with the Oakland Raiders because of their love for the game. We need players who play the game to win, and who go beyond the call of duty, and beyond the love of money.

Go Raiders!