2021 Draft Thread - Day 3 Throwdown

[Frankie2Gunz]

5 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

I think the pass rush is much better with Ngakoue alone. I'm not simply referring to his consistency with getting eight or more sacks in a season each of his seasons but I even think his presence will make Max Crosby better(who I consider a complimentary pass rusher)

I think the potential from whoever wins from the interior will give the secondary a better chance to be successful. They seem to be very high on Solomon Thomas(which I can see why because once he was signed I did research to find out that he was used wrong his entire time in San Francisco). Plus Eric Harris is gone so now there's actually 11 players playing on the field now lol

I wasn't a big fan of Trevon Moerig during the draft process because one I thought he was going to go in the first round and two he didn't play single high safety so I thought he wouldn't be a good fit. But I actually trust Gus Bradley he has a track record with a good defense of backfield's at every position as long as there's a pass rush. So the interior pass rush is going to be the big question

Having a good idea of our depth chart and knowing Bradley's scheme where do you see our D at the end of the year in terms of overall ranking and what ranking would you consider Bradley to have a successful year?  I believe last year we were ranked 30th overall.  

[raiders4life]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

I don't really care what where we got Moehrig. I wanted him anyway. 

But that doesn't dispel my hatred of the Leatherwood pick. That was an objectively dumb pick to make, no matter how you cut it. What was it called, a 60% chance he would have been available with our 2nd? Moehrig was a 1st round talent, and there was quite the run on S's early day 2. Had we not found a trade partner to move up and get him, we would have been caught with our roosters in our hands as Holland and Grant were off the board. Taking Leatherwood at 17 was an unnecessary risk, and one that could have blown up and made us look really bad considering that FS was pretty much our top overall need. 

A 100% chance we get Moehrig at 17 and a ~60% chance we get Leatherwood at 48 without having to give up picks to move up and keep from looking like a hot mess. Criticizing that is mind boggling? If it were so mind boggling, our draft strategies (which haven't yielded much success, btw, so I don't want to hear anything about "their board". Their board sucks then. And it sucks because the players who they have high on their boards routinely suck. The player they think is BPA routinely sucks. So spare me the "you have to have faith" stuff. They haven't earned that.) wouldn't be a freaking meme on sports media.  

Honestly bro, I was just pointing out the lack of logic (nothing personal) in your criticism of the Moehrig pick alone in the post I quoted. (Maybe re-read it to see how it came off?).. Just seems like you were trying really hard to find a way to criticize every single pick and landed on something that really doesn’t make sense on its own. Now you’re falling back on the Leatherwood pick to justify it and that’s understandable as that pick has and will continue to throw a shadow over the rest of the draft.

As others have said.. before the draft many of us would’ve loved Moehrig at 17 and Leatherwood at 48. Clearly the Raiders would’ve loved that too, but they valued getting their top OT higher than getting their top S. I can understand that logic, even if I don’t agree with their assessment. All we can do now is see how it works out! Entertaining at the very least right??

As a side, if the Raiders picked any of the consensus/fan favorite 1st round picks (Darrisaw? Jenkins? JOK?) at 17 instead of Leatherwood would you still criticize trading up in the 2nd to pick Moehrig?

[Jeremy408]

26 minutes ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

Having a good idea of our depth chart and knowing Bradley's scheme where do you see our D at the end of the year in terms of overall ranking and what ranking would you consider Bradley to have a successful year?  I believe last year we were ranked 30th overall.  

Now thats a good question. What I would like to see is a defense in the top 20. A more realistic goal would be above 25th. It really comes down to the pass rush(more particularly what the interior pass rushers do). The chances are one of them steps up and we're somewhere around 22. This is me lowballing by the way. They have the talent to to be higher than this but I'm done with the whole potential thing I've got to see it. I expect them to be much better at rushing the passer which is going to make the defense much better.

But even If we're around 22 and are offfense plays top 10 like I did last year and say we run the ball better we can win 10 or 11 games. I don't see that as out of the realm of possibility. Remember we won eight games with virtually no pass rush and teams scoring in one minute 40 or less.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Jeremy408

[ronjon1990]

3 hours ago, Dessie said:

Every pick we made.

