MKnight82 Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 26 minutes ago, Tetsujin said: Sounds right Its LaConfora though, so its wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 8 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: Why would you dump Mack then trade a first for an inferior player who wants a massive contract? You got two 1's for Mack, and he's likely going to cost $3-$5M per less for a similar impact edge rusher (but worse run defender). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefs_5627 Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 1 hour ago, soflbillsfan said: But why? I know there are rumors but this isnt madden you can only have so many players on the field, watkins hunt, hardman, and kelce. Ruggs would be an extreme luxury and they need to fill other holes that need to be fixed. Trading up picks wouldnt be ideal no? Oh absolutely. That why I was surprised to hear anything like that. We have other fish to fry. Watkins n DRob are on one year deals is the only reason I could see taking any WR but yeah trading up would be overkill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttitansfan4life Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 2 hours ago, MKnight82 said: Why would you dump Mack then trade a first for an inferior player who wants a massive contract? Because it’s the Raiders.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedGold Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 2 hours ago, Chiefs_5627 said: Oh absolutely. That why I was surprised to hear anything like that. We have other fish to fry. Watkins n DRob are on one year deals is the only reason I could see taking any WR but yeah trading up would be overkill I’m good with it if we use Chris Jones as the main piece, but I’m probably Lower on Chris Jones than most Chief fans. Trading picks definitely wouldn’t be happy though 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted April 23, 2020 Author Share Posted April 23, 2020 3 hours ago, MKnight82 said: Why would you dump Mack then trade a first for an inferior player who wants a massive contract? I'm not advocating for it at all, quite the opposite, but Jacobs and Yan (Cheaper than Mack got) > Mack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted April 23, 2020 Author Share Posted April 23, 2020 1 hour ago, ttitansfan4life said: Because it’s the Raiders.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 5 hours ago, MKnight82 said: Why would you dump Mack then trade a first for an inferior player who wants a massive contract? Because great pass rushers are hard to find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 11 minutes ago, Jakuvious said: Because great pass rushers are hard to find. Then why trade Mack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakuvious Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 6 hours ago, soflbillsfan said: But why? I know there are rumors but this isnt madden you can only have so many players on the field, watkins hunt, hardman, and kelce. Ruggs would be an extreme luxury and they need to fill other holes that need to be fixed. Trading up picks wouldnt be ideal no? Watkins is almost certainly gone next year. Robinson might be as well, but then I thought he'd be gone this year, so who knows. So next year, our WR depth chart could just be Hill and Hardman. So you need at least a #3 going forward. Maybe a #2, depending on the faith the team has in Hardman to develop as an all-around WR, not just a weapon. And WR is not an easy position to pick up quickly in an Andy Reid offense. There are few guys you're going to draft that will then roll in as a full-time starter. We're also a team that historically has drafted consistently for future needs, not current ones. When we took Dee Ford, we had Hali and Houston. When we took Chris Jones, we had Dontari Poe. When we took Mahomes, we had Smith. When we took Kpass and Speaks, we still had Houston and Ford. A lot of our highest draft picks in recent years have been guys we expect to contribute heavily in years 2 and 3, not guys we want to start year 1. We draft often to prepare for the player we know we can't afford to keep paying next offseason. Like right now, our biggest need or weakness is probably linebacker. Hitchens, Wilson, and Niemann are all just guys. Okay, but not ideal full-time starters. Would be nice to have one premier guy in there to play all 3 downs. But it wouldn't surprise me to see us forego that to get a WR to replace Watkins or a CB to replace Breeland or an OT to replace Fisher or Schwartz, even though those positions aren't holes for another year or two. It's one of my favorite things about our drafting and team building strategy. We aren't just trying to patch whatever seems like the worst leak at the time. We're trying to time the breakout of our young players with the time we need to move on from our older ones. Chris Jones as a rookie was not ready to be an impact player. If you draft him to immediately replace a guy we had like Dontari Poe, you're still weak at that position for a year. Instead, you draft him with one year left of Poe, so Jones starts hitting his stride just in time for you to move on. The idea that it's not a hole now, so it would be a bad pick, is short sighted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 17 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: Then why trade Mack? I wrote this in another thread Mack was going to re-set the market, Yan won't be quite in that range - both on the salary side and on the bonus side The other part of the Mack deal was the cash flow, Mark Davis was getting squeezed very hard at that exact moment in time. But now he doesn't have to worry about the Oakland stadium costs anymore, he has a new stadium ready to roll, the funding & loans are all secured and any cost over- runs are well understood. Raider finances look much different today than they did 2 years ago, so if the Mack thing came up now - there may have been a different outcome 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnobili Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 29 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: Then why trade Mack? for the record, i'm completely opposed to moving a 1 for yannik but to play devils advocate and answer your question: trade mack for 2 firsts. you now have a hole at edge rusher. trade one of those firsts for yannik. hole filled and you still net another first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKnight82 Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 Just now, Turnobili said: for the record, i'm completely opposed to moving a 1 for yannik but to play devils advocate and answer your question: trade mack for 2 firsts. you now have a hole at edge rusher. trade one of those firsts for yannik. hole filled and you still net another first. Ya but Mack is a lot better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnobili Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, MKnight82 said: Ya but Mack is a lot better. mack is better. thats where the other first round pick enters the equation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaveOurSonics Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 Soooo is now a good time to tell @.Buzz "I told ya so" or has that already been covered in here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.