Jump to content

Random Raider Stuff


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

Yea idk about trading for cooks esp with hr3 finally eating at the table 

I want 5 guys with over 300 receiving yards lol. 

Plus, with our O-line and run game being almost a non-factor, adding another legitimate weapon can't hurt. It would keep Snead and Jones off the field. 

Ruggs, Waller, and Renfrow are decidedly our top 3 receivers. Waller is drawing doubles a lot, and Ruggs is going to likely draw CB1s, and there's some good ones left on our schedule. 

That leaves the RBs (and we don't use Drake enough....yet) and Renfrow as our primary targets, with Edwards/Jones/Snead playing a distant 4th fiddle. 

In a 4 wide set with Ruggs, Cooks, Renfrow, and Waller, with Drake at RB, who's drawing coverage? I know I wouldn't want to be the opposing DC having to make that decision. Unless you absolutely abandon the pass rush and channel your inner Rocky Long and go with a 3-3-5, there's no way you're not leaving at least 1 star caliber player with very little coverage. 2 legit deep threats in Ruggs and Cooks would warrant at least 3, if not 4 defenders having to account for the deep ball. Now you're looking at, what, 7 guys to account for a 3rd down machine, a top 3 TE, and one of the league's better pass catching RBs? One, if not two of those guys are likely getting very little attention paid. 

 

Alas, I know it's more fantasy booking than anything. But I wouldn't be mad about it at all.

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

Wouldn't mind that. His contract is huge though. 

Not in 2021. And the Raiders don't have any DT under contract for 2022. I have no idea if the Giants would even be willing to trade him though.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

I want 5 guys with over 300 receiving yards lol. 

Plus, with our O-line and run game being almost a non-factor, adding another legitimate weapon can't hurt. It would keep Snead and Jones off the field. 

Ruggs, Waller, and Renfrow are decidedly our top 3 receivers. Waller is drawing doubles a lot, and Ruggs is going to likely draw CB1s, and there's some good ones left on our schedule. 

That leaves the RBs (and we don't use Drake enough....yet) and Renfrow as our primary targets, with Edwards/Jones/Snead playing a distant 4th fiddle. 

In a 4 wide set with Ruggs, Cooks, Renfrow, and Waller, with Drake at RB, who's drawing coverage? I know I wouldn't want to be the opposing DC having to make that decision. Unless you absolutely abandon the pass rush and channel your inner Rocky Long and go with a 3-3-5, there's no way you're not leaving at least 1 star caliber player with very little coverage. 2 legit deep threats in Ruggs and Cooks would warrant at least 3, if not 4 defenders having to account for the deep ball. Now you're looking at, what, 7 guys to account for a 3rd down machine, a top 3 TE, and one of the league's better pass catching RBs? One, if not two of those guys are likely getting very little attention paid. 

 

Alas, I know it's more fantasy booking than anything. But I wouldn't be mad about it at all.

I think 3wr sets of hr3, hunter, Edwards + waller at te is the equivalent to the nfl version of the nba warriors death lineup. I don’t think cooke offers more than them rn

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oakdb36 said:

Not in 2021. And the Raiders don't have any DT under contract for 2022. I have no idea if the Giants would even be willing to trade him though.

Good point. That regime in NY looks poised for turnover, so hard to gauge what they might do. I would be looking to upgrade the Dline if I was Mayock though

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

I bet someone out there would give a 4th for Ferrell tbh. Heck, give us a 5th we can package for a 4th. 

He's not what we wanted him to be, and that will likely forever diminish our perception of him given the investment made. But to the NFL outside of the Raiders, I doubt he's as worthless. 

Definitely agreed. As someone said, he's not a good fit for this scheme but others may find that to be different. I would love to get anything we can for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, oakdb36 said:

I'd be more hesitant to trade Mariota. Depends on what we'd get back.

He gets hurt every game it seems. He has more value to us while healthy than hurt so why not trade him when healthy? I understand Peterman isn't a viable backup and Mariota is but we cannot rely on Marcus to be healthy b/c his whole career is one big injury mixed in w/ very underwhelming performances at times. People overrate athleticism at that position. I think we should take advantage of it lol

Edited by BobbyPhil1781
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, oakdb36 said:

Well, i didn't mean trading for Cooks. It's just that the tweet about Ferrell was linked to the one about Cooks.

Yeah I wouldn’t go for a WR but if we could move Ferrell for a DT/OL/picks then I would consider it tbh. Like you say he just isn’t a good fit for Bradley’s defense which was always gonna be the worry. Best thing for him would be a trade as well. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oakdb36 said:

We'd better win those next 2 because week 10 to 18 the schedule looks brutal.

Post bye - I could see them 2-2 in this stretch (Giants, Chiefs, Bengals, Cowboys) 

7-4 going into December. 4-2 in the last 6. Finishing 11-6 with a shot at the playoffs.

The will need to split with KC. Sweep Denver. 

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

Post bye - I could see them 2-2 in this stretch (Giants, Chiefs, Bengals, Cowboys) 

7-4 going into December. 4-2 in the last 6. Finishing 11-6 with a shot at the playoffs.

The will need to split with KC. Sweep Denver. 

Schedule is definitely pretty tough. Have to beat Eagles and Giants to get to 6-2 to have a shot at playoffs. 
I think we have have a shot at getting 1 win against KC, they have weaknesses but will be tough. 
Bengals Cowboys - pretty similar teams to us, up and down games. hopefuly split that. 
Washington we have to win - I think our best chance at playoffs we need to be 9-4 at this point. 

Browns Broncos Colts Chargers remaining. Getting 2 here is doable, but will be tough. I think Chargers could need the game for the division which would hurt us too. 
 

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

Post bye - I could see them 2-2 in this stretch (Giants, Chiefs, Bengals, Cowboys) 

7-4 going into December. 4-2 in the last 6. Finishing 11-6 with a shot at the playoffs.

The will need to split with KC. Sweep Denver. 

That’s a tough schedule I’d love a move to bolster any weakness

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Post bye - I could see them 2-2 in this stretch (Giants, Chiefs, Bengals, Cowboys) 

7-4 going into December. 4-2 in the last 6. Finishing 11-6 with a shot at the playoffs.

The will need to split with KC. Sweep Denver. 

If we go 11-6, Rich absolutely deserves another year (has to make playoffs that year too). 

I’m really against keeping interim coaches. Even if we went 10-7 and obtained the 7th and final seed, I think I’d still be against keeping Rich. However, 11 wins is pretty dang impressive and he would earn another shot. 2 year 16M contract. If he makes playoffs next year, he gets years added onto that two year contract. If he doesn’t make the playoffs, one and done if it was my decision. 

Edited by BayRaider
Link to post
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...