Yeah I don’t like lists when people try and project who would/wouldn’t be there, really really annoying tbh. 

17. Moehrig. 100%. He was a need. He wouldn't have been a reach. Even in mock drafts, getting one of the better S's at 48 was cutting it close. Not going FS in round 1 was crazy. As I said, had we not traded up or been able to, and Moehrig was gone, we would've wound up having to take a pretty big reach on a FS or not adequately addressing it (Gillespie maybe? But idk that he's a FS in the system). I take Moehrig and get it out of the way. 

43. Walker Little. We traded up. I wouldn't have, which is why I asked about you wanting picks had or made. Assuming we moved up, it would be for our other need at OT. Had we stayed at 48 (SF went OG, so we say Banks was their pick at 43) I take Cosmi. 

79 Wyatt Davis. We took Koonce. I'm fine with it. Would've preferred OG. 

80. Elijah Molden. I don't mind the Deablo pick. I thought he was a 4th rounder myself, but again, no "he would've been there later". We still aren't entirely sure about Nickel CB. I really wanted to address it. Molden could also play S in a pinch. I was super high on him. 

143. Josh Kaindoh. Again, I don't dislike taking Koonce at 79 and adding a DE. I just would've preferred we added an OG and NCB before doing so given Ferrell, Yannick, Crosby, Nassib. Alternatively, I might have jumped on Kenneth Gainwell to jettison Richard. Bonus: Had we still had 121, Tyler Shelvin. I'm not as high on our IDL as others. Gillespie is fine enough. Not a huge fan of it with K Jo, Heath, Moehrig, and Abram. Is Gillespie better enough than any to warrant cutting one, because going into the season with 5+ S's is unlikely. With Molden taken at 80, he plays CB and S wheb needed. 

167. Simi Fehoko. H/W/S freak that brings size we currently lack at WR. I was very high on him. 

230. Jermar Jefferson or Kylin Hill. It's a 7th rounder, probably someone to try and stash. Since I take Kaindoh over Gainwell at 143, I try to add a RB to call up if Jacobs gets banged up, if they don't make the main roster over Richard. Morrissey is just another C. We have James and Martin. He has no chance at making the roster. 

So what we got was: OT, FS, DE, SLB, S, CB/KR*, C.

What I would have taken with the picks we ultimately selected a player with: FS, OT, OG, CB/S, DE, WR, RB. 

Most of the positions are the same. The order is different. Why? I think getting a potential starting OG and CB in the 3rd outweights taking 2 guys almost guaranteed to just be reserve backups at LB and DE. RB makes more sense than a C to me, because we're not carrying 3 C's, and both guys we have are more likely to beat out a rookie than Richard would be to hold down RB3. 

Frankly, I think Moehrig, Little, Davis, Molden could have all been 1st year starters at their positions. Kaindoh is a rotational piece taken on day 3, Fehoko a project WR, and Jefferson/Hill an insurance policy at RB. With the exception of Fehoko possibly not making WR5, Moehrig, Little, Davis, Molden, Kaindoh could all be penciled in to make the active squad and Jefferson/Hill would be very likely to give Richard legitimate competition for a roster spot.

Result: 4 probable starters (Moehrig, Little, Davis, Molden), 1 depth player almost assured to make the roster as a direct backup (Kaindoh), 1 player with PS potential who might actually push for a back end spot (Fehoko), and 1 player who would give legitimate competition for the active roster at a position that could actually have a competition (Jefferson/Hill)

With who we took, Leatherwood and Moehrig should be starters. Koonce will not be starting. He'll be behind Yannick and Crosby. Deablo is a bit of a wildcard. Maybe he manages to win a starting role, but he's probably a backup. Thus, instead of 4 probable starters with our first 4 picks, we have 2 starters and 2 backups. Gillespie makes the roster, maybe pushes Abram, but likely starts as a rotational piece and deep S reserve. Hobbs is ok, but few of us knew of him. Apparently returns kicks, but is he ready to push Johnson and Amik, much less Mullen and Arnette (if we don't add another CB soon?). Morrissey is almost assuredly destined for the PS. He would have to be one of the biggest steals of the draft to supplant James or Martin to make the active, but meh, it's a 7th. 

