Raiders Defense

[Darbsk]

20 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

I think your highly underrating Logan Ryan.  

I stand by my point you can Always find sCBs and they’re relatively cheap.  Sure your not always gonna get a top 10 guy at the position but you can find good quality starters.  Who cares if Chris Harris is only on a 2 year deal... most players don’t play thru a 4 year deal and you can sign a guy then replace him after 2 years with another.

But it is a position where players are hot for 2 years then slow down.  That’s why it’s advantageous to only commit to these guys short terms.  It’s not just be that’s a trend around the league by GMs.  You don’t see these guys getting long term, expensive deals with dead caps after year 1-2 because of how often they fall off. Colvin and many others went from big pay top end guys to getting minimum deals within a year.  It’s just not a position you want to or need to invest heavily in for the long term.  You can pick from a few pretty good guys, have him 1-2 years and if they fall off you can just as easily find another one.

Again, I’m not arguing against taking him at 91, in fact I like him there.  I just think there will be better options at 80/81 and we should go a different route.  If he’s there at 91 take him.

the argument isn’t to draft him.  The argument is how important a future starter at sCB really is.  We are in a position right now where we have Nixon and Nelson who could be the future.  It’s not a dire situation and I feel other positions should be addressed 11!!! Picks before I’d take him at 91. The only reason I’ve even said all this is I feel like people here have fallen in love with Robertson and gotten tunnel vision.  The draft isn’t a failure if we don’t land him.  Heck we could take Troy Pride too.  

You raise some good points and i dont disagree with a lot, i guess it comes down to me wanting a long term option on a relatively cheap rookie deal and not having to rely on vets who we've struggled with in the past without much success. 

[NYRaider]

3 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

You raise some good points and i dont disagree with a lot, i guess it comes down to me wanting a long term option on a relatively cheap rookie deal and not having to rely on vets who we've struggled with in the past without much success. 

That's the thing, we're currently paying Joyner like $10.5M per year to play exclusively in the slot. I'd be willing to bet Robertson could give us the same, if not better, production over the next 3 seasons playing for like $1M per yer. 

[jimkelly02]

1 minute ago, Darbsk said:

You raise some good points and i dont disagree with a lot, i guess it comes down to me wanting a long term option on a relatively cheap rookie deal and not having to rely on vets who we've struggled with in the past without much success. 

I agree and would like the same thing!  
i know your not saying I’m against Robertson and this isn’t like a personal heated issue at all.... but I’m just trying to point out that sCB is one of the few positions it’s not essential for success to have a long term solution.  There’s many many solutions to filling the problem.  
 

its almost like Drafting Robertson is a great idea, but not essential.  If you would have taken him at 80/81 and he went at 79 your drafts not hurt too bad.  Same thing if we go elsewhere at 80+81 and he goes at 90.

its one think when we’re talking really want a guy in the first round  because of his impact but once it rolls to the third round that need really isn’t that big is it?

[Darbsk]

8 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

I agree and would like the same thing!  
i know your not saying I’m against Robertson and this isn’t like a personal heated issue at all.... but I’m just trying to point out that sCB is one of the few positions it’s not essential for success to have a long term solution.  There’s many many solutions to filling the problem.  
 

its almost like Drafting Robertson is a great idea, but not essential.  If you would have taken him at 80/81 and he went at 79 your drafts not hurt too bad.  Same thing if we go elsewhere at 80+81 and he goes at 90.

its one think when we’re talking really want a guy in the first round  because of his impact but once it rolls to the third round that need really isn’t that big is it?

Exactly, so why not spend a 3rd or even 4th (i think he'll fall due to size concerns and the aforementioned feeling that he is primarily a slot rather than outside guy) we have a lot of agreement here but just differ on the small print maybe 😀 

The 3rd round and 4th maybe is going to be the sweet spot for areas like slot, SLB, spell RB as devalued although important positions. 

 

[jimkelly02]

4 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

Exactly, so why not spend a 3rd or even 4th (i think he'll fall due to size concerns and the aforementioned feeling that he is primarily a slot rather than outside guy) we have a lot of agreement here but just differ on the small print maybe 😀 

The 3rd round and 4th maybe is going to be the sweet spot for areas like slot, SLB, spell RB as devalued although important positions. 

 

Yeah I’m with spending a 3rd or 4th on Robertson.  I simply said I’d get another position at 80+81 and spend 91 on him if he’s there.

and yes SAM, RB, and sCB are all positions easily filled with quality guys in rounds 3-4.

or you can always get stop gaps for cheap in FA and have your pick of a few.

[NYRaider]

25 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

its almost like Drafting Robertson is a great idea, but not essential.  

Assuming we get a WR/CB in the first what picks really are essential? You could make a case that we're pretty decent to good at every position group. 

[jimkelly02]

3 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Assuming we get a WR/CB in the first what picks really are essential? You could make a case that we're pretty decent to good at every position group. 

I think RB2 is essential but could be obtained anywhere from 80-159.

thats a fair point... and one reason I’m all for him at 91.  But I think 80+81 should be used on other guys who may have slipped and landed in our laps.

