39 thoughts on “R.I.P. Al Davis (1929-2011)

  1. Al was a great entertainer! R.I.P.

  2. An innovator who lived a great life. Enjoy whatever comes next Al, you deserve it.

  3. RIP Mr. Davis. (what a week for Bay Area icons)

  4. A complicated guy, no doubt. He brought a lot of happiness and anger to those around him. The guy is/was the Oakland Raiders. RIP.

  5. RIP Al. He was the Raiders and an NFL legend. Al was a true tough guy who did a lot for the game.
    One in a million guy. Whether you loved or hated him, you respected him.
    Thank you Al for the 3 SB’s, the great players, teams, games and memories you have given me the last 40 years.

  6. Gotta respect the man’s intuition. He literally lived and died by the game of football. No other owner will ever have the mystique and passion like Al Davis had. As a Raider fan, I’ve always wondered what I would do when this day would come, and I feel even worse because he never got that brand new stadium he always wanted, or those two extra super bowls he strived for…But then when I thought about it. That was just Al being Al. Always having goals and high standards even when everyone else criticized him for it. Even with winning 5 super bowls and a new stadium, theres no way he wouldve been contempt with that.

    The motto of the game of life is “Just Win Baby”…There’s nothing else you need to do. RIP

  7. Good by Al now the Radiers will get beter and start winning season in 2012

  8. An end of an era, indeed. He was one of a kind. Marcus Allen. Lyle Alzado. Jim Plunkett. John Madden.

    He was the George Steinbrenner of football. Liked by none. Feared by all. And that’s not even mentioning the courtrooms.

    I can imagine the tributes during the next Raider home game. The Black Hole has to be planning something “special” as I type this message.

  9. Rest in Peace Mr Davis and thank you.

  10. Whether you loved him or hated him, nobody can argue about his impact on the game of football, as a coach, league executive (AFL commissioner), and owner. Move over Rozelle, you’ve got someone to share eternity with.

  11. The picture the Chronicle is running on the front page with the article about Davis’ passing is nothing short of ironic…

  12. @ Dan I know people blame Al for ruining the coliseum, but without Al and the Raiders, the A’s would never have moved to Oakland in the first place.

  13. @eb – exactly… No Raiders = No Coliseum = No Oakland A’s.

  14. True but as someone posted elsewhere the quote, “you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villian,” really applied to him. Yes there might not have been a Coliseum without Davis and the Raiders, but equally true is that if he hadn’t brought his team back the Coliseum would not have had the football renovations and instead would have had baseball renovations which would have completely changed the tenor of what is going on today with the team (ie: leaving). So equally true…

    No Raiders 2nd time = no Mt Davis = no losing the A’s to SJ

  15. good quote, Dan. That was true of Davis’ closest comparison, George Halas. Bears fans hated him (for being a cheapskate) at the time of his death though he built a league, a franchise and ran it even longer than Davis….maybe in one way Steve Jobs was lucky.

  16. @ Dan I suppose that’s true, but I’m of the belief that the Raiders never should have left in the first place and they belong here in Oakland, home. It’s just a shame their return was handled with inept planning. Well, go A’s & go Raiders!

  17. Even if the Raiders didn’t return and the A’s did baseball only renovations like the Angels did, I believe the last two owners would still want to move the team south, complaining about needing an all new facility, in a better area, closer to SV $$, etc…Yeah, the last 15 years would of been much better for the fans ballpark wise without Mt. Davis, but it would of still probably pailed in comparison to AT&T and other parks. If you pro-SJ goes are so pissed off on what happened to the Coli, why not take the stance on the Raiders moving to SC and the Coliseum being torn down and an all new park built? Oh, but I forgot, you’re pro-SJ, so the hell with the Coliseum area in any form.

  18. typo–“pro-SJ guys”

  19. jk, I’d love if the Raiders moved to SC or even better back to LA. Never wanted them back and still don’t want them in the Bay Area.

    And if them being gone meant the Coliseum site opened up for the A’s and Oakland was willing to put a large chunk of money into building a ballpark there (say matching the $200 million they wasted building Mt. Davis), I’d be all for it. And I suspect MLB and Wolff would be too. I don’t see the broke city of Oakland doing that, but at least it would be them living up to what they’d all but promised Schott back in the 90’s before they were fall all over themselves trying to suck off Al Davis to bring the Raiders back.

    Remember, for many it’s not being “pro SJ”, it’s being “pro stadium.” And right now the most logical and most realistic plan is the one presented in SJ. But if Oakland were to offer to pay the A’s what they paid the Raiders back in 95 suddenly Oakland would be the frontrunner, even at the Coliseum site.

  20. @Dan Even if you’re a 49er fan, why would you root for a Bay Area team to leave? You do know that there are generations of Oakland Raider fans in the Bay Area that would be devastated if the team left again. Why would you want to see all of those people heartbroken? I really dislike the Giants and 49ers, but I would never want them to leave, I have to many friends/family members who would be crushed.