Result: 2 probable starters (Leatherwood, Moehrig), 2 direct backups (Koonce, Deablo), 2 deep reserves (Gillespie, Hobbs), 1 guy with almost no legitimate chance at competing for a spot (Morrisey). 

My methodology: 

Get as many guys as possible who could be projected to start. Then you start looking for the depth pieces. 

Leatherwood and Moehrig will almost assuredly start. But Koonce has a tough road to snaps. Ditto for Deablo, but to a slightly lesser degree. I want more from 3rd round picks if possible. Can you see Koonce pushing Crosby and Yannick more than Davis pushing Simpson or possibly even Incognito? Can you see Deablo pushing Morrow or Liittleton more than Molden pushing Johnson and Amik? I can't. 

In Kaindoh, we still probably get the same amount of snaps as Koonce ultimately gets. We wouldn't have Gillespie, but we would have still had Joseph, Heath, Abram, Moehrig. He might beat one of them out or we might cut one of Heath/Joseph. 

CB was addressed early. Hobbs might surprise. Who knows. In place of the CB pick, WR was taken. Fehoko could probably legitimately push Jones for WR5 behind Ruggs, Brown, Edwards, Renfrow, and Snead. 

Instead of a 3rd C trying to beat out James (who we let go of Hudson in favor of) and Martin, we get a RB who actually has a shot at making the roster by only needing to beat out Richard. 

To me, the more likely production we can get from day 1 and 2, the better. And late picks who might actually make the roster > guys almost assured not to as late round flyers makes more sense. Feel free to disagree. But that is what I would have done and why. 

Edited May 2, 2021 by ronjon1990

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, Jeremy408 said:

To me it's only a bad pick if he doesn't show up week 1 as the starter or if Darrisaw is substantially better. 

Hey if Leatherwood shows up and looks substantially better than Darrisaw or others throughout the season, I will eat crow and like it. 

I think we could've gotten him at 48 without having to trade up. I don't "know" this, but I think it. And that thought was shared by many on day 1. My main complaint was giving up a pick to get someonewe could've had. I don't hate having Leatherwood per se, I hate the way we went about getting him. 60% is decent odds. FS was so shallow that as soon as 2 went (Holland and Grant), giving up resources to get the last one of the top 3 became a 100% necessity and a clear panic move. A few good OTs were left at 43 and even 48, but it pretty clearly became Moehrig or bust at FS. What happens if 2 of the top FS's go in the 20's and we wind up having to trade back into the 1st to get the last one? It's that risk I just can't bring myself to call a good decision, ya know? 

[Jeremy408]

2 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

17. Moehrig. 100%. He was a need. He wouldn't have been a reach. Even in mock drafts, getting one of the better S's at 48 was cutting it close. Not going FS in round 1 was crazy. As I said, had we not traded up or been able to, and Moehrig was gone, we would've wound up having to take a pretty big reach on a FS or not adequately addressing it (Gillespie maybe? But idk that he's a FS in the system). I take Moehrig and get it out of the way. 

43. Walker Little. We traded up. I wouldn't have, which is why I asked about you wanting picks had or made. Assuming we moved up, it would be for our other need at OT. Had we stayed at 48 (SF went OG, so we say Banks was their pick at 43) I take Cosmi. 

79 Wyatt Davis. We took Koonce. I'm fine with it. Would've preferred OG. 

80. Elijah Molden. I don't mind the Deablo pick. I thought he was a 4th rounder myself, but again, no "he would've been there later". We still aren't entirely sure about Nickel CB. I really wanted to address it. Molden could also play S in a pinch. I was super high on him. 

143. Josh Kaindoh. Again, I don't dislike taking Koonce at 79 and adding a DE. I just would've preferred we added an OG and NCB before doing so given Ferrell, Yannick, Crosby, Nassib. Alternatively, I might have jumped on Kenneth Gainwell to jettison Richard. Bonus: Had we still had 121, Tyler Shelvin. I'm not as high on our IDL as others. Gillespie is fine enough. Not a huge fan of it with K Jo, Heath, Moehrig, and Abram. Is Gillespie better enough than any to warrant cutting one, because going into the season with 5+ S's is unlikely. With Molden taken at 80, he plays CB and S wheb needed. 

