MNF GDT Week 1: Ravens @ Raiders

[NYRaider]

2 hours ago, agarcia34 said:

Watched the game over and I was impressed with Abram. He wasn’t wild and out of control like he was last year very in control the whole game. Had good coverage on Andrews in the end zone to force Lamar to throw it high then had the knock out on Andrews in OT. He wasn’t Spectacular but he was steady and in control the whole game and he looked so much more comfortable playing in the box. 
 

Very good first game for him 

Hobbs, Abram, and Mullen all played the majority of our defensive snaps and we didn't hear anything about them, which is great for a DB because it means they didn't get burnt.

[Mr Raider]

22 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

If Carr hits him. 

See, here's the problem: IF a RB sees a giant hole spring open on his own 1 yard line and takes it 99 for the TD but finishes with 20 carries for 100 yards and a TD, does that make him a consistent workhorse back, or did he just happen to have that one lucky break in the game? 

We didn't take Ruggs that high to be a one trick deep threat, we took him to be our #1 WR. At this point, Edwards, Renfrow, and Waller are clearly ahead of him in pecking order, maybe even Ingold. And if we did take him with the hopes to successfully rely on deep bombs for him to be productive, with Carr as our QB and Gruden as our coach, then whoever made that decision is a moron. 

I disagree with the premise that he was drafted with the plan of him being our number one WR. I think that is what most fans expected given where he was selected, and I think those expectations come when you are a top 15 pick, and we can argue all day that SHOULD have been what he was drafted to be given where he was selected, but I don't think most disagree with that idea. 

I have been fairly confident in how I read Gruden and his decisions/what he's looking for on the offensive side of the ball for a few years now. Defensively? No idea. That vision is much more confusing to me. But offensively it's clear that he sees Carr as a franchise QB but a tier or two below elite, he sees Waller as the feature pass catcher that is a weapon the NFL has and deemed him being the focal point of the offense more valuable and reliable than trying to make Ceedee Lamb or Jerry Jeudy the focal point of the passing game, particularly because those guys were expected to win and be their best in the similar area of the field as Waller, Gruden wants to run the ball, limit turnovers, control the LOS and TOP, and he wants the passing game to open up off play action and kill teams in the window from the LOS to 20 yards down field. 

So I think it's entirely possible that Gruden thought Lamb was a better prospect, but didn't offer the necessary athleticism and skill set to beat teams deep, Lamb wasn't going to be nearly as beneficial to HIS offense and how Gruden wants to win on the backs of Jacobs, Waller, and Carr doing what he does best, but Ruggs even if he isn't the #1 WR that catches 90 balls a year will provide the skill set to be more beneficial to the players we already had that Gruden had in place that fit his offense perfectly already. I think it's entirely possible that Gruden took a prospect he thought was overall the lesser prospect, but offered the thing in his mind the offense was missing most that Ruggs was the best in the class at that would make his offense more successful even if his individual production likely wouldn't be able to match up against the better overall prospect. 

We can argue how terrible a plan that is or whether it was right or whatever, but the point is, I don't necessarily think Ruggs was taken to be our #1 WR. I think he was drafted to be our #2 WR behind Waller and his skill set would make Waller and our #2 offensive option Jacobs better as well. I just don't think Gruden is operating on the same value as the rest of the league. I don't think he cares. In fact it likely motivates him to be able to buck "traditional" thinking about value and such and win anyway. Because if he does, he will never have to hear he inherited a team or this or that, it will unquestionably be winning BECAUSE of him and doing things his way. 

Right or wrong, if Waller continues to get better and better and Ruggs can become a Desean Jackson/Brandin Cooks/etc type of big play on less volume type of WR the pick will be a success. Only time will tell. 

It is interesting to debate would a guy like Lamb have been more overall beneficial to the offense that struggled to get respected over the top and led to stacked boxes and defenses sitting almost exclusively on everything short. Would the overall talent and ability to be a more traditional highly targeted WR that doesn't scare or beat teams over the top make the offense better just because of his talent, or is the speed and fear defenses have for his big plays drawing attention away from Waller and Jacobs in the short and intermediate game with less individual production more beneficial overall?

