First impressions of Mike Mayock's first draft as GM

[m haynes]

17 hours ago, The LBC said:

First off, disguising your swearing to avoid getting nailed by our swear filter is the same as swearing itself.  Knock it off.

People are allowed to have opinion that you don't have to agree with, but you don't have to condescend to or demean them either.  You just come off looking like a hypocrite because you're making fun of the exact thing you're doing yourself.

If a team has three 1st round picks, including 1 in the Top 5, and doesn't come out with at least two franchise-changing building blocks, or a blue-chipper and a future 1st, it's a case of, at bare minimum, mismanaging assets.

I won't ever reward any team an "A" in a draft unless I don't feel they made any mistakes, in my opinion Mayock did.  Did he come out with quality players that will clearly help his team?  Definitely.  That's a B to B+ performance, not an A.

Unless you're getting transcendent talent at luxury positions (RB, S, TE, even WR) or unless you're what looks to be 1-2 pieces away from a deep playoff run, spending 1st round picks there is always going to be fighting an uphill battle.  To me, having three 1st's and balking at the idea of trading anything that wasn't either a future 1st or all three 1st's to move up to secure one of the two transcendent talents in the draft when the opportunity is present (I'd have pushed for something noteworthy coming back the other direction - like a future 1st or a 3rd and a future 2nd, but I wouldn't have been opposed to putting one of the later 1st's on the table in a package to go get Q or Bosa), that's just inexcusable.  To then turn around and spend those later 1st's on non-premium positions is nearly equally as bad.  You draft a safety in the 1st round, that safety better have the upside of an Earl Thomas, Sean Taylor, or Troy Polamalu.  Same with running backs, especially with running backs.

An honest assessment, minus there being a QB selected at #22, this feels like a very pre-2017 Cleveland Browns draft, where the various GM's had the opportunity to get difference makers or upgrade positions that were, yes, filled, but certainly upgrade-able, and instead they went for the volume approach .  Part of the reason I'm such a huge fan of Howie Roseman as a GM is because the dude is cutthroat, there are like 2-3 players on that roster that are "safe" on talent alone and then an addition maybe 3 or 4 that are temporarily safe because of the pay-schedule of the contracts they're on, but even then, he's not afraid to invest into someone that stands the potential to make one of those guys superfluous in a season or two if the opportunity presents itself.  Belichick isn't too far off from that same approach - he's just not quite as aggressive. (the luxury afforded to him because he's had the best OL coach in the league on his staff and the best QB in the league willing to take below-market pay for the past half decade or more).

SMB

[Rich7sena]

I think he did a good job overall. He didn't pick a single player I didn't think will be at least a quality starter in the NFL, but the problem is I think that's just about all he got with Ferrell at 4th overall; I really wanted Allen. My favorite picks were 24 and 27, I think Jacobs is a difference-making runner and Abram is Derwin James and Jamal Adams-like in what he can bring to a defense.

Bummed about missing out on Baker, Murphy, and Ya-Sin but I guess Mullen will do. I thought corner was a big need coming in so I'm happy it was addressed early. Not sure if Mullen can win the starting job right away, though.

Not crazy about Maxx Crosby, he looks at least a year away from adding anything to the team beyond special teams. I would have loved loved to get Anthony Nelson where Crosby went. Isaiah Johnson was a nice pick, but something tells me the writing is on the wall for Conley being on his way out at some point in the semi-near future--both Johnson and Mullen are great tacklers and Conley is not.

Foster Moreau is a good consolation prize at tight end.

B- draft.

Pros:

• First four picks are high floor and should contribute early.
• Jacobs and Abram were among my favorite players in this draft.
• Addressing corner both early and late.

Cons:

• I can't imagine Ferrell develops into a top edge defender. Especially bad when Allen, a player I believe will be among the top edge defenders in the league, was there.
• Maxx Crosby seems light-years away from contributing.

[m haynes]

20 hours ago, The LBC said:

People are allowed to have opinion that you don't have to agree with, but you don't have to condescend to or demean them either.  You just come off looking like a hypocrite because you're making fun of the exact thing you're doing yourself.

I disagree with your observation.  Where did I call out anyone. I called out the Kipers and Bucky of the world When I said they know crap. Not once did I direct it toward a poster. Read it again to see your error.

