Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Humble_Beast

Mark Davis not happy with Reggie(R1trade down)

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

If RM would have traded back and drafted Hurst in the first most homers on here would be thrilled.  It's actually comical reading some of the logic posted here. 

Already addressed that. The player didn't matter at the time of the trade when most everyone was questioning the value of the trade. So your argument collapses in on itself.

You're narrative is built 100% around Bryant and you're obsession with the big/tall/fast WR. So you're blinded by a player you like that resulted in the the trade. So really think don't think you should be throwing stones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Silver&Black88 said:

I mean.  First of all: this^

Second of all, would that be so wrong? You're damn right part of why I didn't like the trade was that we got Miller.  We had Minkah Fitzpatrick staring us in the face AND we have his DB coach on our staff.   The trade is one-track mindedness at its finest. It sucks getting jerked around by how the draft fell (kinda seems like we were unprepared for this) and drafting 100% need-based.

In the end we can sit here and talk about good ole Kolton and whether he'll pan out or not until we're blue in the face but the bottom line is: we should have had AZ by the balls. No. I don't like Miller (or where we took him) but we're stuck with him for better or worse. Better compensation sure as hell would have made the pill go down easier though.

Agreed. If you're going to turn down one of the top rated prospects in favor of a project LT in round 1, at least get more in the trade. Get more at bats at hitting on something if that pick fails. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

Already addressed that. The player didn't matter at the time of the trade when most everyone was questioning the value of the trade. So your argument collapses in on itself.

You're narrative is built 100% around Bryant and you're obsession with the big/tall/fast WR. So you're blinded by a player you like that resulted in the the trade. So really think don't think you should be throwing stones.

My narrative being built 100 percent around us landing Bryant for a 3rd is ludicrous.  My narrative is about the value of the LT position over for example a safety.  I am not debating who will be the better pro but what I am telling you is the draft is a crap shoot and if you have 2 equally ranked players with 1 being safety and the other being a LT any GM in their right mind would take the LT.  We have a huge void a RT and have for years and have an average, 35yo LT coming a major injury.  To think that LT wasn't a major need is beyond naive. 

While there are no highlight videos of Miller laying the wood on some helpless WR so all the homers can watch it on a loop and praying for the day it happens in the NFL so they can post the video on FootballsFuture ;) reality is the smart move is to take the not so sexy LT and protect our franchise QB for the next decade.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

My narrative being built 100 percent around us landing Bryant for a 3rd is ludicrous.  My narrative is about the value of the LT position over for example a safety.  I am not debating who will be the better pro but what I am telling you is the draft is a crap shoot and if you have 2 equally ranked players with 1 being safety and the other being a LT any GM in their right mind would take the LT.  We have a huge void a RT and have for years and have an average, 35yo LT coming a major injury.  To think that LT wasn't a major need is beyond naive. 

While there are no highlight videos of Miller laying the wood on some helpless WR so all the homers can watch it on a loop and praying for the day it happens in the NFL so they can post the video on FootballsFuture ;) reality is the smart move is to take the not so sexy LT and protect our franchise QB for the next decade.  

What are you missing here.......We are not talking about the players involved. We're talking about the value of a trade. Take the players out it. This is simply about how much should be expected in a trade from 15 to a top 10 pick to draft a franchise QB and did the Raiders get that value. Answer.... no.  

Edited by big_palooka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

What are you missing here.......We are not talking about the players involved. We're talking about the value of a trade. Take the players out it. This is simply about how much should be expected in a trade from 15 to a top 10 pick to draft a franchise QB and did the Raiders get that value. Answer.... no.  

What are you missing here? Here is the value based on a trade chart:

pick 10=1300

pick 15=1050, 79=195 and 152=30

We got underpaid by 25 points which is hardly anything to get in an uproar about.  Would a 6th rounder, equaling 1300 have made such a major impact that is would have stopped homers from questioning the deal?  I highly doubt it.  

Edited by Frankie2Gunz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams do irrational things for QBs.....not sure the trade chart is perfectly aligned for that specific position.  Especially trading into the top ten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Silver&Black88 said:

Teams do irrational things for QBs.....not sure the trade chart is perfectly aligned for that specific position.  Especially trading into the top ten.

I agree but clearly drafting QB's is a crap shoot and the Cards were not beating down the door to draft Rosen.  For all we know they were the only team looking to trade up and draft him or for that matter we could have called the Cards looking to trade down.  It is pretty obvious we wanted to move back in the draft. 

The Cards saw a deal to move up and draft a QB while not overpaying and they took it.  The Cards did not need to draft a QB, they have Bradford who if he can stay healthy is a serviceable starter in the mold of Palmer.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

I agree but clearly drafting QB's is a crap shoot and the Cards were not beating down the door to draft Rosen.  For all we know they were the only team looking to trade up and draft him or for that matter we could have called the Cards looking to trade down.  It is pretty obvious we wanted to move back in the draft. 

The Cards saw a deal to move up and draft a QB while not overpaying and they took it.  The Cards did not need to draft a QB, they have Bradford who if he can stay healthy is a serviceable starter in the mold of Palmer.  

That's a lot of if's and buts.  The Dolphins who picked right behind us were rumored to want a QB.  Bradford has had 2 maybe 3 healthy years in his whole career.  We should have held them for ransom.  If they said no, then taken Minkah. 

I do like that we stretched what we got in return, but also feel some of the moves were risky for my taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Silver&Black88 said:

That's a lot of if's and buts.  The Dolphins who picked right behind us were rumored to want a QB.  Bradford has had 2 maybe 3 healthy years in his whole career.  We should have held them for ransom.  If they said no, then taken Minkah. 