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, Mr Raider said:

I disagree with the premise that he was drafted with the plan of him being our number one WR. I think that is what most fans expected given where he was selected, and I think those expectations come when you are a top 15 pick, and we can argue all day that SHOULD have been what he was drafted to be given where he was selected, but I don't think most disagree with that idea. 

I have been fairly confident in how I read Gruden and his decisions/what he's looking for on the offensive side of the ball for a few years now. Defensively? No idea. That vision is much more confusing to me. But offensively it's clear that he sees Carr as a franchise QB but a tier or two below elite, he sees Waller as the feature pass catcher that is a weapon the NFL has and deemed him being the focal point of the offense more valuable and reliable than trying to make Ceedee Lamb or Jerry Jeudy the focal point of the passing game, particularly because those guys were expected to win and be their best in the similar area of the field as Waller, Gruden wants to run the ball, limit turnovers, control the LOS and TOP, and he wants the passing game to open up off play action and kill teams in the window from the LOS to 20 yards down field. 

So I think it's entirely possible that Gruden thought Lamb was a better prospect, but didn't offer the necessary athleticism and skill set to beat teams deep, Lamb wasn't going to be nearly as beneficial to HIS offense and how Gruden wants to win on the backs of Jacobs, Waller, and Carr doing what he does best, but Ruggs even if he isn't the #1 WR that catches 90 balls a year will provide the skill set to be more beneficial to the players we already had that Gruden had in place that fit his offense perfectly already. I think it's entirely possible that Gruden took a prospect he thought was overall the lesser prospect, but offered the thing in his mind the offense was missing most that Ruggs was the best in the class at that would make his offense more successful even if his individual production likely wouldn't be able to match up against the better overall prospect. 

We can argue how terrible a plan that is or whether it was right or whatever, but the point is, I don't necessarily think Ruggs was taken to be our #1 WR. I think he was drafted to be our #2 WR behind Waller and his skill set would make Waller and our #2 offensive option Jacobs better as well. I just don't think Gruden is operating on the same value as the rest of the league. I don't think he cares. In fact it likely motivates him to be able to buck "traditional" thinking about value and such and win anyway. Because if he does, he will never have to hear he inherited a team or this or that, it will unquestionably be winning BECAUSE of him and doing things his way. 

Right or wrong, if Waller continues to get better and better and Ruggs can become a Desean Jackson/Brandin Cooks/etc type of big play on less volume type of WR the pick will be a success. Only time will tell. 

It is interesting to debate would a guy like Lamb have been more overall beneficial to the offense that struggled to get respected over the top and led to stacked boxes and defenses sitting almost exclusively on everything short. Would the overall talent and ability to be a more traditional highly targeted WR that doesn't scare or beat teams over the top make the offense better just because of his talent, or is the speed and fear defenses have for his big plays drawing attention away from Waller and Jacobs in the short and intermediate game with less individual production more beneficial overall?

This is why I love football. So many different philosophies. If you read my last post, we clearly view the ends the same (play call approach, focus on TOP, etc.) and yet we're apparently almost polar opposites on the means to those ends.

 

[Turnobili]

2 hours ago, Mr Raider said:

I disagree with the premise that he was drafted with the plan of him being our number one WR. I think that is what most fans expected given where he was selected, and I think those expectations come when you are a top 15 pick, and we can argue all day that SHOULD have been what he was drafted to be given where he was selected, but I don't think most disagree with that idea. 

I have been fairly confident in how I read Gruden and his decisions/what he's looking for on the offensive side of the ball for a few years now. Defensively? No idea. That vision is much more confusing to me. But offensively it's clear that he sees Carr as a franchise QB but a tier or two below elite, he sees Waller as the feature pass catcher that is a weapon the NFL has and deemed him being the focal point of the offense more valuable and reliable than trying to make Ceedee Lamb or Jerry Jeudy the focal point of the passing game, particularly because those guys were expected to win and be their best in the similar area of the field as Waller, Gruden wants to run the ball, limit turnovers, control the LOS and TOP, and he wants the passing game to open up off play action and kill teams in the window from the LOS to 20 yards down field. 

