Raiders bring back OL stud Alex Bars

[NYRaider]

3 hours ago, Darbsk said:

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.

Yeah it's tough to judge him based on last year but I think he found some guys with potential. Parham should be a starter long term, Zamir/NFJ/Munford all look like potential starters, and the jury is still out on Brown/Butler. This class will set the foundation going forward, ideally we'll hit on 7/38 but if we're able to hit on picks between 70-174 then we have a chance to really accelerate the rebuild.

[Darbsk]

7 hours ago, NYRaider said:

Yeah it's tough to judge him based on last year but I think he found some guys with potential. Parham should be a starter long term, Zamir/NFJ/Munford all look like potential starters, and the jury is still out on Brown/Butler. This class will set the foundation going forward, ideally we'll hit on 7/38 but if we're able to hit on picks between 70-174 then we have a chance to really accelerate the rebuild.

I’m high on White, really like his potential and was impressed by Munford considering his draft slot. Not seen anything to give me hope out of NFJ yet but he’s young too so there’s still hope and DTs can take some seasoning. 

What McZeigler absolutely must do, and I can’t stress this enough, is hit on our top couple picks. For far, far too long our first and second round picks have been a debacle and it just puts a ball and chain on team development, you miss out on those Pro Bowl level players at reasonable cap hits, it just handicaps the team so much and you’re left trying to replicate that level of play with expensive Free Agents who rarely work out.

If we start hitting on our very high draft picks I think the rest may fall into place, we can go into FA looking for only depth and the odd solid starter to  fill out the roster rather than trying to do too much and get your major impact there which is never a reliable strategy and never cheap. We’re always paying over the odds.

[jimkelly02]

10 hours ago, Darbsk said:

I’m high on White, really like his potential and was impressed by Munford considering his draft slot. Not seen anything to give me hope out of NFJ yet but he’s young too so there’s still hope and DTs can take some seasoning. 

What McZeigler absolutely must do, and I can’t stress this enough, is hit on our top couple picks. For far, far too long our first and second round picks have been a debacle and it just puts a ball and chain on team development, you miss out on those Pro Bowl level players at reasonable cap hits, it just handicaps the team so much and you’re left trying to replicate that level of play with expensive Free Agents who rarely work out.

If we start hitting on our very high draft picks I think the rest may fall into place, we can go into FA looking for only depth and the odd solid starter to  fill out the roster rather than trying to do too much and get your major impact there which is never a reliable strategy and never cheap. We’re always paying over the odds.

I think we need to be conservative in rounds 1+2 this year and take low risk picks.  I’d even highly consider trading down to add more picks.  I’d rather have 2-3 very solid starters then 1 pick who hits and 1 that busts.

[big_palooka]

4 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

I think we need to be conservative in rounds 1+2 this year and take low risk picks.  I’d even highly consider trading down to add more picks.  I’d rather have 2-3 very solid starters then 1 pick who hits and 1 that busts.

I'd rather hit on 1 franchise level player than 2 solid role players personally. 

If you go into the draft just trying to get on base you're toast. You have to take some swings and try to hit the home run. 

Completely agree on trading down and having more at bats.

[Dessie]

4 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

I think we need to be conservative in rounds 1+2 this year and take low risk picks.  I’d even highly consider trading down to add more picks.  I’d rather have 2-3 very solid starters then 1 pick who hits and 1 that busts.

The problem with this strategy is that end up with the likes of Ferrell .

33 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

I'd rather hit on 1 franchise level player than 2 solid role players personally. 

If you go into the draft just trying to get on base you're toast. You have to take some swings and try to hit the home run. 

Completely agree on trading down and having more at bats.

The problem with this strategy is you end up with the likes of Leatherwood. 
 

 

[big_palooka]

1 minute ago, Dessie said:

The problem with this strategy is that end up with the likes of Ferrell .

The problem with this strategy is you end up with the likes of Leatherwood. 
 

 

No. Leatherwood happens when you reach on a player that is projected a round lower. 

Don't reach. Draft traits. 

Don't draft guys like Tyree Wilson who are solid, but nothing stands out 7 overall. 

[Dessie]

6 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

No. Leatherwood happens when you reach on a player that is projected a round lower. 

Don't reach. Draft traits. 

Don't draft guys like Tyree Wilson who are solid, but nothing stands out 7 overall. 

Ok give an example of taking a swing and trying to hit a home run in this draft without it being a reach ? 

[jimkelly02]

14 minutes ago, Dessie said:

The problem with this strategy is that end up with the likes of Ferrell .

The problem with this strategy is you end up with the likes of Leatherwood. 
 

