BackinBlack Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 49 minutes ago, N4L said: Reggie's fate was sealed when he gave the bears an additional second rounder back yup. People will always say the raiders got 2 Firsts, but in reality, we got 1 first (24+ prob) and will move up like 10 spots in next year draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 52 minutes ago, N4L said: Reggie's fate was sealed when he gave the bears an additional second rounder back Lulz. The Raiders were never getting two FRPs AND a promising young player. The fact that we were discussing that as a potential package just shows how off base our perception the value of Mack was. You don't trade TWO FRPs and a young player for a non-QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, SilverNBlackFan said: Another thing, Reggie was maybe the worst GM at trading draft picks and getting back adequate value. He has gotten absolutely worked over in the draft. The Josh Rosen trade value we received was embarrassing. The Dion Jones 2013 trade back was awful, too. What exactly were the Cardinals supposed to be dealing in order to move up 5 spots? They got a 3rd round pick (#79) and a 5th round pick (#152) to move down 5 spots. If you use the trade value chart as a general rule of thumb, the Raiders should have gotten another mid-to-late 5th round pick. That's not really getting bad value. As for the Dion Jordan trade, you're probably forgetting the fact that the '13 draft class was beyond mediocre. The fact that Eric Fisher was the #1 overall pick tells you enough about that class. The Raiders were desperate to trade back especially with a team who had just dealt their 2nd round pick to Cincinnati as part of the Carson Palmer trade. The Raiders simply weren't getting fair value for their pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Lulz. The Raiders were never getting two FRPs AND a promising young player. The fact that we were discussing that as a potential package just shows how off base our perception the value of Mack was. You don't trade TWO FRPs and a young player for a non-QB. Where are you getting a PYP from? The only player involved in the deal was Mack. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for two FRPs and then a mid-late round future pick. Sending a high second, a likely top 10 second rounder for a mid-late third was foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, N4L said: Where are you getting a PYP from? The only player involved in the deal was Mack. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for two FRPs and then a mid-late round future pick. Sending a high second, a likely top 10 second rounder for a mid-late third was foolish. The general feeling prior to the Mack trade was that a team needed to give up a pair of FRPs AND a promising young player. What I'm saying is there wasn't a team who was willing to give up that kind of value, and history tends to support that. When was the last time a non-QB gave up two FRPs for a single player? I think the last time was when the Bills traded up for Sammy Watkins in 2014. Going back even further, the Falcons traded up in 2011 giving up their first in 2011 and 2012 to select Julio Jones. Both of those are coming in on the rookie scale. And Khalil Mack just got a 6 year, $141M contract. No team was giving up two FRPs in order to sign Mack to a mega-extension. It just wasn't reasonable. The fact that deal never came confirms that it wasn't going to happen. And I'm not sure anyone anticipated Chicago being this good this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 36 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Lulz. The Raiders were never getting two FRPs AND a promising young player. The fact that we were discussing that as a potential package just shows how off base our perception the value of Mack was. You don't trade TWO FRPs and a young player for a non-QB. I really want to know what the niners offer was. Lynch is steadfast in his assertion that it was comparable, and then later said that in his belief was better than the deal they got from Chicago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riceman80 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, CWood21 said: The general feeling prior to the Mack trade was that a team needed to give up a pair of FRPs AND a promising young player. What I'm saying is there wasn't a team who was willing to give up that kind of value, and history tends to support that. When was the last time a non-QB gave up two FRPs for a single player? I think the last time was when the Bills traded up for Sammy Watkins in 2014. Going back even further, the Falcons traded up in 2011 giving up their first in 2011 and 2012 to select Julio Jones. Both of those are coming in on the rookie scale. And Khalil Mack just got a 6 year, $141M contract. No team was giving up two FRPs in order to sign Mack to a mega-extension. It just wasn't reasonable. The fact that deal never came confirms that it wasn't going to happen. And I'm not sure anyone anticipated Chicago being this good this year. I saw it a mile away when they traded him. They had one hole on that defense at the time and that was a pass rusher to pair with Floyd. And we gave them a 26 year old future HOFer to fill their need. Mack is that kind of player. He drastically changes games. If Aaron Donald wasn't here, Mack would be looking at another possible DPOY award. So yeah, i saw it coming the same way i saw our defense going from bad to terrible with a historical awful pass rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footbull3196 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 16 hours ago, cddolphin said: Gruden