So I think it's entirely possible that Gruden thought Lamb was a better prospect, but didn't offer the necessary athleticism and skill set to beat teams deep, Lamb wasn't going to be nearly as beneficial to HIS offense and how Gruden wants to win on the backs of Jacobs, Waller, and Carr doing what he does best, but Ruggs even if he isn't the #1 WR that catches 90 balls a year will provide the skill set to be more beneficial to the players we already had that Gruden had in place that fit his offense perfectly already. I think it's entirely possible that Gruden took a prospect he thought was overall the lesser prospect, but offered the thing in his mind the offense was missing most that Ruggs was the best in the class at that would make his offense more successful even if his individual production likely wouldn't be able to match up against the better overall prospect. 

We can argue how terrible a plan that is or whether it was right or whatever, but the point is, I don't necessarily think Ruggs was taken to be our #1 WR. I think he was drafted to be our #2 WR behind Waller and his skill set would make Waller and our #2 offensive option Jacobs better as well. I just don't think Gruden is operating on the same value as the rest of the league. I don't think he cares. In fact it likely motivates him to be able to buck "traditional" thinking about value and such and win anyway. Because if he does, he will never have to hear he inherited a team or this or that, it will unquestionably be winning BECAUSE of him and doing things his way. 

Right or wrong, if Waller continues to get better and better and Ruggs can become a Desean Jackson/Brandin Cooks/etc type of big play on less volume type of WR the pick will be a success. Only time will tell. 

It is interesting to debate would a guy like Lamb have been more overall beneficial to the offense that struggled to get respected over the top and led to stacked boxes and defenses sitting almost exclusively on everything short. Would the overall talent and ability to be a more traditional highly targeted WR that doesn't scare or beat teams over the top make the offense better just because of his talent, or is the speed and fear defenses have for his big plays drawing attention away from Waller and Jacobs in the short and intermediate game with less individual production more beneficial overall?

could have just used Rico Gafford if we wanted a really fast guy to threaten deep and otherwise be a decoy. gruden loved old brown and rice. imagine lamb in that role

Edited September 16, 2021 by Turnobili

[Mr Raider]

1 hour ago, Turnobili said:

could have just used Rico Gafford if we wanted a really fast guy to threaten deep and otherwise be a decoy. gruden loved old brown and rice. imagine lamb in that role

I'm in agreement with you. I'm not saying that I agree with the premise, I am just very confident that is how Gruden saw it at the time. 

I liked Ruggs as a prospect, I would have had him clearly behind Lamb and Kinlaw. Honestly I would have been in the vast minority, but of all the receivers that year Lamb was my clear cut number one, but Higgins was a guy I would have arguably had as my #2 WR. I even talked about him on this forum and how I thought people were greatly over thinking his talent. I thought he and Lamb were the 2 most obvious #1, top end WR in the class. I did and still do like Ruggs more than Jeudy. A mix of liking Ruggs, but thinking he would need a year or two to develop and not being nearly as high on Jeudy as others because of his small size, inconsistent hands, and lack of any truly elite traits. 

If I were in charge on draft day I would have ran to the podium to take Lamb. And through the first season of their careers he has done nothing but make me more confident he's going to be a great WR. If I was going to take a WR other than Lamb it would have been Higgins personally. 

I feel strongly in my belief that Gruden took Ruggs not because he thought he was the top WR prospect available, but because his best asset is something he is elite at and it's the area that was most obvious our offense was lacking and finding someone with that elite trait could not only create opportunities for the guy himself but also help Jacobs and Waller take their game to an even higher level. While confident in that, I am also just as strong in my level of disagreement with that strategy. 

Finding a guy that has the ability to be an elite #1 WR that can catch 90 balls, dominate in the redzone, convert tough third downs, pick up YAC and win contested catches is going to be vastly more beneficial to your offense even if they aren't great deep threats than adding a guy that is on the shorter and lighter side but has world class football speed, regardless of how your team is made up and what those already on the team are strongest at. Unless you are positive that guy is Tyreke Hill, you take the guy that has all the traits to dominate everywhere except over the top.

