Jump to content

The Raider Depreciation Thread 📉


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

I like winning football games. 

I like winning Championships....

 

you win championships by drafting cornerstones to get you over the top. Not just starters but difference makers who scare the opposition. I’m not writing Ferrell off but it’s not looking good. Didn’t take Mack this long to show he was a baller. Devin White was there for the taking. The team needed a stud LB and White is a freak athlete and a leader. Ferrell best trait is his leadership lol.... come on man. Mayock gets paid the big bucks, so I’ll call out bad picks. Mayock doesn’t pay me to brown nose, so I’ll call out a bad pick. all first round picks should be explosive athletes who can play ball. Or at the very least, a technical wizard that is very efficient. Ferrell isn’t going to blow anyone away with his athletic ability, so hopefully he improves his technique. He has plus size but that doesn’t seem to matter. 

 

Edited by Humble_Beast
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYRaider said:

There's not a GM in the league that's perfect though. We went 7-9 last season and were in the playoff hunt in week 16. We look like we'll have a winning record and be a playoff team this season, what more do you want? 

No, and we've gone over this ad nauseam so I'll avoid it.

However, I will say that it's not necessarily Mayocks overall track record is bad, but the Ferrell pick sucked immensely given the obvious talent still on the board. It was a terrible reach. 

There's a difference in "not being perfect" and making a really dumb pick. With who was on the board, Ferrell was a dumb pick given: the talent around him that made everyone on that D line look good, his lack of actual testing, his lack of "pop" tape. 

I was pounding the table for Oliver or Allen (and you know my theory on players on great teams and those on lesser teams). 

Point being, I don't expect Mayock to hit on every pick, but the times he has objectively reached (Ferrell, Jacobs, Arnette, Bowden, Muse) only 1 has worked so far. It has more to do with passing up better players in hopes of finding a diamond in the rough. That's ok when you're talking rounds 5-7, but not a top 5 pick, 2nd, or 3rd rounders when there's clearly better options available. 

Ferrell didn't even test. Jacobs can be forgiven, but there's a high probability he was on the board later (but I'll digress and assume we couldn't have traded down). Bowden and Muse were 3rd round whiffs who were taken and expected to switch positions...that's not a 3rd round pick, regardless of "potential". 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When picking top 5, how much does 1 worry about character / personality and team fit? 

say you are guaranteed to get a Clowney tier player at 4, but you know that he has full intentions of starting a bidding war after year 5. A player who is going to chase money every time he can. 
 

(I’d say Mack but he seemed like such a humble guy that I would’ve built a team around. )
 

I understand team discounts aren’t really a thing, and each player should and deserve all the money they can get. But, I feel like as a GM in interviews you can tell who is in it for money and who is because they love football. 
 

Id take a Tier B player who loves football over a Tier A player who loves himself, in the middle of the draft, but admittedly the first round seems like you gamble on the raw talent. 
 

Mayock seems to go for personality traits in first round and gambles on raw talent later. 

at some point in being a gm these are things you def consider, but, in top 5 do you just take best football player period? 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BackinBlack said:

When picking top 5, how much does 1 worry about character / personality and team fit? 

say you are guaranteed to get a Clowney tier player at 4, but you know that he has full intentions of starting a bidding war after year 5. A player who is going to chase money every time he can. 
 

(I’d say Mack but he seemed like such a humble guy that I would’ve built a team around. )
 

I understand team discounts aren’t really a thing, and each player should and deserve all the money they can get. But, I feel like as a GM in interviews you can tell who is in it for money and who is because they love football. 
 

Id take a Tier B player who loves football over a Tier A player who loves himself, in the middle of the draft, but admittedly the first round seems like you gamble on the raw talent. 
 

Mayock seems to go for personality traits in first round and gambles on raw talent later. 

at some point in being a gm these are things you def consider, but, in top 5 do you just take best football player period? 
 

1. A lot. And good GMs likely do. If a GM knows they have a Manziel, Russell, Leaf type, I fully expect them, with the resources now available, to run for the hills. Justin Blackmon, for example, was an obvious risk. There's no such thing as a "surefire Hall of Famer", no matter who the player is. If there's a risk they're a doofus at all, I'm writing them off as someone else's potential problem, not a whiff. It's not like a single player ever REALLY singlehandedly changes a franchise for the better. I don't care who it is. Let's say Trevor Lawrence- he might be great. But he alone, by himself, solo, isn't going to walk on the field on Sundays and hike the ball to himself, block, evade pressure, and throw to himself on O, kick FGs, punt, cover multiple receivers, rush the passer, tackle, etc. But it only takes one to royally screw a locker room. If Trevor Lawrence is a doofus, I'm out. Cam Newton is the exception to the strange reality that Heisman, National Champion QBbs hardly ever really pan out. Yet even Newton wasn't a long term world beater. Just goes to show that nobody is anointed by their success in college or their draft profile. It's rubbish and why the QBs currently in the league with Superbowls to their names weren't the top QB of their class and didn't play on All-Star squads. Same goes for any position in my book. 

