daineraider Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Not sure what to think. So we get draft picks from the Bears that we hope turn into players half as good as Mack, but then trade them away when it’s time to pay them? The player we get from the Bears better be pretty good or we are guaranteed nothing in this trade(we suck at drafting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Small Town Values Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Wow! I'm shocked. Love Mack, so it looks like I'll be adding the Bears to the small list of teams I root for. Dealing you best player while in his prime to another team is a hell of a gamble. Hope it pays off? Damn Raiders! You ain't even in Vegas yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
game3525 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, MKnight82 said: Why would Dallas unnecessarily raise his cap hit before they have to? Also, he’s going to want big money (which he hasn’t earned), the cowboys are going to want to wait two more years so they have more evidence of whether he’s worthy of that money. Because waiting longer could make Dak more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Share Posted September 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bobikus said: To look at it another way here, using PFR's AV as a general measure of value, only 19 players drafted from 2005-2014 in the first round have had an equal or higher career AV in their first four years than Mack. This is out of 320 picks (32 x 10 years), meaning you'd statistically have about a 0.11% chance of two first round picks giving you a player of Mack's value. Check your math. The odds of having 2 first round picks give you a player of Mack's value is 1-X, where x is the odds that neither player is as good as Mack. The odds of not getting a player as good as Mack are 301/320, per above, or 94%. The odds of getting 2 consecutive picks that aren't as good as Mack is 0.94 squared, ~88.5%. 1-0.885=11.5% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_shadows Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Check your math. The odds of having 2 first round picks give you a player of Mack's value is 1-X, where x is the odds that neither player is as good as Mack. The odds of not getting a player as good as Mack are 301/320, per above, or 94%. The odds of getting 2 consecutive picks that aren't as good as Mack is 0.94 squared, ~88.5%. 1-0.885=11.5% Math is for losers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobikus Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Check your math. The odds of having 2 first round picks give you a player of Mack's value is 1-X, where x is the odds that neither player is as good as Mack. The odds of not getting a player as good as Mack are 301/320, per above, or 94%. The odds of getting 2 consecutive picks that aren't as good as Mack is 0.94 squared, ~88.5%. 1-0.885=11.5% Yeah, had decimal place messed up. Good catch. Doesn't change general point though, 11.5% of getting a pick of Mack's caliber means that his value is a lot more than 2 picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted September 1, 2018 Author Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, Bobikus said: Yeah, had decimal place messed up. Good catch. Doesn't change general point though, 11.5% of getting a pick of Mack's caliber means that his value is a lot more than 2 picks. Not really, you're neglecting to factor in multiple things: Mack's salary would be able to go to other players Players who aren't as good as Mack may still contribute substantive positive value Having value spread out over multiple players reduces risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 I don't follow the Raiders too closely, and am naturally lazy, so can someone tell me whether OAK has been hitting on recent early picks not named Mack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACO Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 4 minutes ago, game3525 said: Because waiting longer could make Dak more expensive. I assume Dallas is waiting to see how he plays this season. If he does well then they will pay him without a second thought. If he has a so so season they will have to have that conversation but I suspect it will be more on the coaching than anything and he might get one more pass under a new system. But either way he not getting paid this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 I’m just LOLing every freaking Raider in reddit or here thought that Donald was the silver lining lol. How I would love to be a fly on the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 2 hours ago, stl4life07 said: Rams spooked the Raiders with the deal they gave Donald. The Raiders traded Mack as soon as the ink dried on Donald's contract. September 10th cant come fast enough when the Rams take on the Raiders. McVay is going to toy with the Raiders defense and Donald is going to feast on Carr and remind Lynch on what happened the last time they met when Donald stuffed Lynch on 4th and 1 to clinch the Rams victory over the Seahawks. Yea that contract had to have played a big part here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, ET80 said: Which did nothing in terms of the salary cap for the Texans, which is why your example doesn't work. The Texans are still in position to retain/resign everyone they need to retain/resign. .... There are salary ramifications. But there are 2 first rounders and a yet to be named player. What if you could have traded him to Dallas for our 2 first rounders + a decent player in 2015. You can pick any mid level player you want. How about Anthony Hitchens? He was a midlevel play for us. Plus you get our next 2 first rounders - So Byron Jones & Zeke. Plus you get $20m - to keep this fair I will only look at people in the 4-6M range/year. So thats: Bryan Baluga, Brandon Graham, Cole Beasely & Adrian Clayborne. JJ Watt OR Hitchens Bryon Jones Zeke (OR JAYLON RAMSEY) Bryan Baluga Brandon Graham Cole BEASTLY!! Adrian Clayborne Which makes you a better team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Mazrimiv said: I don't follow the Raiders too closely, and am naturally lazy, so can someone tell me whether OAK has been hitting on recent early picks not named Mack? Poorly. Their gm is not very good imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: I don't follow the Raiders too closely, and am naturally lazy, so can someone tell me whether OAK has been hitting on recent early picks not named Mack? Very far from it. Reggie has been one of the worst drafting GM's in the first 3 rounds since the Mack draft imo. However with Gruden having lots of control in this past draft, it's looking very promising and we likely have 7 picks starting or getting very serious playing time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaguarCrazy2832 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 2 hours ago, PapaShogun said: Fangio just got a dope new toy to play with. I'm surprised that this wasn't done by a team that is in championship mode right now. Bears have been on the outside looking in for quite some time. I dont think most teams in championship mode can afford him if they dont have a QB on a rookie deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.