Humble_Beast Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 https://www.silverandblackpride.com/2018/5/2/17311772/nfl-executives-mixed-reviews-raiders-draft-mark-davis-not-happy-compensation-first-round-trade There's a video, I seen it on twitter but can't find it anymore... The video has the Cardinals call Reggie and offer the 15 th pick, 3rd rounder, and 5th and Reggie just says yes without a counter offer. Arizona party all smirk and hang up the phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble_Beast Posted May 3, 2018 Author Share Posted May 3, 2018 https://twitter.com/FB_FilmAnalysis/status/992083112224960512 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich7sena Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 That video lacks a whole lot of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie2Gunz Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 29 minutes ago, Rich7sena said: That video lacks a whole lot of context. Exactly. Would you rather have Miller at 10 who we most likely selected if we had stayed there or miller, the 3rd rounder we knew we were flipping for Bryant and a 5th which allowed is to trade up for Hurst? I think this is media nonsense. Let's see who won this deal in 3 years. I think we had a good draft but that is contingent on the tackles panning out. It could be worse we could be the 49ers, they stayed at 9 and landed McGlinchy who may or may not be better than the guy we took at 16. Oh yeah and we landed one of the 10 most physically skilled WR's in the NFL for a 3rd round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble_Beast Posted May 4, 2018 Author Share Posted May 4, 2018 I’m just saying could have received a 2nd or future first if we would have played hardball. Arizona needed their franchise qb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBXISBXVSBXVIII Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, Humble_Beast said: I’m just saying could have received a 2nd or future first if we would have played hardball. Arizona needed their franchise qb... Effing let it go. JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie2Gunz Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Humble_Beast said: I’m just saying could have received a 2nd or future first if we would have played hardball. Arizona needed their franchise qb... Hard to play hardball in 10min knowing you may lose out on Bryant if you can't land that 3rd also if no one else made us an offer you have to take that deal. A lot of unknowns here. I believe if we were forced to stay at 10 we would have drafted Miller so walking away with Miller, Bryant and the ability to allow us to trade up for Hurst is a major win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roninho Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 This is just an awful article based on hearsay and individual opinions. Maybe Davis is unhappy with the picks, maybe he isn't. 'Davis is said to be unhappy ' is all there is in this article. And to top it of we get some opinions of an unnamed league executive who likes Miller and doesnt like Arden. Pffff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich7sena Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 The main reason why people think the Raiders didn't get proper compensation is because how teams have overpaid in the past to move into either the top 2 or 3 (Eagles, Jets, Rams) or move 10+ spots (Chiefs, Texans). I wrote from the beginning that realistic compensation from a team in the teens was an additional 3rd, not a 2nd. Either way, the Raiders got an additional 3rd (Martavis Bryant) and 5th (ended up being used to draft Brandon Parker) to take a player they would've almost certainly taken at 10 anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holyghost Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 35 minutes ago, Rich7sena said: The main reason why people think the Raiders didn't get proper compensation is because how teams have overpaid in the past to move into either the top 2 or 3 (Eagles, Jets, Rams) or move 10+ spots (Chiefs, Texans). I wrote from the beginning that realistic compensation from a team in the teens was an additional 3rd, not a 2nd. Either way, the Raiders got an additional 3rd (Martavis Bryant) and 5th (ended up being used to draft Brandon Parker) to take a player they would've almost certainly taken at 10 anyway. "In the past" - it's not in the past. Didn't Tampa get 2 2nds for the same basic move? It wasn't a great deal, and if RM just straight out said yes it is bad negotiating. No putting a shine on that one. I don't have a problem with the trade and am not talking about who won the trade because that is years off. But jumping at a first offer is bad negotiating in any negotiation on any deal in any walk of life. As a head negotiator, as RM is, this is a bad look and there's no spinning that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TiberiusRising Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 Typically terms of these trades are made before the pick is on the clock. So any video showing when it happened was past the point of negotiation. In my opinion Gruden said we are taking Miller and Reggie found a way to get a little more out of it. Look at what ARI gave up for probably no reason at all. I dont know who they were jumping or if they were jumping anyone at all. I think if we required a 2nd in that situation they would have just passed on the trade all together and took the change he would fall or they could trade with another team at a lower price. It is a good deal for Cards no doubt but in this case I dont think many teams valued Rosen as much as the Cardinals who seemed like they just wanted to get any QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightTrainLane Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 Where where the smirks @Humble_Beast ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich7sena Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 hour ago, holyghost said: "In the past" - it's not in the past. Didn't Tampa get 2 2nds for the same basic move? It wasn't a great deal, and if RM just straight out said yes it is bad negotiating. No putting a shine on that one. I don't have a problem with the trade and am not talking about who won the trade because that is years off. But jumping at a first offer is bad negotiating in any negotiation on any deal in any walk of life. As a head negotiator, as RM is, this is a bad look and there's no spinning that. Buffalo had a first allowing them to be more aggressive with their offer. If Arizona had an additional 2nd, I'm fairly certain they would have made the deal giving up a 2nd as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_palooka Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 58 minutes ago, NightTrainLane said: Where where the smirks @Humble_Beast ? I was wondering the same.... really stretched that narrative there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_palooka Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 Bottom line, they should have gotten more. Miami was selecting next. Arizona was desperate for a franchise QB and knew this was there guy. Compared to other trades that happened in round 1, this was a head scratcher. Oakland had all the leverage. The argument if "got there guy, plus the 3rd they wanted for Bryant is lazy". The goal should be to get the best deal possible and pretty sure they could have gotten a 2 or a 1 next year. Either way... is what it is. Nobody will care if Miller is a stud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.