167. Simi Fehoko. H/W/S freak that brings size we currently lack at WR. I was very high on him. 

230. Jermar Jefferson or Kylin Hill. It's a 7th rounder, probably someone to try and stash. Since I take Kaindoh over Gainwell at 143, I try to add a RB to call up if Jacobs gets banged up, if they don't make the main roster over Richard. Morrissey is just another C. We have James and Martin. He has no chance at making the roster. 

So what we got was: OT, FS, DE, SLB, S, CB/KR*, C.

What I would have taken with the picks we ultimately selected a player with: FS, OT, OG, CB/S, DE, WR, RB. 

Most of the positions are the same. The order is different. Why? I think getting a potential starting OG and CB in the 3rd outweights taking 2 guys almost guaranteed to just be reserve backups at LB and DE. RB makes more sense than a C to me, because we're not carrying 3 C's, and both guys we have are more likely to beat out a rookie than Richard would be to hold down RB3. 

Frankly, I think Moehrig, Little, Davis, Molden could have all been 1st year starters at their positions. Kaindoh is a rotational piece taken on day 3, Fehoko a project WR, and Jefferson/Hill an insurance policy at RB. With the exception of Fehoko possibly not making WR5, Moehrig, Little, Davis, Molden, Kaindoh could all be penciled in to make the active squad and Jefferson/Hill would be very likely to give Richard legitimate competition for a roster spot.

Result: 4 probable starters (Moehrig, Little, Davis, Molden), 1 depth player almost assured to make the roster as a direct backup (Kaindoh), 1 player with PS potential who might actually push for a back end spot (Fehoko), and 1 player who would give legitimate competition for the active roster at a position that could actually have a competition (Jefferson/Hill)

With who we took, Leatherwood and Moehrig should be starters. Koonce will not be starting. He'll be behind Yannick and Crosby. Deablo is a bit of a wildcard. Maybe he manages to win a starting role, but he's probably a backup. Thus, instead of 4 probable starters with our first 4 picks, we have 2 starters and 2 backups. Gillespie makes the roster, maybe pushes Abram, but likely starts as a rotational piece and deep S reserve. Hobbs is ok, but few of us knew of him. Apparently returns kicks, but is he ready to push Johnson and Amik, much less Mullen and Arnette (if we don't add another CB soon?). Morrissey is almost assuredly destined for the PS. He would have to be one of the biggest steals of the draft to supplant James or Martin to make the active, but meh, it's a 7th. 

Result: 2 probable starters (Leatherwood, Moehrig), 2 direct backups (Koonce, Deablo), 2 deep reserves (Gillespie, Hobbs), 1 guy with almost no legitimate chance at competing for a spot (Morrisey). 

My methodology: 

Get as many guys as possible who could be projected to start. Then you start looking for the depth pieces. 

Leatherwood and Moehrig will almost assuredly start. But Koonce has a tough road to snaps. Ditto for Deablo, but to a slightly lesser degree. I want more from 3rd round picks if possible. Can you see Koonce pushing Crosby and Yannick more than Davis pushing Simpson or possibly even Incognito? Can you see Deablo pushing Morrow or Liittleton more than Molden pushing Johnson and Amik? I can't. 

In Kaindoh, we still probably get the same amount of snaps as Koonce ultimately gets. We wouldn't have Gillespie, but we would have still had Joseph, Heath, Abram, Moehrig. He might beat one of them out or we might cut one of Heath/Joseph. 

CB was addressed early. Hobbs might surprise. Who knows. In place of the CB pick, WR was taken. Fehoko could probably legitimately push Jones for WR5 behind Ruggs, Brown, Edwards, Renfrow, and Snead. 

Instead of a 3rd C trying to beat out James (who we let go of Hudson in favor of) and Martin, we get a RB who actually has a shot at making the roster by only needing to beat out Richard. 

To me, the more likely production we can get from day 1, the better. And late picks who might actually make the roster > guys almost assured not to as late round flyers makes more sense. Feel free to disagree. But that is what I would have done and why. 

