Raiders bring back OL stud Alex Bars

[Frankie2Gunz]

3 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

You can use generic terms like “winning FA” but that doesn’t change the truth.  

Here’s the truth and real question: we had 55m or so in cap space.  We spent almost all of it so we’re not carrying much over to next year.  what did we do with 55M that will be left around for next year? 
we added….

1) an injury prone, stopgap at best QB with 18.75M in dead cap if we move on next year or a 28M cap charge to keep him.  Was this a better deal then signing Baker Mayfield for 1y, 4M?  The way I see it Jimmy G is a one year low level asset that immediately turns into a large debt at the end of the season.  He certainly isn’t the future.

2) good slot WR/WR2 in Meyers.  This one is actually a very good contract too, as there’s only a small 3.7M dead cap after year 1 and modest 12.8M cap hits the last 2 years.  

3) a SS in Epps that can’t cover but is solid in run support.  Cap hits of 4.7m and 7.3M.  Half of his 2nd year deal is guaranteed.  There’s no way we go into next year’s FA period and say we’re happy we’re spending 7.3M on Epps instead of signing whoever we could have got in FA at a similar price.  If we signed Epps for 1yr 4.7M that would an average deal, but when you add the second year to the deal you added a debt not an asset.

4+5) LB Spillane- an borderline starting LB for 2.7m.  Only 0.8M dead cap if cut next year from his 4.3M cap Hit.  At least the 2nd year dead cap is low.  He was basically the same cost as Perryman, but not the same level of player.  Tillery’s deal is very similar and he only has a dead cap of 375k if you cut him from His deal’s 4.175m cap hit next year.  

Your are right about how teams who get labeled by writers, fans, etc “winners of free agency” end up being labeled losers by the same people 1-2 years later when looking back at how it worked out.  Teams that spend a lot of money and just don’t drastically overspend will ALWAYS get labeled as “winners” initially and after a few years I’d guesstimate 70%+ end up being failures. 
But…. That’s not what I AM talking about here.  That’s what YOU are talking about.  What I’m saying is: The difference is what did we build for the future with 55M?  Not much!  I only see a bunch of 1yr rentals, a stopgap QB whose got a big cap hit to move on from, and a solid slot WR, and a few 2 yr contracts for replacement level starters.

Isn’t the goal to be building for the future?  I see next to no future growth here.

Jim you pretty much nailed it with this post and that has been my beef with this front office.  They cleared all of this cap space and was hoping that money would be used to bring in young studs with upside at good value.  What have we gotten?  As you point out a lot of bums as 1 year rentals with some bad cap hits if we move on after this year.  It's like our front office is in denial of reality and they're trying to patch the Titanic with bubblegum instead of letting it sink and building it up from scratch with new and younger talent.  

Edited March 30, 2023 by Frankie2Gunz

[Raiderlife24]

1 hour ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

Jim you pretty much nailed it with this post and that has been my beef with this front office.  They cleared all of this cap space and was hoping that money would be used to bring in young studs with upside at good value.  What have we gotten?  As you point out a lot of bums as 1 year rentals with some bad cap hits if we move on after this year.  It's like our front office is in denial of reality and they're trying to patch the Titanic with bubblegum instead of letting it sink and building it up from scratch with new and younger talent.  

Are you talking about the draft or free agency? Most teams don't let their young studs hit free agency. Maybe we did try and get some of the players you wanted, there are a number of factors. There are 31 other teams, relationship with coaches, scheme fits, location of city compared to family of player. I think you guys will feel better after the draft. 

[Frankie2Gunz]

49 minutes ago, Raiderlife24 said:

Are you talking about the draft or free agency? Most teams don't let their young studs hit free agency. Maybe we did try and get some of the players you wanted, there are a number of factors. There are 31 other teams, relationship with coaches, scheme fits, location of city compared to family of player. I think you guys will feel better after the draft. 

I was referring to both FA and the draft.  I think most peoples expectations are unrealistic on how many year 1 "quality" starters we can land via the draft. Based on our draft history over the last 25 years, we will be lucky to come away with one.  If DZ is worth anything as a GM we will come away with a minimum of two.  Expecting a starter in the 4th round and beyond is an unrealistic expectation, it may occasionally occur but the odds are minimal.  I also want to stress that thrusting a rookie into a starting position due to need versus merit are two very different things.  If a rookie is thrust into position as a starter based on need over merit then that rookie will most likely not play well, especially because his surrounding talent will be so poor.  It's similar to one claiming DHB was a #1 WR, technically he the Raiders #1 WR because other WR's on that team were so poor.  He would have been a #5 or #6 Wr on any other team. 

This team has massive holes along the Oline, Dline, LB's, CB's and Safeties which this FA period has done nothing to do to solidify any of these positions with quality starters so far in FA. 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Frankie2Gunz

[jimkelly02]

10 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

We should all be like this FO's unwavering stalwart defenders. 

Anything done objectively poorly? "No, just wait. Shouldn't criticize until I, personally, can no longer defend this drivel without looking like a complete and utter fool. Then it's ok.".