I was alright with the Ruggs pick because I thought he was at least worthy of a first round pick, so I was somewhat content with it because it wasn't a Ferrell like reach. I would have been way more ok with it if Lamb was gone like I thought he would before the draft. I was happier with it though because we landed Edwards who I was also super high on and thought could give us a similar skill set to Lamb. But in a vacuum I still think Ruggs was the wrong choice, though a prospect I still thought/think there's a lot to like. I questioned at the time and still question how great of a fit Ruggs is with Carr. I think Carr is a franchise guy and a top 12 QB, but throughout his career he has had a clear preference for bigger, stronger, sure handed chain moving, contested catch type of guys. He hasn't had nearly as much success with the guys that are at their best using speed, creating separation, and don't shine in traffic. That was always my worry with Ruggs. Carr isn't a guy that looks to take the top off the defense with a ton of regularity, he's looking short and intermediate. And while I feel our offense hasn't given Ruggs nearly as many opportunities as we should through his first 15 games to make plays in those areas with short passes, screens, etc to get the ball in space, it's still not the area his skill set jumped off the page regardless. Which makes me worry that even if Ruggs translates from college to the NFL game to be a high caliber WR, are we ever going to see his absolute best paired with Carr? Perhaps, but we haven't seen it yet. 

I'm in agreement that Lamb would have been terrific for our offense. He is the type of WR I imagine Carr would thrive with and would look to early and often. He's really like a better version of Michael Crabtree in a lot of ways. I would have trusted that and all the positives that would create for the offense would be more beneficial and much harder to find, and pair it with a free agent signing or mid round draft pick on a guy we thought could be a pure burner/deep threat. Essentially your comparison to Gafford. It's possible to find niche deep threat, great speed, one trick ponies in free agency or later in the draft. My point is just basically saying how I feel Gruden viewed it and what he wanted for his offense. He didn't care about Ruggs being capable of being a #1 WR. He didn't care that is what you should be getting with a top 15 pick at WR. He thought his offense needed a WR (we desperately did obviously) and he thought in a perfect world that WR would be an elite speed guy because it would be a great compliment to Waller and Jacobs and company. I think that's incredibly short sighted, but I also think the worst thing a HC can have is a huge ego and the need for everyone to know that if we win it's because we won my way. Coaches need to be adaptable. They should be looking to bring in the best talent possible and be willing to adjust and be flexible to get the most out of it. But that isn't how Gruden does things, and it's honestly my biggest gripe with him. 

If we could keep Gruden the HC in terms of X's and O's, his offensive system, play calling, etc and gave him zero control over personnel decisions I think we would have a HC and offense capable of being great. He isn't perfect in those coaching aspects, but he's pretty dang good IMO. His ego problem rears it's ugly head most in his need to be the smartest man in the room and put his stamp on everything so everyone knows it was his way, that is often when value, long term outlook, etc pays the price. And that is a very difficult thing to overcome to contend long term with. Though despite the 10 year contract I believe Gruden just wants one super bowl or a couple deep playoff runs to validate his legacy and he'll ride off into the sunset. Meaning long term outlook isn't very high on his priority list. 

[Mr Raider]

And lastly, none of that means I think we should be calling Ruggs a bust or write him off. Do I think he was the best choice at the time even exclusively at his position? I do not. I do believe he was a good enough prospect to be worth a top 20-30 pick. 

