Jump to content

Random Thoughts


AnAngryAmerican

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, jsthomp2007 said:

Just had what I think was about a 30 second fart.  I think that is quite a long time for one single fart, no?  It felt like it was never going to end. I am super impressed.  

Enjoy it while you can bud. You're nearing the age where you learn one of lifes great lessons; Never trust a fart!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That $100m investment in Gruden is really paying off. The mullet wanted a celebrity coach to sell tickets in Vegas, problem is the celebrity coach is not, and never has been, a very good coach and now he's shipping away the best player the Raiders have had since Charles Woodson. As both a Broncos fan and a Bears fan, I love it!

Edited by AnAngryAmerican
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough spot for Gruden. He had to pay him over $20 million annually to keep him. Pretty dicey proposition when you just signed your QB for $25.

It's tough enough to field a team with one player in the $20 mil + range. I'll bet it's near impossible to do with two of them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, AKRNA said:

Tough spot for Gruden. He had to pay him over $20 million annually to keep him. Pretty dicey proposition when you just signed your QB for $25.

It's tough enough to field a team with one player in the $20 mil + range. I'll bet it's near impossible to do with two of them.

Idk how the bears do it tbh. Their qb will have to be paid in the next 3 years and didn't they just spend a lot of money on allen Robinson and burton? 

I think Mack would of played for 23 million annually.  I remember wanting to trade von Miller for a kings ransom when that got ugly.

 And posters on here including yourself I believe said you have to pay key guys like that or you'll ruin the culture we will see what happens in Oakland now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AKRNA said:

Tough spot for Gruden. He had to pay him over $20 million annually to keep him. Pretty dicey proposition when you just signed your QB for $25.

It's tough enough to field a team with one player in the $20 mil + range. I'll bet it's near impossible to do with two of them.

I think this is a very logical opinion. Don't get me wrong, I am delighted Mack is gone, but you can't pay everyone. People keep saying, "the Raiders are going to be using the picks they got to just replace Mack. Why not just keep him?" That's too simplistic.

The 1st round picks will be earning (in NFL terms) small salaries for 5 years (4 if the team chooses) and thus if they hit with the picks, it will likely have a more even spread amongst the team.

If we were to have a QB right now on a franchise QB salary, we'd be in the same boat as the Raiders with Von on our books with that salary. The rest of our roster would look thinner than it already does. Which brings me on to my main point ...

... The biggest issue here is Carr. His play last year was unacceptable for a player on that salary. Right now people in that organisation, regardless of whether they say it or not, know that if Derek Carr played like a franchise QB last year then this move wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. The Raiders have (arguably) had to trade their best player because of that monster contract Carr was signed to, and the team is still very poor despite having a QB on a franchise QB salary. 

How people will review this trade next year will come down to Carr's play. That simple really.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, lomaxgrUK said:

I think this is a very logical opinion. Don't get me wrong, I am delighted Mack is gone, but you can't pay everyone. People keep saying, "the Raiders are going to be using the picks they got to just replace Mack. Why not just keep him?" That's too simplistic.

The 1st round picks will be earning (in NFL terms) small salaries for 5 years (4 if the team chooses) and thus if they hit with the picks, it will likely have a more even spread amongst the team.

If we were to have a QB right now on a franchise QB salary, we'd be in the same boat as the Raiders with Von on our books with that salary. The rest of our roster would look thinner than it already does. Which brings me on to my main point ...

... The biggest issue here is Carr. His play last year was unacceptable for a player on that salary. Right now people in that organisation, regardless of whether they say it or not, know that if Derek Carr played like a franchise QB last year then this move wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. The Raiders have (arguably) had to trade their best player because of that monster contract Carr was signed to, and the team is still very poor despite having a QB on a franchise QB salary. 

How people will review this trade next year will come down to Carr's play. That simple really.

Seems that available cash, and not cap, was the real culprit here. They also didn't need to give Gabe Jackson a big contract with Osemele and Hudson also on high paying deals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BroncoBruin said:

Seems that available cash, and not cap, was the real culprit here. They also didn't need to give Gabe Jackson a big contract with Osemele and Hudson also on high paying deals. 

I'm sorry, but that's a weaksauce reason.   The franchise is worth 2.1 Billion, and moving to Vegas where their value is only going to skyrocket.   There is literally no financial institution that Mark Davis couldn't have secured a loan for to get the available cash in escrow.   

Davis and Gruden (since Gruden has to OK anything GM McKenzie does contract/personnel-wise, so personnel is Gruden's call now) simply didn't want to pay a 25 year-old Mack the top player $.   That's fine in a vacuum, but they have to stop with the "we can't afford the cash outlay" angle.  It's ridiculous.

Re: the pick return, the news gets worse for OAK - they give up a 2020 2nd round pick to get a 2019 1st, 2020 1st, 2020 3rd & 2019 6th.   On the surface, that doesn't seem so bad, but given they are dealing Mack, that D needs a complete rebuild.   Given they were a bottom-10 team with Mack...what are the chances they are still a bottom 10 or worse team the next 2 years (remember, don't get to use picks until next year, and picks take time)?

 

Say OAK finishes with the 1.7 or earlier pick in 2020, as they only get to use the extra 2019 1st & 6th.    Let's say CHI makes the playoffs year 2 with Mack on that team, and also year 2 with the new OC Nagy installing his system.

Then OAK gets a 2019 1st on a team that's likely finishing no worse than 7-9/8-8 (Roquan Smith, Anthony Miller, Allen Robinson, Mack, and of course, no John Fox).  So let's say teen's pick in 2019.   Playoffs in 2020 means a pick in the 20's.

The deal then looks like

2019 teens pick

2020 20's pick

2019 6th (pretty much no value)

2020 pick in 80's

for

Mack

2020 pick in the 30's if OAK finishes bottom 7

 

I mean, the way the deal has gone down, the Raiders might only move up 10 spots in 2020, and get a teens pick in 2019.  Anything can happen, but the odds say that's most likely. 1st round picks aren't created equal.   I get OAK felt they didn't have a choice - but their return isn't nearly as good as it looks pick-wise with that inclusion of OAK's 2020 2nd back to CHI.   And when you don't even talk to the guy for months, not hard to see how they put themselves in the spot where teams weren't willing to give up 2 1sts outright.  But that return of a 2020 2nd really changes the pure pick return a lot.  

Edited by Broncofan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...