  21. Many of those devastated would also be your fellow A’s fans. I never understood that level of hate.

  22. What a crazy win today for the Raiders. It wasn’t pretty, but we’ll take it. Seabass was awesome with the 4 FG’s. Now we have to fill the O.co Coliseum up for the rest of the year. No silly tarps needed for the Nation.

  23. RM
    perhaps when the mourning has ceased, you could do a thread on what you think will happen with the Raiders now that Mr. Davis is no longer with us. Just my opinion, but I think SC becomes more of a possibility, LA a close second.

    • @Tony D. – Davis’ outsized personality and shadow aside, the Raiders are a professional organization from top to bottom. I don’t expect much to change at all on the stadium front since Mark Davis his been in charge of that for some time now. His job is to get the Raiders in a stadium deal that maximizes revenue and team value. The facts are that he doesn’t need to decide on Santa Clara anytime in the next year or two, and that having options by shopping around for the best deal possible is simply good business.

  24. @eb, because I’m not a 49er fan, nor am I one of those make believe “Bay Area” fans. I’m an A’s fan first and foremost. And I’d root for the Raiders to leave because they’ve already left. They lost any claim of allegiance from anyone in the Bay Area in my mind the day they moved away the first time back in 1982. I’m shocked anyone gave them a second thought after they left nor wanted their sorry traitorous asses back in 1995. And I’ve always been doubly perplexed by those A’s fans that root for them as well for that reason and the more obvious reason sitting in our outfield every year as a depressing reminder of which team the leaders of Oakland would gladly prostitute themselves out for to the tune of $200 million dollars…

  25. @Dan,
    Don’t know if you meant to, but with that last sentence you beautifully summed up why Oakland has no chance of retaining the A’s. Say what you want about Selig and MLB; they aren’t stupid.

  26. For the record, as a Raiders fan, I could care less where they play: Oakland, SC or LA. I’d prefer however that they stay in the Bay.

  27. @Dan Your clueless. The Raiders are one of the few Bay Area pro franchises not inherited from another region. So they represented the bay area from the start. As an “A’s fan” that you claim you are, then I assume you’re aware that the “Oakland Athletics” as you know them would not exist if it was not for Al Davis & the City working to have the Coliseum built, to permanently house the Raiders and dubiously helped to lure the A’s away from KC.

  28. angelakalalo, I’m well aware the Raiders started in the Bay Area, they also left the Bay Area because it wasn’t good enough for them. As for the Coliseum, it was built as much to lure in a baseball team (which eventually became our beloved A’s who yes moved from KC), if not more so, than it was to house the Raiders. And it wasn’t Al Davis that “worked with the city” to make the Coliseum reality. The man you should really be thanking is Robert Nahas, not Al Davis.

  29. RM,
    In your opinion, is it possible money-wise for the Raiders to go it alone in Oakland with a stadium? Heck, despite awesome suite sales, I’d ask the same question for the Niners in SC. If the answer is “yes” for both then more power to them. My opinion is that the events of the past 48 hours has tilted the scales toward sharing.
    @Dan and all,
    The Coliseum was designed as a classic “Cookie-cutter” stadium for football, baseball and all the above.

  30. @dan “Lure in a baseball team” the raiders were already here. And they weren’t going to play in frank youll, kezar and the stick forever. No raiders, no A’s. Fact. Why the left in 82, that’s a whole nother story which both parties (city & al) were to blame. If you think about it, the A’s current delima mirrors that fiasco.

  31. @angel–but the city did do good at the time to hold Finley to his lease when the A’s were all ready to go to Denver, and were eventually sold locally to Walter Haas. Having the Raiders leave in 82 probably saved the A’s. The city didn’t want to lose both teams in one shot. If the city and the Raiders agreed to the Coil upgrades for football, they may of just let the A’s go.

  32. True, but in allowing the Raiders back in 1995 they may have ensured that both the A’s and the Raiders leave for greener pastures.

  33. @ Dan, I feel very safe making the guess that both the A’s and the Raiders will be in the Bay Area for the foreseeable future. I’d prefer in Oakland, but most assuredly they’ll both be in the bay.

  34. @eb–i agree with you that both teams will be around for awhile in the BA. If the southbay has to get a team, I prefer it be the Raiders (Oakland name remains), and the A’s stay in Oakland.

  35. @ML With respect to how much time Mark Davis has to make a decision on Santa Clara: It seems to me the Raiders will never has as much negotiating leverage to cut a good deal with the Niners than right now. Right now, the financing for (and therefore the viability of) the project are still up in the air. If the Raiders come in on the deal, it should all but cinch it. On the other hand, if the Raiders wait until the Niners secure enough financing to do the entire deal on their own, the Niners will have all the leverage.
    If I recall, you said before the Raiders would be a tenant at the new stadium. Is this etched in stone? Is it at all possible the Raiders could negotiate something approximating an even split, a la Giants/Jets?

    • @bartleby – They’d have to rip up (or significantly amend) the existing contract between the stadium authority and StadCo/49ers. I don’t see Jed York waving the white flag on that anytime soon.

  36. If you have a magnifying glass you can see a tiny box that says Al Davis 1929-2011

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.