And I believe he has shown some serious flashes that should inspire confidence in his abilities, but there has also been a lot that could be cause for concern, and really most of it to me is how he is being utilized. I just think outside of a few exceptions it's hard for any WR to be consistent and make a huge impact volume wise when the vast majority of the routes you are asked to run are go routes, deep posts, deep outs, and jet sweep type stuff. Regardless of QB but especially with a QB that wants to get the ball out quickly and in rhythm and doesn't let a lot of deep stuff develop. I just don't think when the majority of your routes are designed to be 20+ yards down the field that you are going to see a ton of volume game in and game out at the NFL level. There needs to be a more happy medium of the deep routes even if being used as a tool to open up things underneath for the benefit of the offense overall and getting Ruggs involved and opportunities to show off his talent with some quick screens, slants, shorter ins, comebacks, etc. I guess there is a debate to be had in how much of it is Gruden using him as a decoy/tool to open up the offense and how much of it is Ruggs not showing the necessary skills/understanding etc to be given opportunities at the more technically demanding routes. 

Regardless my hope coming into the year was that Ruggs would be deployed more similarly to Agholors role last seson. Plenty of deep shots and longer developing routes, but not what he did exclusively or even the majority. But that could still be the case. One week, opening weekend, back in front of a crowd, in your like 15th NFL game, against one of the best passing defenses in the NFL the past several years, on a day when Carr seemed to have some rust and nerves the first couple quarters, inside a game plan that was clearly focused on feeding Waller early and often (the 19 targets also go towards evidence of Carr having rust and nerves because he zoned in on his security blanket), isn't nearly enough for me to panic or write Ruggs off or worry he hasn't taken a step in his development. He made a big play, had a couple chances at a couple more huge plays and didn't get the ball. We very well may see some games where Ruggs shows out and is the focus of the offensive game plan. It was never likely to be week 1 against a playoff caliber team that is very deep at CB, blitzes more than any other team, combined with the first game for our RT in Leatherwood, first handful of starts for Simpson, first start for James, and their first game all playing together on the OL so no chemistry or feel in game situations together. As the year progresses and the OL gains some chemistry, when the run game is working, playing less stout defenses and poor corners and such we could see Ruggs as a guy featured in the offense with much higher volume going his way. And then we will see how the young fellow handles it and what he does with the opportunities. 

It's not time to panic. We can't go back and draft someone else. Ruggs does have a ton of talent and some traits very few in the NFL have, and I know times have changed but it used to be common to give a WR 2 or 3 years before you expected them to contribute heavily. I still think Ruggs can be a Desean Jackson, James Lofton, Santana Moss, type WR, perhaps slightly better. At the very least he is capable of doing what Agholor did for us last season. 

Ruggs is very near the top of the guys I am most interested in seeing for us this season. From his usage, volume, and his production with his looks. There is still a ton to be excited about with him. Even if some of us would have rather taken this guy or that guy. We're still talking about a guy that certainly would have been drafted in the first 20-25 picks in the entire draft. It's not like we are talking about some scrub that played at a community college. He's still a dude that played at the most talented college team, contributed heavily too, a freak athlete that was a consensus top 30 prospect in his entire draft. It's far too early to write him off or pencil him in as the next in a long line of Raider draft busts over the past 30 years. 

[Jeremy408]

11 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

That's where the chess game comes into play though. 

I don't mind Renfrow not being able to beat people deep, because within 20 yards, where there's a higher probability of success, he gets it done almost like clockwork. And our offense really clicks in those situations (except for the 1st half...that was inexplicable other than as rust). 

Ruggs, to date, doesn't. He's like aiming solely to take out the queen and only focusing on getting peons across the board to replace taken pieces. That's great and all, but not a particularly good strategy or recipe for success against a good opponent. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want Ruggs to flop. It's not a matter of getting an "I told everyone so". I just see a guy who's only real asset (so far) doesn't fit our offense and gets out-produced by lesser athletic talent that focuses on more nuance and just fits the offense better. It's great that he can break deep once or twice a game, but how often is that going to work with:

A. Carr not often taking deep shots.

B. Gruden's offense not being known to rely or dial up deep shots.

C. A rebuilt and banged up O-line that can't be relied on (yet) to keep a clean pocket long enough to justify deep shots.

