Raiders Defense

[MrOaktown_56]

1 hour ago, Turnobili said:

I don't know about "worthy" gamble as that has to take into account the pick we used on him. He's a project player with athletic upside but no clear path to a starting job on defense. He is best profiled as a WILL but that is Littleton who is being paid handsomely for that role. 

That's not what 3rd round picks should be. Special teams are nice but shouldnt really be a priority for day 2 picks. He should have been picked in the 5th or later to be a worthy gamble. Right now he's just a gamble.

We have decent talent. There is practically no player we picked at 100 who would have been an instant starter on this team. Hence taking players who can be backups now and potential starters down the line in Muse, Simpson, and Robertson. Considering Kwiatkoski and Littleton are under contract for 2 years minimum each and more likely 3, it gives a backup player time to develop and adapt to the mental and physical challenges of playing in the NFL. I'd rather gamble on a player with an elite athletic profile in what is essentially the early 4th, than take a player with a higher floor but less devvy upside who isn't being counted on to start. Muse can play special teams in the meantime. 

I thought Anthony Nelson had a higher floor than Crosby last year and I completely whiffed and Mayock was correct. I'm not saying that Muse is this year's Crosby, but I don't see anything wrong with drafting a hybrid LB.

I still find the concept of "reach" comical. According to whose board? If the pick hits, no one cares where they go in the end.

[Turnobili]

1 hour ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

We have decent talent. There is practically no player we picked at 100 who would have been an instant starter on this team. Hence taking players who can be backups now and potential starters down the line in Muse, Simpson, and Robertson. Considering Kwiatkoski and Littleton are under contract for 2 years minimum each and more likely 3, it gives a backup player time to develop and adapt to the mental and physical challenges of playing in the NFL. I'd rather gamble on a player with an elite athletic profile in what is essentially the early 4th, than take a player with a higher floor but less devvy upside who isn't being counted on to start. Muse can play special teams in the meantime. 

I thought Anthony Nelson had a higher floor than Crosby last year and I completely whiffed and Mayock was correct. I'm not saying that Muse is this year's Crosby, but I don't see anything wrong with drafting a hybrid LB.

I still find the concept of "reach" comical. According to whose board? If the pick hits, no one cares where they go in the end.

So you'd have no issue with Mayock drafting KJ Hamler #12 overall if he was convinced that was the top WR in the class?

[MrOaktown_56]

1 hour ago, Turnobili said:

So you'd have no issue with Mayock drafting KJ Hamler #12 overall if he was convinced that was the top WR in the class?

This is a poor strawman. That is contingent on who he viewed as the top talent. I didn't view hamler as a 1st round player. 

[MrOaktown_56]

If Hurst+Collins are a duo, we are in GREAT shape. Hall and Hankins are fine run players as well.

[Turnobili]

2 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

This is a poor strawman. That is contingent on who he viewed as the top talent. I didn't view hamler as a 1st round player. 

yes, it is contingent on who he viewed as the top talent. thats why my hypo specifically said "if he was convinced that was the top WR in the class"

no strawman

Edited May 23, 2020 by Turnobili

[jimkelly02]

4 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

If Hurst+Collins are a duo, we are in GREAT shape. Hall and Hankins are fine run players as well.

I think we’ll see Hankins and Hall start and play run downs and Collins and Hurst play together on predominantly passing downs.  That should be a nice combo.

[jimkelly02]

4 hours ago, Turnobili said:

yes, it is contingent on who he viewed as the top talent. thats why my hypo specifically said "if he was convinced that was the top WR in the class"

no strawman

That is a straw an argument.  No one would ever have Hamler as WR1 on their board.  @MrOaktown_56 made a solid point that every team has their own roster and scheme and that will effect their board/rankings.  There’s not a team and never will be one that Hamler would be the most valuable WR for that team.  

[drfrey13]

17 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

We have decent talent. There is practically no player we picked at 100 who would have been an instant starter on this team. Hence taking players who can be backups now and potential starters down the line in Muse, Simpson, and Robertson. Considering Kwiatkoski and Littleton are under contract for 2 years minimum each and more likely 3, it gives a backup player time to develop and adapt to the mental and physical challenges of playing in the NFL. I'd rather gamble on a player with an elite athletic profile in what is essentially the early 4th, than take a player with a higher floor but less devvy upside who isn't being counted on to start. Muse can play special teams in the meantime. 

I thought Anthony Nelson had a higher floor than Crosby last year and I completely whiffed and Mayock was correct. I'm not saying that Muse is this year's Crosby, but I don't see anything wrong with drafting a hybrid LB.

I still find the concept of "reach" comical. According to whose board? If the pick hits, no one cares where they go in the end.

Projected starter unless you meant week 1 starters.  When it comes to rookies I see players that start at some point during the year as instant starters.  Under my definition Moreau, Crosby, and Renfrow would all be considered instant starters taken after the 100 selection last year.  There will be surprises like last year but might not be the players we drafted.  I could see Muse, Simpson, and Robertson all getting significant playing time and each getting a few starts.  Right now Simpson would have to beat out Jackson (injury, trade, or cut are all possibilities) and Good (he is good not great), Muse would have to beat Morrow (not a starting level LB to begin with), and Robertson would beat Joyner (He did not play great last year).  All 3 have a shot.