 

That’s absurd you took 2 mega reaches and imply that’s what would happen.

what I’m saying is take avoid taking Jihad Ward in the second when A’shawn Robinson and Jarran Reed are available.

 

[Dessie]

10 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

That’s absurd you took 2 mega reaches and imply that’s what would happen.

what I’m saying is take avoid taking Jihad Ward in the second when A’shawn Robinson and Jarran Reed are available.

 

I don’t thinks it’s absurd that we took the ‘conservative’ pick in Ferrell rather than ( for example)  ‘swinging for the home run’ in Burns that year. That’s what you seem to be advocating. All I am is highlighting is that both strategies are not infallible. 

[NYRaider]

1 hour ago, Dessie said:

Ok give an example of taking a swing and trying to hit a home run in this draft without it being a reach ? 

Anthony Richardson, Jalen Carter, Lukas Van Ness

[raidr4life]

3 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

That’s absurd you took 2 mega reaches and imply that’s what would happen.

what I’m saying is take avoid taking Jihad Ward in the second when A’shawn Robinson and Jarran Reed are available.

 

Exactly we all were like Jihad who? It's the wtf picks that been killing us even just taking the media's pick when we on the clock we would have a better roster.

[NYRaider]

9 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

I think we need to be conservative in rounds 1+2 this year and take low risk picks.  I’d even highly consider trading down to add more picks.  I’d rather have 2-3 very solid starters then 1 pick who hits and 1 that busts.

I disagree here, you need to find real difference makers/core pieces early and then role players that fit around them in your scheme later on.

[reddevil]

10 hours ago, big_palooka said:

No. Leatherwood happens when you reach on a player that is projected a round lower. 

Don't reach. Draft traits. 

Don't draft guys like Tyree Wilson who are solid, but nothing stands out 7 overall. 

It’s strange to me that so many on here are down on Wilson. I don’t pretend to have watched many Texas Tech games, but the breakdowns I’ve watched (not just highlights but breakdowns from guys like Marcus Johnson) don’t describe a low ceiling player - quite the opposite.

From what I’ve seen, he is a player with insane strength and length, who, while doesn’t have the box score stats, regularly blows up plays.

Is it just the slow first step that has people turned off? I get that could be a problem and that I guess that is difficult to improve, but he certainly looks violent and impactful, with upside to be really disruptive. And has different traits than Ferrell…..

[101Raider]

4 hours ago, reddevil said:

It’s strange to me that so many on here are down on Wilson. I don’t pretend to have watched many Texas Tech games, but the breakdowns I’ve watched (not just highlights but breakdowns from guys like Marcus Johnson) don’t describe a low ceiling player - quite the opposite.

From what I’ve seen, he is a player with insane strength and length, who, while doesn’t have the box score stats, regularly blows up plays.

Is it just the slow first step that has people turned off? I get that could be a problem and that I guess that is difficult to improve, but he certainly looks violent and impactful, with upside to be really disruptive. And has different traits than Ferrell…..

For me it is 100% all about the slow step.  He’s consistently the last one moving on either line.  So he’s either a DE who is going to have to power through NFL caliber OTs on every play or move inside and be an overly tall and underweight IDL for us.
 

 I think his ultimate best fit is a 3-4 end, which isn’t necessarily what we’re looking for.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by 101Raider

[ronjon1990]

12 hours ago, NYRaider said:

I disagree here, you need to find real difference makers/core pieces early and then role players that fit around them in your scheme later on.

Depends on how being conservative with this draft is defined. 

Trading down willy nilly or taking someone early just because it's a need would be too conservative or too aggressive. 

Trading back a few spots to grab a difference maker in the mid/late teens (ie: Porter Jr at, say, 16 via hypothetical trade with Washington) would be round 1 conservative if Gonzalez was sitting there at 7. But adding 47 and potentially getting us a 3rd key player after pick 38 but before 70 would be an aggressive move within the context of round 2. 

Hypothetically speaking, we could swing a trade back and land 3 future core players (say, for example, Porter Jr at 16, Drew Sanders at 38, Tuli Tuipolotu at 47). Conservative in passing on Gonzalez, but aggressive in adding potential key players. And, while I love Gonzo, I'd take Porter/Sanders/Tuipolotu as a trio over Gonzalez, Sanders, and whoever we'd nab at 70 (since 70 would be pick 4 instead of 3, too). 

It basically comes down to whether one thinks Gonzalez alone is worth more than Porter and Tuipolotu combined (or, whoever the picks are, just using placeholder names for illustrative purposes). The one thing I would not do as far as trades is fall into the trap of '24 picks while bypassing picks this year. That would be kicking the can down the road too much. 

That said, either route could land us several key players or absolutely backfire and leave us scratching our heads.