You consider laughing at Kipers of the world condescending or demeaning. Well if you feel that way its your right even if you are way off base. Put me in the penalty is you will however you might want to read it again to see your mistake for calling me out unjustly.

I except the comment about sneaking around swearing I will not do that CRAP again.

 

[CWood21]

On 4/27/2019 at 9:18 PM, RaidersAreOne said:

Obviously we won't know the final results for 2-3 years, but I am curious of everyones initial reactions of his final class. 

I actually kinda liked it.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's anything special especially at the top of the draft.  Clelin Ferrell was a bit too safe for me to take at 4, but I understand why they took him.  All the EDGE outside of Nick Bosa had significant amount of concerns, and the top 3 players went off the board with the top 3 picks which limits what you can might be the BPA, but he doesn't fit in Oakland's defensive scheme.  Not sure Ferrell has big upside, but he's in the mold of Brandon Graham who is going to be a strong run defender and be a good, but not great pass rusher.  Don't like the value of taking a RB in the first round unless we're talking about an elite one.  That's probably the one I'd be more irritated about.  Not a fan of Abram, but that's more of an issue of me not liking the player not the position.  I felt like their first three picks put a premium on floors, and completely ignored upside.  Don't see any of those 3 as guys who are going to be the top players at their position.  Really liked them gambling on the tools with guys like Maxx Crosby, Isaiah Johnson, and Foster Moreau.  And I think Hunter Renfrow is a solid slot WR.

[Dr LBC]

45 minutes ago, m haynes said:

I disagree with your observation.  Where did I call out anyone. I called out the Kipers and Bucky of the world When I said they know crap. Not once did I direct it toward a poster. Read it again to see your error.

You consider laughing at Kipers of the world condescending or demeaning. Well if you feel that way its your right even if you are way off base. Put me in the penalty is you will however you might want to read it again to see your mistake for calling me out unjustly.

I except the comment about sneaking around swearing I will not do that CRAP again.

 

Dude.  Kiper gave the Raiders the second-highest grade in the division and projected them to win it.  I misread your OP (you might consider some editing in the future, your run-on sentences make your stuff extremely misleading).

The reality is that among the Kipers and the Buckys of the world was, just one year ago, the guy who is the GM of your team.  They have as much credibility as he does at this point.  They're as entitled to an opinion as you, I, or Mayock.

Kiper's a tool, I'm not disputing that.  But he's still a plugged-in tool.

Reality is, Mayock took draft capital that most teams would have killed to have and which a number of (likely because they were) more experienced GM's would have turned into a regime-changing draft class and instead he came out with a solid-to-good draft class.  It's not bad, per say, except that it was a mismanagement of assets - likely because he was erring on the conservative side as a first-time GM.

[game3525]

On 4/27/2019 at 11:45 PM, jrry32 said:

I'm not sure Mayock has the final say. But I've never been very impressed with him, and I'm not very impressed with this draft class. It's not a bad class, but with all of the moves the Raiders have made, I think you need to go into this class looking to build the foundation of a great team. I feel like they treated it as if that foundation was already built.

Agreed. 

The guys they picked would make sense if they were a team picking in the twenties coming off of a playoff appearance.  Good players, but no real blue chippers. 

[Dr LBC]

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I actually kinda liked it.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's anything special especially at the top of the draft.  Clelin Ferrell was a bit too safe for me to take at 4, but I understand why they took him.  All the EDGE outside of Nick Bosa had significant amount of concerns, and the top 3 players went off the board with the top 3 picks which limits what you can might be the BPA, but he doesn't fit in Oakland's defensive scheme.  Not sure Ferrell has big upside, but he's in the mold of Brandon Graham who is going to be a strong run defender and be a good, but not great pass rusher.  Don't like the value of taking a RB in the first round unless we're talking about an elite one.  That's probably the one I'd be more irritated about.  Not a fan of Abram, but that's more of an issue of me not liking the player not the position.  I felt like their first three picks put a premium on floors, and completely ignored upside.  Don't see any of those 3 as guys who are going to be the top players at their position.  Really liked them gambling on the tools with guys like Maxx Crosby, Isaiah Johnson, and Foster Moreau.  And I think Hunter Renfrow is a solid slot WR.

