Pick #19 is in: CB Damon Arnette, Ohio State

[MrOaktown_56]

2 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

Arnette actually played very well his sophomore year.  He had a rough Jr year.  But he’s been projected to be a 1st rounder since his sophomore year.  It was Queen who could beat out Michael Divinity and only got in the lineup due to his injury.  Very ironic you use that false talking point about Arnette when your prized draft prospect only received meaningful snaps for 10 games his whole career!  And Arnette’s age issues are BS, he’s 2 months older than Gladney... he’s only a few months older then a bunch of high draft picks.

Well the Coaches and FO signed Kwiatkowski for MLB and Littleton for WILL and they were about to move everyone (and their assignments/roles, which is a massive thing to just up and change)for Patrick Queen.  Murray absolutely does not project as a SAM.  He is a MLB or WILL only.  Both Queen and Murray are not great at stacking/holding the edge.  That is a requirement at SAM.  They are fast, gap shooting downhill run stuffers.  You want to draft them NOT to do what their best at and make them do what they struggle with?  And oh yeah, let’s not forget SAM only plays 40% of the snaps and at best we might keep 3 LBs on the field a bit more if we drafted Queen/Murray but how much more: 50%? 55%?  

Arnette is absolutely in the same class of prospects as Queen and Murray.  He took a dive because of a bad 40 time that wasn’t even true.  
 

You don’t fill every roster spot before the draft when you have 2 1sts and 3 3rds.  You have to expect that you can fill voids with your picks.  Apple was a horrible signing and he was at very best a stopgap starter, but more likely than not we’d have been calling for his head A few weeks into the season.

Really, the only valid criticism of the pick is we should have traded down or traded up slightly for Terrell or someone else.  Arnette ideally gets picked 24-30 and then it’s a solid pick.  Unfortunately teams were only offering 3rd rounders and change to move up.  It’s not like anyone was offering a 2nd to move up.  I’d rather get a tier 1 CB then settle for Johnson or Fulton (who would have been reaches anyway because they went 50/61).  Arnette wasn’t leaving round 1: Minnesota, Miami, KC would have taken him.  It was only a few picks later Gladney and Noah Igbinoghene were drafted.  I didn’t like the pick at first but when I realized I was complaining about not trading down for a 3rd and 5th and most likely losing out on Arnette for Johnson (a sizeable talent difference) I realized I was wrong and admitted Mayock was right.  We were just in a bad spot at 19 and the board didn’t fall our way. At least Mayock didn’t take an unnecessary risk and even further weakened the draft by trading down and having to settle for a 2nd tier CB.

I would actually argue that building a team that plugs weaknesses aggressively can produce a more complete product than chasing a collection of talent that lacks depth and at the very least average players at positions of desperate need.

[G]

15 hours ago, Turnobili said:

i wasnt a big fan of sending a pick and signing slay to a big deal, but i'd gladly trade the tanner muse pick for him lmao

Should have traded with Pats again being they gave up 125/129/6th in 2021 for 101. Probably would have built a shrine at Luxor with Mayock as the head of the Sphinx. LOL

Overall I'm glad they did their DD on Arnette with the 40. Makes it less of a reach. I still would have been good with trading down and getting Johnson/ Fulton had we went into the 40's as I'd felt both would have good value there. However had we lost big on 'value' then Mayock's good work on getting value for trading wouldn't be as well established. Reggie was seen as a guy they could low ball. 12 for 14/117 was not good enough but had they offered 14/76 I'd taken it because it favored us a lot. I wanted Jeudy, most wanted Lamb and we believed SF wanted Ruggs. Any of those three and 76 would just have been good business. 76 would have been good to keep to use our other 3rds for moving up into 2nd if we traded down 19. Las Vegas Gamblers seen wheeling and dealing. LOL

I trust the result and hope we have a season but if we don't I like this 'team' is a bunch of hard workers who will pick up well and work in an extended offseason. 