2. If they're a money grubber, let them go. The success rate on them post-big pay day is atrocious. It's extremely rare anymore. Look at Leveon Bell. Look at AB. Guaranteed money is the Achilles heel of football. It's often a necessity, but when it's obvious from day 1, use them if you draft them, and let them become someone else's problem afterwards. Or, just don't draft that personality type at all. I prefer the latter. 

3. Sure they are. Tom Brady made an art of it. The Patriots were ridiculously successful. Drew Brees dickered about over a couple hundred thousand dollars and that's why the Saints didn't become a dynasty while having plenty of down years and always having to replace talent. These guys are getting paid at a rate most people with equally as valuable skill sets could only dream of. "Gotta put food on the table" coming from someone who has made $3, 4, 5 million dollars is laughable. By all means, if the NFL is willing to pay what they do, go after it. But if your mindset is that you're perpetually being screwed because you only got $3 million guaranteed as opposed to $6 million, or $25 million as opposed to $30 million, I think you're suffering from a huge ego and can't be pleased enough to show up and put your best effort in regardless of what I pay you. Those types, I avoid. The ones who recognize how fortunate they are, they tend to show up and put in the effort. 

4. It depends. Often times, if the best player available can be used as trade bait, go for it. If there are several players at positions of need and you absolutely have to pick, who is the best at their position and who else is on your board later? Again, as the "surefire Hall of Famer" is a unicorn, I wouldn't feel pressured to settle. If someone isn't a scheme fit, but they're an absolute stud, I'll take them over a scheme fit who may not be as talented, and I'll adjust my scheme accordingly. If it's a genuinely close call, I refer to my board. If it's a player I really don't need, I'm trying to trade down above all else. If I HAVE to pick, I'm taking the best player available at a position of need and telling my coaches I pay them for results, not excuses. If the best player doesn't fit a need and I can't trade the pick, personally I'm passing and filling need because, again, unicorns.

Edited by ronjon1990
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

No, and we've gone over this ad nauseam so I'll avoid it.

However, I will say that it's not necessarily Mayocks overall track record is bad, but the Ferrell pick sucked immensely given the obvious talent still on the board. It was a terrible reach. 

There's a difference in "not being perfect" and making a really dumb pick. With who was on the board, Ferrell was a dumb pick given: the talent around him that made everyone on that D line look good, his lack of actual testing, his lack of "pop" tape. 

I was pounding the table for Oliver or Allen (and you know my theory on players on great teams and those on lesser teams). 

Point being, I don't expect Mayock to hit on every pick, but the times he has objectively reached (Ferrell, Jacobs, Arnette, Bowden, Muse) only 1 has worked so far. It has more to do with passing up better players in hopes of finding a diamond in the rough. That's ok when you're talking rounds 5-7, but not a top 5 pick, 2nd, or 3rd rounders when there's clearly better options available. 

Ferrell didn't even test. Jacobs can be forgiven, but there's a high probability he was on the board later (but I'll digress and assume we couldn't have traded down). Bowden and Muse were 3rd round whiffs who were taken and expected to switch positions...that's not a 3rd round pick, regardless of "potential". 

Bolded. 3 rookies 2 games into their careers. I stopped reading after that. Only one has worked out? You know that after 1 season and 2 games for Ferrell and 2 games for those 3 rookies? Really bro....you crack me up. Overreaction of the day right here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jerry said:

Bolded. 3 rookies 2 games into their careers. I stopped reading after that. Only one has worked out? You know that after 1 season and 2 games for Ferrell and 2 games for those 3 rookies? Really bro....you crack me up. Overreaction of the day right here.

I stopped reading when I saw who posted. You clearly miss the point of all of it, but that's no surprise when you stop reading. 