The thing about your methodology is I actually understand it. It makes sense I think that way also. But here's the way I look at it

1. Do you wanna go moehrig and 17, not a big deal to me. We have problems on defense we need to address the defense

2. When we get to the walker little pick that's the beginning of when you have to look at things a little differently right? I mean whoever we take it right tackle has to be somebody we think and start for sure in our system in our division. I feel like it's easy for us the fan to say which tackle we should get and who would be immediately a starter but the reality is Tom cable knows who's the best tackle would be to start week 1. How do we even know that Walker Little starts for the Jaguars right away. He tore his ACL in 2019 and opted out in 2020 which means he hasn't played football in two years. Those are some serious things to consider for someone you want to bring in to start right away.

3. Wyatt Davis I like a lot but we just took a guard last year and guard is really Cannon fodder position of the NFL. In other words unless you're going to get like a Quinton Nelson type guard(Guard will literally always be there and it will be there late). So when you have the problems on defense that we do does it really make sense to draft a guard after drafting a tackle on day two. Then you've got to consider on top of that what if it turns out the 38 year old Richie incognito is still better than him. Then he drafted guard depth for 38 years old when you already had guard depth and/or can always find more guard depth later. 

4. With molden the problem I always had with him(although television and the Internet were very high on him) was the fact that he ran 4.6. In our division when you're playing Hamler and Tyreek Hill you can't have a slot corner that runs 4.6. I also always questioned when people said he would be able to start for the Raiders as a single high safety. That never made sense to me. 

I thought it was legitimately a better idea to get very high upside players that are perfect for the Gus Bradley system with the number of short deals we have on a lot of our free agents. Also the safety from Missouri really grew on me because of the idea that if Abrams runs into any more carts and gets hurt that might be the last time we see him in the starting lineup. lol

[ronjon1990]

36 minutes ago, raiders4life said:

As a side, if the Raiders picked any of the consensus/fan favorite 1st round picks (Darrisaw? Jenkins? JOK?) at 17 instead of Leatherwood would you still criticize trading up in the 2nd to pick Moehrig?

It's a fair question. 

I would have still be irked, myself. 

FS and OT were both obvious needs, but there were significantly more OTs than FSs worth a 2nd rounder, and even decent projected value towards Round 3. 

Throughout the pre-Draft, I myself skipped Moehrig a few times at 17, but always only in favor of a Parsons or Phillips, both of whom I see as absolutely transformational players for a D. One of those guys, I bite the bullet and let the chips fall and hope a FS is available at 48. If not, I go OT 100% and get it out of the way. 

What I'm saying is I would have gone Player X, OT and gave up on one of the top FS, or Player X, FS and hoped an OT fell to round 3, but in no scenario would I have gone OT, FS in that order.

I wouldn't have gone Darrisaw, Moehrig via trade up. I wouldn't have gone AVT, Moehrig via trade up. I wouldn't have gone Slater, Moehrig via trade up. I might not even have gone Sewell, Moehrig via trade up. I would have taken my chances at OT by standing pat at 48 every single time if OT and FS were 100% going to be the first 2 positions we picked. 

[Jeremy408]

7 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Hey if Leatherwood shows up and looks substantially better than Darrisaw or others throughout the season, I will eat crow and like it. 

I think we could've gotten him at 48 without having to trade up. I don't "know" this, but I think it. And that thought was shared by many on day 1. My main complaint was giving up a pick to get someonewe could've had. I don't hate having Leatherwood per se, I hate the way we went about getting him. 60% is decent odds. FS was so shallow that as soon as 2 went (Holland and Grant), giving up resources to get the last one of the top 3 became a 100% necessity and a clear panic move. A few good OTs were left at 43 and even 48, but it pretty clearly became Moehrig or bust at FS. What happens if 2 of the top FS's go in the 20's and we wind up having to trade back into the 1st to get the last one? It's that risk I just can't bring myself to call a good decision, ya know? 

I respect it and that's all I'm saying really is that if say tom cable is right about him and he starting right tackle week one then I can live with the pick but if they start shuffling and saying oh actually we're gonna start them out at guard or something like that I will be the first one to say that it was a horrible pick. I'm not even saying he's gonna be good I'm just saying we don't know and then it comes down to cables ability to coach and know exactly what he want. 