I do like that we stretched what we got in return, but also feel some of the moves were risky for my taste.

This whole conversation is based on if and buts.  We all know nothing but I will say my hypothesis is just as good as anything the media vomits on us.  How do we know if the Phins coveted a QB?  They had multiple opportunities to trade up for one and didn't, so once again we are relying on what the media spews at us.  

Knowing that we were going to flip our pick for Bryant, trading back and landing one of the top LT's in this draft was a much smarter move than staying at 10 and taking a safety which is not a premium position.  

Edited by Frankie2Gunz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem getting a 3rd and 5th. Especially since we got the guy we were rumored to take at 10 anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Blazer026 said:

I have no problem getting a 3rd and 5th. Especially since we got the guy we were rumored to take at 10 anyway.  

This is why I'm fine with the trade down itself, but not thrilled. They were going to take him at 10 once McGlinchey went off the board, so getting the third and the fifth, while still getting their guy, was just icing on the cake. However, those saying that RM/JG basically gifted the Cards their QBotF are absolutely correct too. It's really a gray area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

I agree but clearly drafting QB's is a crap shoot and the Cards were not beating down the door to draft Rosen.  For all we know they were the only team looking to trade up and draft him or for that matter we could have called the Cards looking to trade down.  It is pretty obvious we wanted to move back in the draft. 

The Cards saw a deal to move up and draft a QB while not overpaying and they took it.  The Cards did not need to draft a QB, they have Bradford who if he can stay healthy is a serviceable starter in the mold of Palmer.  

Bradford has been an injury risk his entire career and is a short term stop-gap. The Cards were rumored to covet a QB for months leading up to the draft and were ready to make a move for one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

Bradford has been an injury risk his entire career and is a short term stop-gap. The Cards were rumored to covet a QB for months leading up to the draft and were ready to make a move for one. 

Ready to make a move on a QB with character concerns and a bunch or red flags.  Once again teams were not beating down the door to draft Rosen which is pretty evident.  We wanted to trade back and land Miller which is obvious and for all we know we could have called Zona seeing if they were willing to trade up for a 3rd and 5th knowing Bradfords injury history.  With all of the red flags Rosen has it is quite possible that they were only willing to move up if they didn't have to give up firsts or seconds and since we had no one else interested we took the deal for equal value and flipped the pick for Bryant.  Both sides got what they wanted in the deal now it is the media with stupid headlines that make fans with limited football knowledge go into a frenzy about how we were ripped off.  It's actually quite comical.   

I still have no idea as to why you can't grasp the concept that we received adequate value for moving back to 15.  I clearly laid it out in the trade value chart a few posts up, that is unless you think the 25 point differential was a difference between a good and bad trade lol.  Some homers obviously just read media nonsense and refuse to look up facts such as trade chart values.  

The bottom line is we wanted Miller and we got him by moving back to 15, picking up a 3rd that we flipped for one of the most physically talented Wr's in the game and the extra 5th allowed us to move up for Hurst. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not remember where I saw it but there was a draft show that a former GM was on and he stated that almost every team will see what it takes to move up for almost every pick.  It is just part of the process because you never know how the draft plays out and who will fall where.  I am sure Arizona and Oakland had talked about this situation pre-draft.  Nothing is set in stone but this appears that Oakland thought they got good value in the deal or else they would not have done it.  My issue is that they believed it was good value and/or did not negotiate with a willingness to walk away from the table.  You can talk ifs and buts all you want.  With what was on the table I believe the better value was to stay @ 10.  I could be wrong but that is my belief with the known information. (It does not matter if Miller ends up the best player in the draft.  If you were the Patriots in 2000 and were the only team with the knowledge of how the draft and Brady's career would turn out what round do you draft him in?  I still draft him in the 6th because I know that is where he has the most value.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, drfrey13 said:

I can not remember where I saw it but there was a draft show that a former GM was on and he stated that almost every team will see what it takes to move up for almost every pick.  It is just part of the process because you never know how the draft plays out and who will fall where.  I am sure Arizona and Oakland had talked about this situation pre-draft.  Nothing is set in stone but this appears that Oakland thought they got good value in the deal or else they would not have done it.  My issue is that they believed it was good value and/or did not negotiate with a willingness to walk away from the table.  You can talk ifs and buts all you want.  With what was on the table I believe the better value was to stay @ 10.  I could be wrong but that is my belief with the known information. (It does not matter if Miller ends up the best player in the draft.  If you were the Patriots in 2000 and were the only team with the knowledge of how the draft and Brady's career would turn out what round do you draft him in?  I still draft him in the 6th because I know that is where he has the most value.)

I'm not sure how you feel there was better value on the table by staying at 10 as opposed to trading down.  What players would you say were better value than netting Miller, Bryant and having the ability to trade up for Hurst?  Let's take Hurst out of the equation bc we had no idea that he would be there in the 5th.  To me that is still great value for moving back 5 spots, landing the player they allegedly coveted at 10 and trading for Bryant.  I've said it before if Bryant was coming out in this draft knowing what he could do on the pro level he would have been a top 10 pick.  

They knew exactly what they were going to do when flipping the 3rd for Bryant.  RM said that deal had been in the works for months, Pit. was holding out for a 3rd and come draft day the Raiders knew they needed to trade back to acquire that pick to flip.  That is why I feel that they were the ones searching to trade back and not asking for a kings ransom.  They wanted the potential LT of the future along with the 26 year old stud WR that potentially could make this offense elite.  Not a bad haul for trading back 5 spots.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×