[Turnobili]

9 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

That is a straw an argument.  No one would ever have Hamler as WR1 on their board.  @MrOaktown_56 made a solid point that every team has their own roster and scheme and that will effect their board/rankings.  There’s not a team and never will be one that Hamler would be the most valuable WR for that team.  

The “if” makes it conditional and a hypothetical. Not a strawman. My point is that with your line of reasoning no draft pick can ever be criticized (at this point in the process) because you can just assert that he was the highest guy in their board and not a reach by definition.   

And a couple of months ago nobody had Arnette as the #3 corner. 

 

[MrOaktown_56]

5 hours ago, drfrey13 said:

Projected starter unless you meant week 1 starters.  When it comes to rookies I see players that start at some point during the year as instant starters.  Under my definition Moreau, Crosby, and Renfrow would all be considered instant starters taken after the 100 selection last year.  There will be surprises like last year but might not be the players we drafted.  I could see Muse, Simpson, and Robertson all getting significant playing time and each getting a few starts.  Right now Simpson would have to beat out Jackson (injury, trade, or cut are all possibilities) and Good (he is good not great), Muse would have to beat Morrow (not a starting level LB to begin with), and Robertson would beat Joyner (He did not play great last year).  All 3 have a shot.

Sure. I mean we have established players at every position as opposed to scrubs/journeyman at those positions.

[MrOaktown_56]

Also @Turnobili, who would you have taken at pick 100? I'm curious.

I had my eye on several players, including Burgess who were gone before we had the chance to get them.

[jimkelly02]

8 hours ago, Turnobili said:

The “if” makes it conditional and a hypothetical. Not a strawman. My point is that with your line of reasoning no draft pick can ever be criticized (at this point in the process) because you can just assert that he was the highest guy in their board and not a reach by definition.   

And a couple of months ago nobody had Arnette as the #3 corner. 

 

You didn’t use Justin Jefferson or one of the higher rates players for your example for a reason.... you were making a dishonest argument.  

and again your being dishonest by saying either I or @MrOaktown_56 said you can’t criticize a draft selection.  You can.  I criticize the Raiders moves all the time. Your certainly entitled to do that.  
 

But what it seems @MrOaktown_56 said was teams have reasons for ranking one player higher Than others and you need to consider that when analyzing the pick.  The Raiders felt Ruggs would do better job in their scheme and offers more options Then Jeudy+ Lamb.  I wanted Lamb so bad, but I understand the pick.  I still wish we took Lamb but that doesn’t mean Mayock made a mistake.

Arnette was a slight reach and ive gone over this at insane lengths:  19 wasn’t a good spot to get value, no teams were offering anything but 4+5ths to move up.... Arnette is far better than Johnson, Diggs, Gladney, Noah Ig..... and it wasn’t worth dropping down a tier to take a player who isn’t as good ... especially with the poor compensation.  Arnette is a very good fit in this defense.  Slight reach but whatever.

Muse was a slight reach too but I get the reasoning: ST ace immediately, has high upside at LB.... we didn’t pass up any LBs that were substantially better.

your just mad like I was on draft day that we didn’t take our/your guy.... I got over it because the picks were still good and reasonable despite not being what I’d have done.

BTW lArnette’s been a 1st round prospects for 3 years.... he would not have left the first round... probably does mid 20s

[jimkelly02]

Btw I don’t LOVE the draft but every pick has a valid reason for why it was made and wasn’t horrible.  We had our franchise building draft last year and this year is the “glue” draft.... we got players to hold the team Together.  We filled most of the holes we had.  Sure in an ideal world it could have gone better but overall it was solid.

[jimkelly02]

2 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Also @Turnobili, who would you have taken at pick 100? I'm curious.

Every time I ranted during the draft and then thought about this i just shut up because I didn’t have a solid comeback lol....

my only issues are:

we could have traded down slightly and still gotten Arnette... but we’d only have gotten a 4th and chance so I don’t care too much that we Got a player whose a solid fit rather then chancing losing him and settling for another CB.  

the UDFA’s as a whole were horrible... with no late round picks we and so few UDFAs to sign we should have done far better.  I’ve talked about this too much already so I want go too far into it.... but it’s not THAT big a deal... it was just a medium level mistake.  
we could likely have traded down a bit and still got Muse,,, but really what would that bet us? A 6th and/or 7th rounder.  Overall I like Muse a lot for STs immediately and a high ceiling long term as a Nickel LB and possible starter at SAM.  I think he’s better off at SAM than WILL.

 

[jimkelly02]

9 hours ago, drfrey13 said:, Muse would have to beat Morrow (not a starting level LB to begin with), and Robertson would beat Joyner (He did not play great last year).  All 3 have a shot.

Don’t sleep on Marquel Lee to start at SAM.... he’s had some solid showings and if he’s healthy and stays so could be a solid SAM for us..... no superstar but a solid 2 down run stopper.