With the whole 60% odds thing how can any of us really know that. We have no idea on anyone else's board where they had them so it's really all just hypothetical.

I actually understand your take on safety but we made sure we got our guys. That's the key thing. If we don't move up(like what everyone usually complains about) then perhaps the Cowboys or some other team would've drafted him then we would end up not getting the safety we wanted. And again the important thing was getting the players we wanted to give us the resources to be the best at what we want to do. Leatherwood in Moehrig give us whatever that is. A good question to ask would be who would you have got with the 5th rounder that we traded up to get him. If Moehrig goes on to be a really good starter as a rookie no one's gonna look back and say "Man we should've traded that fifth rounder". It's really small potatoes in my opinion. 

In terms of what you said about what if the free safeties went in the top 20. That's a good point. However may I made an interesting point when he said that he had a good idea about how there was gonna be a huge defensive slide because of all the interest in the quarterbacks in offense of players early on. Interestingly enough he was actually right about that which enabled us to get Moerig and secure both of their guys. I can't be mad at it

[ronjon1990]

6 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

2. When we get to the walker little pick that's the beginning of when you have to look at things a little differently right? I mean whoever we take it right tackle has to be somebody we think and start for sure in our system in our division. I feel like it's easy for us the fan to say which tackle we should get and who would be immediately a starter but the reality is Tom cable knows who's the best tackle would be to start week 1. How do we even know that Walker Little starts for the Jaguars right away. He tore his ACL in 2019 and opted out in 2020 which means he hasn't played football in two years. Those are some serious things to consider for someone you want to bring in to start right away.

3. Wyatt Davis I like a lot but we just took a guard last year and guard is really Cannon fodder position of the NFL. In other words unless you're going to get like a Quinton Nelson type guard(Guard will literally always be there and it will be there late). So when you have the problems on defense that we do does it really make sense to draft a guard after drafting a tackle on day two. Then you've got to consider on top of that what if it turns out the 38 year old Richie incognito is still better than him. 

I firmly take Moehrig at 17. Or Grant, I liked him too. But yeah, same page round 1.

With Little, I admit, we don't know. I'd argue we know little more about Leatherwood. Personally, I really like Little. Might've gone Cosmi instead to be honest. Read my last post to see my thing with OT in general. 

As far as G goes, I'm only lukewarm on Simpson. I like Good better. If, as you say, Incognito beat Davis out, he beats him out and I can live with that. Incognito is old, but he's not trash. But he is indeed old. This could probably be his last year, so I wouldn't see Davis sitting on the sidelines long. Age is my big motivator for taking an OG at all. 

In regards to Molden, personal preference. Like Holland or a few other guys at various positions, he's certainly not for everyone. Come week 1, I would probably swap he and Arnette out at NCB, fwiw. 

[ronjon1990]

20 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

I respect it and that's all I'm saying really is that if say tom cable is right about him and he starting right tackle week one then I can live with the pick but if they start shuffling and saying oh actually we're gonna start them out at guard or something like that I will be the first one to say that it was a horrible pick. I'm not even saying he's gonna be good I'm just saying we don't know and then it comes down to cables ability to coach and know exactly what he want. 

With the whole 60% odds thing how can any of us really know that. We have no idea on anyone else's board where they had them so it's really all just hypothetical.

I actually understand your take on safety but we made sure we got our guys. That's the key thing. If we don't move up(like what everyone usually complains about) then perhaps the Cowboys or some other team would've drafted him then we would end up not getting the safety we wanted. And again the important thing was getting the players we wanted to give us the resources to be the best at what we want to do. Leatherwood in Moehrig give us whatever that is. A good question to ask would be who would you have got with the 5th rounder that we traded up to get him. If Moehrig goes on to be a really good starter as a rookie no one's gonna look back and say "Man we should've traded that fifth rounder". It's really small potatoes in my opinion. 

If you notice in my "what I would have done" post above, I didn't take a DT despite always listing IDL as a major need.