[NCOUGHMAN]

https://raiderswire.usatoday.com/2020/05/03/report-rival-afc-team-timed-raiders-cb-damon-arnette-running-a-4-47-40-yard-dash/

[Rich7sena]

 

 

4

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

1

19 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

Arnette actually played very well his sophomore year.  He had a rough Jr year.  But he’s been projected to be a 1st rounder since his sophomore year.  It was Queen who could beat out Michael Divinity and only got in the lineup due to his injury.  Very ironic you use that false talking point about Arnette when your prized draft prospect only received meaningful snaps for 10 games his whole career!  And Arnette’s age issues are BS, he’s 2 months older than Gladney... he’s only a few months older then a bunch of high draft picks.

Arnette's name almost never came up in first-round conversations this year--and that's what matters. For what it's worth, I had never even heard of Arnette until last college season.

And I don't put much stock in a player only starting one season. Marshon Lattimore started only one season. Talent, particularly on defense, is evident quickly. I never advocated for Gladney or any other corner at 19 besides Henderson or Terrell, so your counterpoint is moot.

More importantly, my criticism with Arnette isn't any one thing, it's a totality of things working against him: he's not a good athlete at the position (or, at least, we don't have a lot of data points to measure him by), he is short-armed, he is relatively old, and he had an up-and-down career at Ohio State. And I'll add that his "tape" is good, but it isn't great. That's too much for me to overlook at 19. 

 

 

4

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

1

Quote

Well the Coaches and FO signed Kwiatkowski for MLB and Littleton for WILL and they were about to move everyone (and their assignments/roles, which is a massive thing to just up and change)for Patrick Queen.  Murray absolutely does not project as a SAM.  He is a MLB or WILL only.  Both Queen and Murray are not great at stacking/holding the edge.  That is a requirement at SAM.  They are fast, gap shooting downhill run stuffers.  You want to draft them NOT to do what their best at and make them do what they struggle with?  And oh yeah, let’s not forget SAM only plays 40% of the snaps and at best we might keep 3 LBs on the field a bit more if we drafted Queen/Murray but how much more: 50%? 55%?  

The difference between a MLB and WLB is the Raiders' offense isn't nearly as big as you're making it. And I'll just say you've misevaluated Murray. He absolutely profiles as a SLB. In fact, the bolded is exactly the type of player Murray is. I stated in the original post that I would have taken Queen over Arnette even though Queen would have been a part-time player his first year. The upside is 1) he's a much better talent by my evaluation, and 2) he would be on the field on high-leverage situations (the anti-Ferrell).

Quote

Arnette is absolutely in the same class of prospects as Queen and Murray.  He took a dive because of a bad 40 time that wasn’t even true.  

This is unsubstantiated. Queen and Murray were rated higher on virtually every public draft board and post-mortem reports suggest Arnette was not in first-round consideration outside of Las Vegas. Queen and Murray obviously were.

Quote

You don’t fill every roster spot before the draft when you have 2 1sts and 3 3rds.  You have to expect that you can fill voids with your picks.  Apple was a horrible signing and he was at very best a stopgap starter, but more likely than not we’d have been calling for his head A few weeks into the season.

You want to fill gaps where you know you could be caught with your pants down in the draft. The Raiders likely knew they could have gotten Arnette later, and they should have known that the top 2 consensus corners would go before their pick at 12 and they would have to reach for a player at 19. I'm not convinced Apple is a worse corner in 2020 than Arnette.

Quote

Really, the only valid criticism of the pick is we should have traded down or traded up slightly for Terrell or someone else.  Arnette ideally gets picked 24-30 and then it’s a solid pick.  Unfortunately teams were only offering 3rd rounders and change to move up.  It’s not like anyone was offering a 2nd to move up.

No, you can criticize a pick on the merits of the player. Arnette wasn't projected to go in round one because of all the variables against him. I'm not criticizing the Raiders not trading out because I don't know the circumstances surrounding that. However, I do know who was available at 19. It always amuses me that all debate on how good a pick is ceases once he becomes a Raider. It was the same with Ferrell in 2019.

 

 

2

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

Quote

Arnette wasn’t leaving round 1: Minnesota, Miami, KC would have taken him.  It was only a few picks later Gladney and Noah Igbinoghene were drafted.

You're making this up. There is no indication another team valued Arnette has highly as Las Vegas. There are only indicators that other teams through the Raiders reached.