Year 1 of FA for this FO I didn’t really criticize much.  I thought Chandler Jones was bit of an overpay but I gave them the benefit of the doubt.  I thought we overpaid for Nichols but gave the benefit of the doubt that he could become an above replacement level starter.  I did think the Bolden deal was absolutely bad and criticized that, but I was right and anyone looking at the situation knew it.

We all gave the FO year 1 to show us and we generally backed them.  Almost all of those deals failed.  Now we are in year 2 and this FA process is almost over and we have very little money left and all we have to show is a bunch of 1 year deals, less talent than last year, etc.

im sorry but after 2 FA periods I see zero progress/advancement for the future.  I’m not asking to build the team thru FA, I was looking for a few quality starters to be added for the next few years.  And the long term deals we signed for Jimmy G and Epps I just hate the structuring of because they have high cap hits year 2 and enough dead cap it’s not even worth cutting and getting someone better…. Which is what happened with the Nichols deal.  They didn’t even learn from that one.

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, jimkelly02 said:

Year 1 of FA for this FO I didn’t really criticize much.  I thought Chandler Jones was bit of an overpay but I gave them the benefit of the doubt.  I thought we overpaid for Nichols but gave the benefit of the doubt that he could become an above replacement level starter.  I did think the Bolden deal was absolutely bad and criticized that, but I was right and anyone looking at the situation knew it.

We all gave the FO year 1 to show us and we generally backed them.  Almost all of those deals failed.  Now we are in year 2 and this FA process is almost over and we have very little money left and all we have to show is a bunch of 1 year deals, less talent than last year, etc.

im sorry but after 2 FA periods I see zero progress/advancement for the future.  I’m not asking to build the team thru FA, I was looking for a few quality starters to be added for the next few years.  And the long term deals we signed for Jimmy G and Epps I just hate the structuring of because they have high cap hits year 2 and enough dead cap it’s not even worth cutting and getting someone better…. Which is what happened with the Nichols deal.  They didn’t even learn from that one.

Spot on. 

Nobody I recall asked for, or expected, every hole to be plugged via FA. Heck, a lot of us have actively argued against trading up in the draft early because we explicitly stated we have too many holes to fill to get cute. 

That Davis flat out said Zeigler is getting bad advice (and acting upon it) gives me even more cause for concern and less optimism. Last year's FA signings were pretty bad, mediocre at best. This year? Bad. Wasted money and roster spaces on numerous guys with absolutely no shot at making the roster. 

What's Zeigler "learning"? Seems he and Josh both have an inability to learn from past mistakes with any timelines. I mean, yeah, let's build through the draft. I get that. Get as many of your picks in the door as possible. Move up a bit later since a lot of our picks are glorified UDFA grabs. But is the idea to draft some 40 or so guys over the next couple of years to have a functional roster? Are we playing with a 5 year window and banking on nailing each and every pick every single time? 

17 WRs and RBs, and we have a massive lack of talent at CB, S, OG, QB2, DT, LB, Edge. You can't tell me that all 17 WRs and RBs we have are better at being WRs and RBs than some of the FAs that have been available for a similar price at their respective positions. Even if we focus only on those positions in the draft, we're left incredibly thin depth-wise. 

They're pissing money away and we haven't gotten much of anything out of it. And while I was very easy on Zeigler last year, his performance has been way too full of "no****sherlock" mistakes to give me optimism. 

[raidr4life]

2 hours ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

I was referring to both FA and the draft.  I think most peoples expectations are unrealistic on how many year 1 "quality" starters we can land via the draft. Based on our draft history over the last 25 years, we will be lucky to come away with one.  If DZ is worth anything as a GM we will come away with a minimum of two.  Expecting a starter in the 4th round and beyond is an unrealistic expectation, it may occasionally occur but the odds are minimal.  I also want to stress that thrusting a rookie into a starting position due to need versus merit are two very different things.  If a rookie is thrust into position as a starter based on need over merit then that rookie will most likely not play well, especially because his surrounding talent will be so poor.  It's similar to one claiming DHB was a #1 WR, technically he the Raiders #1 WR because other WR's on that team were so poor.  He would have been a #5 or #6 Wr on any other team. 

This team has massive holes along the Oline, Dline, LB's, CB's and Safeties which this FA period has done nothing to do to solidify any of these positions with quality starters so far in FA. 

But realistically you can find one in the first 3 rounds then right? Our first pick just last year was a 3rd rounder who is now a starter. Our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks could be starters especially how deep the draft is in certain areas we can find three starters atleast. Now say we have multiple 2nd and 3rd round picks from trading down could be a good haul. As far as DHB everybody knew he was a reach, had bad hands AL loved his speed and we passed on Crabtree because of it.

[Frankie2Gunz]

36 minutes ago, raidr4life said:

But realistically you can find one in the first 3 rounds then right? Our first pick just last year was a 3rd rounder who is now a starter. Our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks could be starters especially how deep the draft is in certain areas we can find three starters atleast. Now say we have multiple 2nd and 3rd round picks from trading down could be a good haul. As far as DHB everybody knew he was a reach, had bad hands AL loved his speed and we passed on Crabtree because of it.