I think my greatest concern with passing on Josh Allen for Ferrell is largely a question of whether you believe Josh Allen is a special enough talent to adapt your defensive scheme for.  I get that coaches have specific concepts and themes that they preach in their schemes, but it's only a bad coach/coordinator who is incapable of adapting his scheme to accommodate and make the best use of their best players.  And let's be real, there isn't an player on the Raiders' defense that necessitates adhering strictly to one formation, one concept only.  The notion that Josh Allen can't play in a 4-3 isn't correct - lining him up like he's Howie Long isn't going to maximize the talents he brings to the table, but widen out his spacing and they team is still playing in a "4-3" and Allen is plenty successful.  The Wide-9 is still a 4-3.  The Elephant backer or LEO in a 4-3 Over/Under is still playing a 4-3.

Now maybe this was Mayock having to compromise with the hand he was dealt - Gruden, to my knowledge, has never been a champion of small school (and let's face it, in the grand scheme of recent college football history, Kentucky is still a small fish) guys until they've actually already made it and he can jump onto the bandwagon, and Paul Alexander hasn't exactly shown to be the most creative or adaptable DC - and if that's the case, kudos to him for making lemonade out of lemons.  Given the historical love we know Mayock had for Khalil Mack, I think it's safe to assume if he'd have had this position a year earlier, Mack would have never been traded (unless it was a certainty that Mark Davis didn't have the liquidity to fund the necessary guaranteed monies in an escrow account), so this was a wound he wouldn't have made that he was having to patch.

[m haynes]

25 minutes ago, The LBC said:

Dude.  Kiper gave the Raiders the second-highest grade in the division and projected them to win it.  I misread your OP (you might consider some editing in the future, your run-on sentences make your stuff extremely misleading).

The reality is that among the Kipers and the Buckys of the world was, just one year ago, the guy who is the GM of your team.  They have as much credibility as he does at this point.  They're as entitled to an opinion as you, I, or Mayock.

Kiper's a tool, I'm not disputing that.  But he's still a plugged-in tool.

Reality is, Mayock took draft capital that most teams would have killed to have and which a number of (likely because they were) more experienced GM's would have turned into a regime-changing draft class and instead he came out with a solid-to-good draft class.  It's not bad, per say, except that it was a mismanagement of assets - likely because he was erring on the conservative side as a first-time GM.

OK Buddy

[Dr LBC]

Just now, m haynes said:

OK Buddy

You know, when trying to defend that you weren't condescending in a post, it's best not to come back around and condescend with stuff like, "buddy" in your next response.  Just a note.

[m haynes]

1 minute ago, The LBC said:

You know, when trying to defend that you weren't condescending in a post, it's best not to come back around and condescend with stuff like, "buddy" in your next response.  Just a note.

It not good when you reprimand someone to call him, Dude. Just a note. 

[game3525]

Quote

To be fair, it's how Tom Telesco built up a team that was pretty consistently #2 in that division but constantly #1 and never #1.  It wasn't until he and the club made the decision to pivot from that approach that they were able to turn the corner (and at least make the playoffs and win a playoff game again).

Whether the current staff in Oakland is or will be capable of making that pivot in the foreseeable future is an entirely different question to be answers.

The Chargers didn't really pivot though. They just started to draft high football characters guys with high ceilings. The Raiders don't need to pivot from taking high character guys, but they can't ignore the measurables. 

[Dr LBC]

14 minutes ago, m haynes said:

It not good when you reprimand someone to call him, Dude. Just a note. 

I call everyone "dude," especially on this site.  It's part of my regular regional dialect.

[m haynes]

8 minutes ago, The LBC said:

I call everyone "dude," especially on this site.  It's part of my regular regional dialect.

Well let me tell you, its insulting

[Dr LBC]

1 minute ago, m haynes said:

Well let me tell you, its insulting.

Have a nice day bye

It's not intended to be.  I'm sorry you chose to take it that way.  Not too surprising though, since you seem to be the sort that has to have the last word.  it's whatever.  Have a nice day.

[m haynes]

15 minutes ago, The LBC said:

It's not intended to be.  I'm sorry you chose to take it that way.  Not too surprising though, since you seem to be the sort that has to have the last word.  it's whatever.  Have a nice day.

You to