Hooked on Phonics, bro. It'll help with reading comprehension.😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

1. A lot. And good GMs likely do. If a GM knows they have a Manziel, Russell, Leaf type, I fully expect them, with the resources now available, to run for the hills. Justin Blackmon, for example, was an obvious risk. There's no such thing as a "surefire Hall of Famer", no matter who the player is. If there's a risk they're a doofus at all, I'm writing them off as someone else's potential problem, not a whiff. It's not like a single player ever REALLY singlehandedly changes a franchise for the better. I don't care who it is. Let's say Trevor Lawrence- he might be great. But he alone, by himself, solo, isn't going to walk on the field on Sundays and hike the ball to himself, block, evade pressure, and throw to himself on O, kick FGs, punt, cover multiple receivers, rush the passer, tackle, etc. But it only takes one to royally screw a locker room. If Trevor Lawrence is a doofus, I'm out. Cam Newton is the exception to the strange reality that Heisman, National Champion QBbs hardly ever really pan out. Yet even Newton wasn't a long term world beater. Just goes to show that nobody is anointed by their success in college or their draft profile. It's rubbish and why the QBs currently in the league with Superbowls to their names weren't the top QB of their class and didn't play on All-Star squads. Same goes for any position in my book. 

2. If they're a money grubber, let them go. The success rate on them post-big pay day is atrocious. It's extremely rare anymore. Look at Leveon Bell. Look at AB. Guaranteed money is the Achilles heel of football. It's often a necessity, but when it's obvious from day 1, use them if you draft them, and let them become someone else's problem afterwards. Or, just don't draft that personality type at all. I prefer the latter. 

3. Sure they are. Tom Brady made an art of it. The Patriots were ridiculously successful. Drew Brees dickered about over a couple hundred thousand dollars and that's why the Saints didn't become a dynasty while having plenty of down years and always having to replace talent. These guys are getting paid at a rate most people with equally as valuable skill sets could only dream of. "Gotta put food on the table" coming from someone who has made $3, 4, 5 million dollars is laughable. By all means, if the NFL is willing to pay what they do, go after it. But if your mindset is that you're perpetually being screwed because you only got $3 million guaranteed as opposed to $6 million, or $25 million as opposed to $30 million, I think you're suffering from a huge ego and can't be pleased enough to show up and put your best effort in regardless of what I pay you. Those types, I avoid. The ones who recognize how fortunate they are, they tend to show up and put in the effort. 

4. It depends. Often times, if the best player available can be used as trade bait, go for it. If there are several players at positions of need and you absolutely have to pick, who is the best at their position and who else is on your board later? Again, as the "surefire Hall of Famer" is a unicorn, I wouldn't feel pressured to settle. If someone isn't a scheme fit, but they're an absolute stud, I'll take them over a scheme fit who may not be as talented, and I'll adjust my scheme accordingly. If it's a genuinely close call, I refer to my board. If it's a player I really don't need, I'm trying to trade down above all else. If I HAVE to pick, I'm taking the best player available at a position of need and telling my coaches I pay them for results, not excuses. If the best player doesn't fit a need and I can't trade the pick, personally I'm passing and filling need because, again, unicorns.

1. I agree
2. I agree
3. haha that is why I said arent really a thing. Outside of Brady, I cant think of someone who discounted a team like Brady did in NE. players may take a mil off a season, but what Brady did was next level. Brady gave the pats an extra 5-10 mil every season. Pretty wild. However, he made way more than that in endorsements for doing that lol.
4. I agree. 

- - 
but all that to essentially say, I think Mayock loved the fact that Ferrell could play across the dline (shows love/ understanding of the game), came from Clemson (winning pedigree), won the ted hendricks and was a runner up the year prior, two time first team all american (shows he is clearly talented), comes from a military family (typically results in high character) and voted team captain by his peers (ties all of those things together)

long winded way off saying what has already been said, Mayock went for the high floor, low ceiling draft pick. 

There is no doubt in my mind this guy will continue to work, and continue to grow as a player. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said:

Really? I thought he was sucking.

From what I can tell, he has been great. Search Rashan Gary on Twitter and select media. Looks like he has been very impactful so far. I don't have Game Pass this year so I can't watch him snap-to-snap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

I think Mayock loved the fact that Ferrell could play across the dline (shows love/ understanding of the game), came from Clemson (winning pedigree), won the ted hendricks and was a runner up the year prior, two time first team all american (shows he is clearly talented), comes from a military family (typically results in high character) and voted team captain by his peers (ties all of those things together)

Fair analysis. I don't think Ferrell is a bad person by any means, just a bad player. I fail to see where Mayock could honestly say Ferrell was the best player on the board and expect to be taken seriously. Better players with similar personal attributes were readily available. 