 But your absolutely right if we land a WR and CB by rounds 1-2 the rest of the draft we really only need a RB2 which we could fill with a bunch of guys at 121 and 159 even.

A second WR, SAM, sCB, S Or a pass rusher are all positions we want to improve but could easily just sign a veteran stop gap for depth and be fine

[jimkelly02]

The whole “argument” was nothing more than:

I don’t see the NEED to spend 80/81 on Robertson we could take our chances at waiting till 91 cuZ:

1) we have a starter and decent young guys for depth

2) could always sign a FA this year to play or get one to start next year 

3) Robertson isn’t likely to contribute much in ‘20 

4) no need to lock on to one guy when there’s other options if he’s not there: Pride, Holmes, Vildor, etc etc

4) there’s always a hot prospect we all want every year including a sCB in the ‘21 draft

theres a lot of options, no need to feel like we have to over draft Robertson

[MrOaktown_56]

4 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

The whole “argument” was nothing more than:

I don’t see the NEED to spend 80/81 on Robertson we could take our chances at waiting till 91 cuZ:

1) we have a starter and decent young guys for depth

2) could always sign a FA this year to play or get one to start next year 

3) Robertson isn’t likely to contribute much in ‘20 

4) no need to lock on to one guy when there’s other options if he’s not there: Pride, Holmes, Vildor, etc etc

4) there’s always a hot prospect we all want every year including a sCB in the ‘21 draft

theres a lot of options, no need to feel like we have to over draft Robertson

I like Pride and Holmes. Both aren't as ready to go, but have more potential as outside corners.

[jimkelly02]

5 hours ago, NYRaider said:

That's the thing, we're currently paying Joyner like $10.5M per year to play exclusively in the slot. I'd be willing to bet Robertson could give us the same, if not better, production over the next 3 seasons playing for like $1M per yer. 

But the staff won’t play him year 1... at least not a lot

.... so you could always get a sCB in ‘21 draft or FA.... which was my point from the beginning.  Drafting him in 3rd is one of several long term options

[jimkelly02]

3 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

I like Pride and Holmes. Both aren't as ready to go, but have more potential as outside corners.

I like Pride a lot but I’m a totally biased ND homer ... but he don’t get beat on the long ball!

not a Holmes fan... was early but I drifted off in my research... as a 5th sure but that’s about it 

[NCOUGHMAN]

5 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

If my D was 3” longer I’d make millions as a porn star lmao

Unfortunately neither one is capable of adding 3” at this point so what’s the point? 
 

No offense that’s like the worst line ever... and I don’t blame YOU... it’s been all over the place.

He’s 5’8 3/8, 187

theres a million guys around the world who didn’t make  in the nfl over 3”.  There’s a dozen 3” to short college QBs ever year.  

 

and he’s he could be a high end sCB.  I’d go as far as to think it’s a “good” chance.

Wtf Lolol y’all wild man 

[MrOaktown_56]

Show me one defender on this team who's projected to start who is a bad tackler. Toughness, aggression, and tackling are the focal points of this defense. AND speed at key spots. Randall is fast. Littleton is fast. They play roles where speed is at a premium (FS and coverage LB). Elsewhere, moderate athleticism and instincts/decision making are key. 

I don't see any clear weaknesses on this defense. A well rounded, cohesive unit is better than a unit with some elite players and key flaws. 

[Totty]

8 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Show me one defender on this team who's projected to start who is a bad tackler. Toughness, aggression, and tackling are the focal points of this defense. AND speed at key spots. Randall is fast. Littleton is fast. They play roles where speed is at a premium (FS and coverage LB). Elsewhere, moderate athleticism and instincts/decision making are key. 

I don't see any clear weaknesses on this defense. A well rounded, cohesive unit is better than a unit with some elite players and key flaws. 

I've said this in a few different places tonight... Our roster is the most well rounded is been in a very long time.  I'll never ever say I wanted Ruggs over Lamb.  Or that Arnette wasn't a reach.  But at both selections they pretty much had choice.  And they choose their guys.  

At WR we have our redone threat in TW.  Waller is up and coming.  Renfrow is clutch.  Especially on 3rd down.  Not we can take the lid off of it.  

 

Mullen is going to be fine.  Arnette is going to be our #2 corner.  Like it or not.  After Henderson and Terrell it was a drop.  You can only trade back if you can find a partner.  CB is a schematically important position.  What style of CB do you covet?  Arnette isn't going against the other teams #1.  That's Mullen.  He'll progress and may surprise.  

 

Biggest point is while we may not have gotten the guys we as individuals wanted, there wasn't anything out of position.  We didn't take an OT.  Or a kicker.  We got two guys who we should be able to plug in and get production out of.  Similar to last year.  My .02

[NYRaider]

8 minutes ago, Totty said:

Biggest point is while we may not have gotten the guys we as individuals wanted, there wasn't anything out of position.  We didn't take an OT.  Or a kicker.  We got two guys who we should be able to plug in and get production out of.  Similar to last year.  My .02

The only issue that I have with Arnette is that he's similar to Ferrell in that he was a great college player with great tape but doesn't have elite physical tools. I genuinely won't be surprised if Isaiah Johnson plays more and is better than Arnette this season.