Jump to content

2019 Free Agency Thread

Silver&Black88

By Silver&Black88
in Las Vegas Raiders

Recommended Posts

101Raider

101Raider

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, NYRaider said:

With Murray/Haskins in the draft now I'd love to see us move down with Jacksonville or New York. 

I think Jacksonville would be the ideal trade candidate.  Below link has a pretty good hypothetical write up.

In summary the article basically states:

1. Jags were looking for a QB prior to the deadline

2. Jags love Haskins and will look to move ahead of Giants (likely), Bucs/Raiders ( both unlikely, but possible).

3. Gives multiple scenarios of trade ups, with Raiders they give 50/50 chance of likely hood.  

4.  Would net us their 1st (pick 7) and their 2 3rds (69 and whatever Rams end up with)

https://www.lockedonjaguars.com/jaguars/jaguars-will-need-to-trade-up-in-the-nfl-draft-for-a-qb-but-with-who/

 

I like this idea ALOT since the worst case scenario of  Bosa, Williams and Allen (whom I have come around a lot on) being all gone is a definite possibility.  I still like Oliver a lot, but the more I read about the non-football stuff, the more I'm put off by him.

This would move us into the 7th pick, ahead of Detroit who are possibly looking at DEs.  Gives us our choice of the upside of Gary or the production of Ferrill.  I would take one of these DE at this point, as I feel there's a HUGE drop-off from these two to the tier of Polite/Sweat/Burns etc. and would be a mistake to wait and take one of those guys whom I question can hold-up full time at 4-3 end.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CaliforniaKid7

CaliforniaKid7

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, 101Raider said:

I think Jacksonville would be the ideal trade candidate.  Below link has a pretty good hypothetical write up.

In summary the article basically states:

1. Jags were looking for a QB prior to the deadline

2. Jags love Haskins and will look to move ahead of Giants (likely), Bucs/Raiders ( both unlikely, but possible).

3. Gives multiple scenarios of trade ups, with Raiders they give 50/50 chance of likely hood.  

4.  Would net us their 1st (pick 7) and their 2 3rds (69 and whatever Rams end up with)

https://www.lockedonjaguars.com/jaguars/jaguars-will-need-to-trade-up-in-the-nfl-draft-for-a-qb-but-with-who/

 

I like this idea ALOT since the worst case scenario of  Bosa, Williams and Allen (whom I have come around a lot on) being all gone is a definite possibility.  I still like Oliver a lot, but the more I read about the non-football stuff, the more I'm put off by him.

This would move us into the 7th pick, ahead of Detroit who are possibly looking at DEs.  Gives us our choice of the upside of Gary or the production of Ferrill.  I would take one of these DE at this point, as I feel there's a HUGE drop-off from these two to the tier of Polite/Sweat/Burns etc. and would be a mistake to wait and take one of those guys whom I question can hold-up full time at 4-3 end.

 

 

I’d be all over that trade tbh. I have a feeling it would get some hate around here as some people have inflated expectations of what we’d realistically get in a trade back. 

 

If it keeps us in the top 10 and nets us two more 3rds? Yes. Do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drfrey13

drfrey13

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, CaliforniaKid7 said:

I’d be all over that trade tbh. I have a feeling it would get some hate around here as some people have inflated expectations of what we’d realistically get in a trade back. 

 

If it keeps us in the top 10 and nets us two more 3rds? Yes. Do it. 

Yes it would because we are losing on value.  I understand that the value chart is just a recommendation or a starting point but if a team is willing to trade up into the top 5 for a QB you are paying a premium.  Their first and second plus next years first is a starting point.  I think this years 1st and 2nd plus next years 2nd is were it would end.  If we value all of the prospects from 4-7 the exact same, I doubt any team has ever flipped a coin because they could not place one ahead of the other, and there is not another team to get involved in the bidding war then it is fine to take less.  If not you need at least the difference in value between your 4th rated player and 7th to even contemplate the trade down.  You have to remember taking less just so you get something can hurt you when you negotiate in the future.  Teams may negotiate with the opinion that you will cave.  With time sensitive negotiations like the draft it is better to say no sometimes.

 

Just realized this trade came from a Jags reporter.  I think you are right that there is some undervaluing but it is from the other side.  That is what they wold want to see and is filled with their hope and bias just like my initial offer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
big_palooka

big_palooka

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, 101Raider said:

Sign me up for this.  Unfortunately, I'm thinking the Jags would want #4 straight up for him.

I'd be ecstatic to get Ramsey and a 2nd for our #4.  

I wonder if the Jags would take 24 or 27. I'd trade a 1 for a young standout CB. I wouldn't trade #4 however mainly because of his attitude and need for a playmaking edge player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Roninho

Roninho

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, drfrey13 said:

Yes it would because we are losing on value.  I understand that the value chart is just a recommendation or a starting point but if a team is willing to trade up into the top 5 for a QB you are paying a premium.  Their first and second plus next years first is a starting point.  I think this years 1st and 2nd plus next years 2nd is were it would end.  If we value all of the prospects from 4-7 the exact same, I doubt any team has ever flipped a coin because they could not place one ahead of the other, and there is not another team to get involved in the bidding war then it is fine to take less.  If not you need at least the difference in value between your 4th rated player and 7th to even contemplate the trade down.  You have to remember taking less just so you get something can hurt you when you negotiate in the future.  Teams may negotiate with the opinion that you will cave.  With time sensitive negotiations like the draft it is better to say no sometimes.

 

Just realized this trade came from a Jags reporter.  I think you are right that there is some undervaluing but it is from the other side.  That is what they wold want to see and is filled with their hope and bias just like my initial offer.  

#7, #39 and next years 1st for #4? My first reaction was way to much and never going to happen, but thinking about it as a starting point for negotiation it wouldn't be that bad to start from.

I think the the Falcons trade up to get Julio Jones is still considered as a massive offer. They got #6 and gave away:

#27 (1st), #59 (2nd), next years 1st plus #124 (4th) and next years 4th.

Comparing the two offers next to each other: 

JAGS 2019 -------------------------------------------------------------- FALCONS 2011

#7 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #27

#39 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- #59

1st next year ----------------------------------------------------------- 1st next year

nothing -------------------------------------------------------------------- #124

nothing -------------------------------------------------------------------- next years 4th

 

Imo you are demanding more then the falcons paid, but as a starting point in negotiation it actually isn't that bad, and i don't take into account that the Browns traded #6 and we have #4 (so we offer more value).

Anyway, it all depends on how much a team loves a QB and how stiff they think the competion for the pick is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
big_palooka

big_palooka

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RaidersAreOne said:

A Ramsey, Conley, Worley, Nelson CB corp is filthy.

Then target a vet QB and draft Haskins. Profit.

Except for that Nelson and Worley part. Worley is average and Nelson was garbage and shouldn't see playing time unless he develops heavily in the offseason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
true2form

true2form

Posted
Posted

Would have to have a clear cut replacement for Carr in place to do that.   Even if it was someone like Flacco. 

Unless you're making that trade on draft day and you've already drafted Haskins at #4.

We could do both, but as soon as you sign a guy like Flacco, everyone knows we're dealing Carr and his value drops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...