puppet. Gruden was hired to bring a recognizable face to the new Vegas location. He'll be there for the next 4 seasons no matter how bad he is. Agreed. The main reason behind the tanking and acquiring lots of draft capital is for business reasons more than football reasons. This is the most important phase for the Raiders for the next 30 years because they’re trying to establish an NFL fan base in a city that is largely untapped when it comes to sports (with the exception of the Golden Knights coming there very recently). The more picks they can potentially hit on, the better odds of retaining fans over the long run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 22 hours ago, TheKillerNacho said: But... but... wasn't the whole plan to tank? Hinkie died for our wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 1 hour ago, riceman80 said: So yeah, i saw it coming the same way i saw our defense going from bad to terrible with a historical awful pass rush. So you're telling me that you foresaw the Packers completely imploding in particular on the road, the Vikings manage to be the definition of average, and Trubisky being 20th in ANY/A and still going 8-3. Just to put something into perspective, the only QBs with a sub-7.0 ANY/A with as many wins (or more) are Deshaun Watson and Dak Prescott. Last year, the Bears were 14th in defense DVOA and 28th in offense DVOA. They're 20th in DVOA this year on offense and 1st in defense DVOA. They made a good defense great, and they made an awful offense decent. Just for comparison, Green Bay is 7th in offensive DVOA and 23rd in defensive DVOA while Minnesota is 17th in offensive DVOA and 8th in defensive DVOA. They're closer than their records show. Right now, Green Bay is 0-6 on the road. The only other teams in the league with a winless record on the road are the Niners, and they're 3-10 right now. Do you truly believe the Packers 0-6 record on the road truly shows their true colors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefer Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 44 minutes ago, CWood21 said: So you're telling me that you foresaw the Packers completely imploding in particular on the road, the Vikings manage to be the definition of average, and Trubisky being 20th in ANY/A and still going 8-3. Just to put something into perspective, the only QBs with a sub-7.0 ANY/A with as many wins (or more) are Deshaun Watson and Dak Prescott. Last year, the Bears were 14th in defense DVOA and 28th in offense DVOA. They're 20th in DVOA this year on offense and 1st in defense DVOA. They made a good defense great, and they made an awful offense decent. Just for comparison, Green Bay is 7th in offensive DVOA and 23rd in defensive DVOA while Minnesota is 17th in offensive DVOA and 8th in defensive DVOA. They're closer than their records show. Right now, Green Bay is 0-6 on the road. The only other teams in the league with a winless record on the road are the Niners, and they're 3-10 right now. Do you truly believe the Packers 0-6 record on the road truly shows their true colors? Wow yikes what a vomit of information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtmmike Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 hope the browns get him dorsey and him making evaluations wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_palooka Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, mtmmike said: hope the browns get him dorsey and him making evaluations wow Who do you think this guy is? His evaluations over the past 7 years have been mostly terrible aside from hitting on a couple top 5 picks and Carr. The rest, a disaster for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadaluvsdallas Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, big_palooka said: Who do you think this guy is? His evaluations over the past 7 years have been mostly terrible aside from hitting on a couple top 5 picks and Carr. The rest, a disaster for the most part. Oh you best believe your HC is better cause he single-handily caused 2 NFC subdivision titles this year. Do you guys not even remember how much of a dumpster fire you guys were before R.Mckenzie got there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 3 hours ago, CWood21 said: And I'm not sure anyone anticipated Chicago being this good this year. I did. A lot of people who actually follow football did. The Mack trade made them an even better team. 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: So you're telling me that you foresaw the Packers completely imploding in particular on the road, the Vikings manage to be the definition of average, and Trubisky being 20th in ANY/A and still going 8-3. Just to put something into perspective, the only QBs with a sub-7.0 ANY/A with as many wins (or more) are Deshaun Watson and Dak Prescott. Last year, the Bears were 14th in defense DVOA and 28th in offense DVOA. They're 20th in DVOA this year on offense and 1st in defense DVOA. They made a good defense great, and they made an awful offense decent. Just for comparison, Green Bay is 7th in offensive DVOA and 23rd in defensive DVOA while Minnesota is 17th in offensive DVOA and 8th in defensive DVOA. They're closer than their records show. Right now, Green Bay is 0-6 on the road. The only other teams in the league with a winless record on the road are the Niners, and they're 3-10 right now. Do you truly believe the Packers 0-6 record on the road truly shows their true colors? What the hell does some sort of nebulous argument against the Bears, and sort of the Vikings, have to do with Reggie McKenzie being fired by Oakland? Can you explain that for the rest of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.