Theoretically sure but the odds are minimal.  Over the last 20 years how many times have we drafted quality starters in the first three rounds who contributed year one?  2014 is the only year I can think of. 

[raidr4life]

16 minutes ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

Theoretically sure but the odds are minimal.  Over the last 20 years how many times have we drafted quality starters in the first three rounds who contributed year one?  2014 is the only year I can think of. 

I get it but hopefully this regime won't be reaching for off the wall picks.

[Frankie2Gunz]

22 minutes ago, raidr4life said:

I get it but hopefully this regime won't be reaching for off the wall picks.

This draft will tell me a lot but so far with last years FA class,FA moves and this years FA haul, JM and DZ have gotten a D grade at best.  

Edited March 31, 2023 by Frankie2Gunz

[Darbsk]

5 hours ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

Expecting a starter in the 4th round and beyond is an unrealistic expectation, it may occasionally occur but the odds are minimal.  I also want to stress that thrusting a rookie into a starting position due to need versus merit are two very different things.  If a rookie is thrust into position as a starter based on need over merit then that rookie will most likely not play well

Very good point. We might end up with 4 or 5 ‘starters’ out of the rookie class but possibly because we’ve not addressed certain areas adequately rather than they are standout players that earned that role. I’m hoping we do some more on the OLine and DLine but it looks like we’ll have to rely on a few rookies………..

[Darbsk]

3 hours ago, raidr4life said:

But realistically you can find one in the first 3 rounds then right? Our first pick just last year was a 3rd rounder who is now a starter. Our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks could be starters especially how deep the draft is in certain areas we can find three starters atleast. Now say we have multiple 2nd and 3rd round picks from trading down could be a good haul. As far as DHB everybody knew he was a reach, had bad hands AL loved his speed and we passed on Crabtree because of it.

I think in this draft there is a possibility to come away with 3 or 4 genuine starter level rookies in the first, second and possibly even third round if we play our cards right. That’s a big ‘IF’ though. I’ll remain hopeful.

It’ll be fascinating to read back through the Me v Ziegler thread this year!!!

[NYRaider]

4 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

I think in this draft there is a possibility to come away with 3 or 4 genuine starter level rookies in the first, second and possibly even third round if we play our cards right. That’s a big ‘IF’ though. I’ll remain hopeful.

It’ll be fascinating to read back through the Me v Ziegler thread this year!!!

Not a huge fan of what they've done so far but the draft will be our first chance to really assess Ziegler as a GM. We have a ton of flexibility this year, we can move, up, down, acquire more picks, etc. I hope he maximizes the value of our draft assets. 

[ronjon1990]

3 hours ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

Theoretically sure but the odds are minimal.  Over the last 20 years how many times have we drafted quality starters in the first three rounds who contributed year one?  2014 is the only year I can think of. 

I mean, to be fair, we spent like half a decade literally giving Pittsburgh 3rd round picks for their headaches lol

[ronjon1990]

30 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

I think in this draft there is a possibility to come away with 3 or 4 genuine starter level rookies in the first, second and possibly even third round if we play our cards right. That’s a big ‘IF’ though. I’ll remain hopeful.

It’ll be fascinating to read back through the Me v Ziegler thread this year!!!

If, and it's a big IF, we can trade back just once, I think we could easily nab a few day one starters by pick 109. 

I mean, I've been consistently grabbing Henry To'o'To'o around pick 100 on mocks lately. I would be very surprised if he wasn't pretty plug-and-play. It's a great year to build up the roster in preparation of nabbing a star or two next season to move forward with. 

My latest 5 rounder got us:

Christian Gonzalez, CB

Drew Sanders, LB

Gervon Dexter, DT

Matt Bergeron, OT

Henry To'o'To'o, LB

Andrew Vorhees, OG

Mike Morris, EDGE

Will Mallory, TE

..........................................

           Moehrig                  Epps?

      Deablo        Sanders       To'o'To'o 

Gonzalez Hobbs                        Facyson?

Morris          Dexter  Tillery?        Crosby 

Miller Vorhees Parham Munford? Berg

Adams                                           Hooper?

                         Jimmy?                   Meyers

                               Johnson

                          Jacobs?

As potential starters going into the end of this year/start of 2024.

Most of the ?'s are either likely brought back or solid enough depth pieces. 2023 draft nets 5 almost immediate starters, and 3 guys with plenty of potential going forward. That's without any trade downs. I'd be pretty happy with the set up, comfortable enough with the guys listed to say most of our starting lineup is mostly squared away. 

Obviously plenty of other combos, just an illustration of how deep the class potentially is. 

[Darbsk]

11 hours ago, NYRaider said:

Not a huge fan of what they've done so far but the draft will be our first chance to really assess Ziegler as a GM. We have a ton of flexibility this year, we can move, up, down, acquire more picks, etc. I hope he maximizes the value of our draft assets. 

Yep, he had a mulligan last year but this year he has high picks, lots of draft capital and freedom to do as he pleases so it’s a lot more pressure on him to produce. It’ll tell us a lot moving forward. They really do need to nail the draft or they’ll be under increasing pressure.