At 121, I would've jumped all over Tyler Shelvin. I'm not nearly as enamored with our DL as some are. Maybe Togiai, but probably Shelvin. 

That's who I would've taken but for the trade. 

Edited May 2, 2021 by ronjon1990

[Jeremy408]

2 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

I firmly take Moehrig at 17. Or Grant, I liked him too. But yeah, same page round 1.

With Little, I admit, we don't know. I'd argue we know little more about Leatherwood. Personally, I really like Little. Might've gone Cosmi instead to be honest. Read my last post to see my thing with OT in general. 

As far as G goes, I'm only lukewarm on Simpson. I like Good better. If, as you say, Incognito beat Davis out, he beats him out and I can live with that. Incognito is old, but he's not trash. But he is indeed old. This could probably be his last year, so I wouldn't see Davis sitting on the sidelines long. Age is my big motivator for taking an OG at all. 

In regards to Molden, personal preference. Like Holland or a few other guys at various positions, he's certainly not for everyone. Come week 1, I would probably swap he and Arnette out at NCB, fwiw. 

OK so with tackle, I get your point with Cosmi thing. But let me put it this way: Mike Mayock said that Tom cable had Leatherwood higher than everyone. If you think a player is that high you take them. You don't hope they'll be there around later. That's my take. Now we're going to find out if he was right or wrong(which is a whole other conversation entirely)

How do we know there wasn't something  that Cable saw in Cosmi that made him question if he could be a starting right tackle right now? It's one of those things that we don't really know. We also don't know if he starts for Washington(where he was drafted) either.

As far as guard them not taking a guard signifies that they like what they see in Simpson who they've had in the building for an entire season and it's probably on some special workout program. He's had a whole year to gain muscle learn the blocking scheme and work on whatever he needed to work on out of college. The thing we have to ask ourselves is how do we know that Wyatt Davis is even better than Simpson is right now. We don't none of us do. 

[Jeremy408]

4 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

If you notice in my "what I would have done" post above, I didn't take a DT despite always listing IDL as a major need.

At 121, I would've jumped all over Tyler Shelvin. I'm not nearly as enamored with our DL as some are. Maybe Togiai, but probably Shelvin. 

That's who I would've taken but for the trade. 

I respect that 100% he's a good player that would've sat out for a year before replacing Hankins who was on a one year deal I get that and I agree with it. 

But I notice I didn't take a nose tackle at all despite there being multiple opportunities. That means that either..

A. shelvin was the only nose tackle on their board that they would've taken and they missed out

B. it could mean they actually have a plan there. That'll be interesting to watch.

C. They weren't a big fan of any defense of tackle in the draft that they would have to actually use a pick on

Seems like with the moves they made in free agency that C seems like the most likely answer. But who knows..

[Dessie]

8 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

17. Moehrig. 100%. He was a need. He wouldn't have been a reach. Even in mock drafts, getting one of the better S's at 48 was cutting it close. Not going FS in round 1 was crazy. As I said, had we not traded up or been able to, and Moehrig was gone, we would've wound up having to take a pretty big reach on a FS or not adequately addressing it (Gillespie maybe? But idk that he's a FS in the system). I take Moehrig and get it out of the way. 

You do get that Moehrig at #17 is as a big a reach as what you are saying about Leatherwood? If the chances of Leatherwood not being there at #48 were 40% what were the chances pre draft of Moehrig not being there at #43, say 0-10%, yet we got him. Really don’t understand the logic tbh.

Defense is our biggest problem but on your re-draft we take 3 offensive players in first 6 picks ? 

I am not a Gruden fan never have been tbh and I get the frustration of ‘reaching’ on picks. But making the argument we should have taken somebody who we got 26 picks later, makes zero sense to me.  

 

[oakdb36]

The Athletic is saying Leatherwood wasn't making it past Baltimore at 27. Did we have an offer to trade down before 27 though?

[Jeremy408]

3 hours ago, oakdb36 said:

The Athletic is saying Leatherwood wasn't making it past Baltimore at 27. Did we have an offer to trade down before 27 though?

Mayock said in a press conference that he tried to trade down but with one team but they had a really bad offer so he stayed put and made the pick.