That being said, I have a huge stigma against players on loaded teams, especially loaded teams with loaded units. I tend to run the other direction. It's a judgement call though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

Fair analysis. I don't think Ferrell is a bad person by any means, just a bad player. I fail to see where Mayock could honestly say Ferrell was the best player on the board and expect to be taken seriously. Better players with similar personal attributes were readily available. 

That being said, I have a huge stigma against players on loaded teams, especially loaded teams with loaded units. I tend to run the other direction. It's a judgement call though.

yea I def agree here, andI was extremely disappointed with the pick. I do think though that Ferrell is going to be here a long time, and have a solid career for us. 

on your second point, it definitely makes it tough to judge players. but then you get gems like jacobs who are underused in college simply because there are too many options in a stacked O.
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Humble_Beast said:

I like winning Championships....

you win championships by drafting cornerstones to get you over the top. Not just starters but difference makers who scare the opposition. I’m not writing Ferrell off but it’s not looking good. Didn’t take Mack this long to show he was a baller. Devin White was there for the taking. The team needed a stud LB and White is a freak athlete and a leader. Ferrell best trait is his leadership lol.... come on man. Mayock gets paid the big bucks, so I’ll call out bad picks. Mayock doesn’t pay me to brown nose, so I’ll call out a bad pick. all first round picks should be explosive athletes who can play ball. Or at the very least, a technical wizard that is very efficient. Ferrell isn’t going to blow anyone away with his athletic ability, so hopefully he improves his technique. He has plus size but that doesn’t seem to matter.

You win championships by building good football teams. We look like a playoff team in year 2 of Mayock being here with as much young talent as we've had in probably the last few decades. Ferrell obviously hasn't been great so far this year but there's still a lot of football left to be played. Ferrell has played what? 18 games for us so far in his career. Cam Jordan had 2 sacks and 3 TFL through his first 18 games in New Orleans and has developed into one of the elite edge players in the league. Despite not being the most explosive or twitchy guy off of the edge. It's way too early to write Ferrell off. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

No, and we've gone over this ad nauseam so I'll avoid it.

However, I will say that it's not necessarily Mayocks overall track record is bad, but the Ferrell pick sucked immensely given the obvious talent still on the board. It was a terrible reach. 

There's a difference in "not being perfect" and making a really dumb pick. With who was on the board, Ferrell was a dumb pick given: the talent around him that made everyone on that D line look good, his lack of actual testing, his lack of "pop" tape. 

I was pounding the table for Oliver or Allen (and you know my theory on players on great teams and those on lesser teams). 

Point being, I don't expect Mayock to hit on every pick, but the times he has objectively reached (Ferrell, Jacobs, Arnette, Bowden, Muse) only 1 has worked so far. It has more to do with passing up better players in hopes of finding a diamond in the rough. That's ok when you're talking rounds 5-7, but not a top 5 pick, 2nd, or 3rd rounders when there's clearly better options available. 

Ferrell didn't even test. Jacobs can be forgiven, but there's a high probability he was on the board later (but I'll digress and assume we couldn't have traded down). Bowden and Muse were 3rd round whiffs who were taken and expected to switch positions...that's not a 3rd round pick, regardless of "potential". 

As I just said in my previous post..

Through 17 games 

Clelin Ferrell - 41 tackles, 4.5 sacks, 8 TFL, 9 QB hits 

Cam Jordan - 42 tackles, 1 sack, 2 TFL, 4 QB hits 

Would you have given up on Jordan, who was also a first round pick, after his first 17 games? He has developed into one of the premier defensive linemen in the league after a super slow start to his career. 

Ferrell has played 17 games, Anette has played 2 games, and Muse hasn't even played a snap here and you already know that they're not going to work out? Who's to say that Muse can't bounce back and be a productive LB here? Who's to say that Ferrell can't improve as a pass rusher and live up to his draft status? There's so much more football to be played both this year and beyond for all of our young players. Not every young player is going to be dominant from the jump, it takes time for some guys to figure it out. 

Edited by NYRaider
Link to post
Share on other sites

Player A: 41 tackles, 4.5 sacks, 8 TFL, 8 hurries, 9 QB hits 

Player B: 38 tackles, 4.5 sacks, 6 TFL, 5 hurries, 8 QB hits 

Ferrell's pass rush production is essentially identical to Quinnen Williams so far in their careers and no one is writing Williams off yet. Not to mention Williams was considered a can't miss prospect and was ranked higher than Ferrell by every team and media source. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...