D. A still TBD D that doesn't need to be on the field often, as could happen if we ran deep shots often.

E. Us being an offense tailored to clock control (why I'm not bothered that Carr isn't a 5000 yd/40+ TD guy). 

I don't doubt Ruggs could be a complete stud on, say, KC (ugh), Tampa Bay, 2012 Denver, the Rams, etc. But here...until he improves on the other aspects of his game, I just don't see him as a major asset. He was taken, I recall, because of his excellent route tree and crisp route running, along with his speed. Mayock then called him out for it. That tells me that they took him to be more than just a deep threat, they expected a WR1, and he hasn't lived up to expectations. I certainly want to be proven wrong, but so far.... I'm just not optimistic about him. 

I actually agree with 95% of this take. The only thing I don’t really agree with is the idea that they expected him to be a number one receiver(in the sense that he’s running full our tree and all that). I remember in the earliest off-season interviews in 2020 going all the way back to that Monday after a week 17. Them saying back then that they needed speed on the outside. Mayock didn’t say they needed a number one receiver or like an alpha receiver . He said they needed speed .after hearing that press conference

1. I agreed
2. I knew from that moment that we were going to draft Ruggs. 
 

That year , When people ask me which receiver the Raiders should draft I would always say “Lamb is the receiver and I want but I know ruggs is the one we need“. So I was one of the only people when he actually got drafted that wasn’t surprised
 

[Jeremy408]

6 hours ago, Turnobili said:

could have just used Rico Gafford if we wanted a really fast guy to threaten deep and otherwise be a decoy. gruden loved old brown and rice. imagine lamb in that role

But he also loved Joey Galloway Who used to go off for him

[Mr Raider]

11 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

This is why I love football. So many different philosophies. If you read my last post, we clearly view the ends the same (play call approach, focus on TOP, etc.) and yet we're apparently almost polar opposites on the means to those ends.

 

I agree with you 100% about how fantastic it is, and being a huge reason for our love of the sport in terms of the philosophies and how people differ in those areas in so many different aspects. 

But I actually think we are in agreement overall as well. If I personally were making the calls, I would have gone about it differently. Basically from the start. 

In a hypothetical world where I made all the calls in the draft from 2019 to today and we ignore free agency currently our roster would look much differently. Selecting Lamb over Ruggs is one of numerous things I would have done differently than Mayock and Gruden. I simply was arguing as to what I believe the mind set/vision was from them. Not that I believe that vision is the best way to build a football team. However I also am of the opinion that having a clear and united vision for your football team is the most important aspect. There's more than one way to build a contender. It's important though that you have a plan you are always working towards with everything being in service of that blue print. When you don't have a plan and everything is random and moves are made in contradiction of one another it doesn't matter how talented guys are or their fit. It just won't work. I can see Grudens vision for the offense and how he wants it to operate. I can't say the vision for the defense nearly as well. And I don't think their plan in free agency is anywhere close to a common vision. And as sad as it is, I can even see the vision for the draft from Gruden in Mayock, unfortunately I can't disagree with it more. It's basically take the highest rated player, at the biggest position of need in the first round, that played at Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State. Even if they could be had much later or the consensus is that a handful of guys are higher rated prospects. Then target higher upside, athletes/guys that are raw or need to change positions from smaller schools in the mid rounds and hope they hit. Thats a case where I can see what they seem to value and want to do in the draft and I could not disagree more with them on that being the correct way to approach the draft. 

But in the end, those guys are on the team, and I'll be pulling for them all to be great players and hopefully Gruden and Mayock know things I don't and in the end it'll add up to a lot of wins. Only time will tell. Ruggs like a lot of guys are talented still, even if they probably weren't the best selection, so there is still hope they can be great players. Even if I would have gone about almost every pick this front office has made in a different way. 

[Ryno]

Looks like I was wrong on Littleton abandoning his lane...

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Ryno
Failed at embedding youtube...

[Jeremy408]

16 hours ago, Mr Raider said:

I disagree with the premise that he was drafted with the plan of him being our number one WR. I think that is what most fans expected given where he was selected, and I think those expectations come when you are a top 15 pick, and we can argue all day that SHOULD have been what he was drafted to be given where he was selected, but I don't think most disagree with that idea. 

I have been fairly confident in how I read Gruden and his decisions/what he's looking for on the offensive side of the ball for a few years now. Defensively? No idea. That vision is much more confusing to me. But offensively it's clear that he sees Carr as a franchise QB but a tier or two below elite, he sees Waller as the feature pass catcher that is a weapon the NFL has and deemed him being the focal point of the offense more valuable and reliable than trying to make Ceedee Lamb or Jerry Jeudy the focal point of the passing game, particularly because those guys were expected to win and be their best in the similar area of the field as Waller, Gruden wants to run the ball, limit turnovers, control the LOS and TOP, and he wants the passing game to open up off play action and kill teams in the window from the LOS to 20 yards down field. 

So I think it's entirely possible that Gruden thought Lamb was a better prospect, but didn't offer the necessary athleticism and skill set to beat teams deep, Lamb wasn't going to be nearly as beneficial to HIS offense and how Gruden wants to win on the backs of Jacobs, Waller, and Carr doing what he does best, but Ruggs even if he isn't the #1 WR that catches 90 balls a year will provide the skill set to be more beneficial to the players we already had that Gruden had in place that fit his offense perfectly already. I think it's entirely possible that Gruden took a prospect he thought was overall the lesser prospect, but offered the thing in his mind the offense was missing most that Ruggs was the best in the class at that would make his offense more successful even if his individual production likely wouldn't be able to match up against the better overall prospect. 

We can argue how terrible a plan that is or whether it was right or whatever, but the point is, I don't necessarily think Ruggs was taken to be our #1 WR. I think he was drafted to be our #2 WR behind Waller and his skill set would make Waller and our #2 offensive option Jacobs better as well. I just don't think Gruden is operating on the same value as the rest of the league. I don't think he cares. In fact it likely motivates him to be able to buck "traditional" thinking about value and such and win anyway. Because if he does, he will never have to hear he inherited a team or this or that, it will unquestionably be winning BECAUSE of him and doing things his way. 

Right or wrong, if Waller continues to get better and better and Ruggs can become a Desean Jackson/Brandin Cooks/etc type of big play on less volume type of WR the pick will be a success. Only time will tell. 

It is interesting to debate would a guy like Lamb have been more overall beneficial to the offense that struggled to get respected over the top and led to stacked boxes and defenses sitting almost exclusively on everything short. Would the overall talent and ability to be a more traditional highly targeted WR that doesn't scare or beat teams over the top make the offense better just because of his talent, or is the speed and fear defenses have for his big plays drawing attention away from Waller and Jacobs in the short and intermediate game with less individual production more beneficial overall?

This is basically my take 

[DoleINGout]

 

[SimonGruber]

8 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

But he also loved Joey Galloway Who used to go off for him

Correct but it was a swap of him and Keyshawn Johnson. The hard pill to swallow for a lot of fans in the capital used to acquire Ruggs. If we wanted somebody to open up the field and help out Waller I’d rather overpay a desean Jackson for a year or 2 to come in and do that. Than use a cost controlled high pick on a guy like that. ( Deseasn Jackson is an example obviously)

[SimonGruber]

On 9/16/2021 at 2:06 AM, opeth0500 said:

Classless thread and that user with the Pokémon avatar is a real POS. Made the win feel even better. 

If I’m not mistaken he’s the one that posted The tub of Lard Siragusa squishing Gannon. You read his posts homie was as smug as they come 

[Jeremy408]

8 minutes ago, SimonGruber said:

Correct but it was a swap of him and Keyshawn Johnson. The hard pill to swallow for a lot of fans in the capital used to acquire Ruggs. If we wanted somebody to open up the field and help out Waller I’d rather overpay a desean Jackson for a year or 2 to come in and do that. Than use a cost controlled high pick on a guy like that. ( Deseasn Jackson is an example obviously)

The other component to it that no one remembers is that it was a loaded receiver draft as well and there were a lot of receivers that were similar. We ended up with one of those similar receivers later on in Brian Edwards. So it’s pretty clear that they drafted Henry Ruggs with that in mind they were going to get the more conventional X type later in the draft because of the depth. Mike Mayock all but set it in a pre-draft interview that year.