Raiders bring back OL stud Alex Bars

[jimkelly02]

21 hours ago, Dessie said:

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. 

What’s absurd is the extremes you went with, not to mention you used known busts and projected them to be who I said should be have chosen.

I simply said I’d rather not take big chances in rounds 1+2.  Jihad Ward was taking a chance on a player that hasn’t produced but we felt had higher upside than established players. Ferrell was purely overdrafting, we took a DE who couldn’t win to the outside and turn the edge on OTs.

I never said any strategy is infallible.  All strategies have the ability and will fail time to time.  All i said was I’d rather take Less chances right now because busts will kill this regime.  

When I say we need to be conservative, that means avoiding guys like Nolan Smith who haven’t really produced but have measurables and upside.  

[Dessie]

13 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

What’s absurd is the extremes you went with, not to mention you used known busts and projected them to be who I said should be have chosen.

I simply said I’d rather not take big chances in rounds 1+2.  Jihad Ward was taking a chance on a player that hasn’t produced but we felt had higher upside than established players. Ferrell was purely overdrafting, we took a DE who couldn’t win to the outside and turn the edge on OTs.

I never said any strategy is infallible.  All strategies have the ability and will fail time to time.  All i said was I’d rather take Less chances right now because busts will kill this regime.  

When I say we need to be conservative, that means avoiding guys like Nolan Smith who haven’t really produced but have measurables and upside.  

Of course I used busts, I was highlighting the issues of going conservative and swinging for the fences. The draft is a lottery we all know that. 

Personally I’d agree I think we have to make sure the 1st round pick hits but it’s not a given. Gallery comes to mind..

 

[jimkelly02]

2 minutes ago, Dessie said:

Personally I’d agree I think we have to make sure the 1st round pick hits but it’s not a given. Gallery comes to mind..

That’s all I was saying… I don’t want to take chances and think we are better served going with guys who have the highest chances of producing up to their draft slot, even if it means passing on guys who have extreme upside but have major risks.  
I believe in order for this regime to last they can’t afford a single bust in the first round and need to get quality above average starters in time out of all 2nd round picks.  

[big_palooka]

On 4/1/2023 at 5:34 PM, 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 ? 

Not sure what you are asking really. There are lot of highly projected players with big time traits. All with flaws, but big upside you can take at 7. 

My argument is simply I don't like taking the safe, solid tools but nothing spectacular player just to have a guy as was the argument. Your Ferrel vs. Burns example is perfect. 

Getting one franchise level talent has a bigger impact that 2-3 solid role players.

[big_palooka]

14 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

When I say we need to be conservative, that means avoiding guys like Nolan Smith who haven’t really produced but have measurables and upside.  

This would match my point. Pass on a guy with big time traits, leadership, etc. for "just a guy". The upside of Nolan Smith, you have a franchise level player that changes the trajectory of your defense. Take the conservative pick, you have a guy who probably doesn't get a second contract.

Nowhere do I advocate the Jihand Wards, PJ Halls of the world which is simply trying to outsmart everyone taking a player miles earlier than projected. 

Simply saying when picking, if you have 2 players projected in the same range I like the high ceiling player vs. the solid lower floor player personally. 

[Rolni]

53 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

This would match my point. Pass on a guy with big time traits, leadership, etc. for "just a guy". The upside of Nolan Smith, you have a franchise level player that changes the trajectory of your defense. Take the conservative pick, you have a guy who probably doesn't get a second contract.

Nowhere do I advocate the Jihand Wards, PJ Halls of the world which is simply trying to outsmart everyone taking a player miles earlier than projected. 

Simply saying when picking, if you have 2 players projected in the same range I like the high ceiling player vs. the solid lower floor player personally. 

It is a lot easier to take the high ceiling player, when you already have a good roster. The rich, can get richer a lot easier

[NYRaider]

1 hour ago, Rolni said:

It is a lot easier to take the high ceiling player, when you already have a good roster. The rich, can get richer a lot easier

I think you should be swinging on high upside guys even more if you’re not very good. Adding JAGs to a team full of JAGs doesn’t move the needle. 
 

And having real star talent elevates your average guys and masks their weaknesses. Which is why I ever seen so many Rams players get huge contracts elsewhere and immediately decline. Having a DL that’s wrecking almost every play and a CB that takes away half the field makes life way easier for everyone else.

Edited April 3, 2023 by NYRaider

[Rolni]

It could go either way IMO.

When your roster is weak you should try to get a superstar to elevate it, however you have smaller room for error and if your high upside eraly draft pick busts you might lose your job...

 

It will be interesting to see what DZ does. He filled out this roster with nice depth, now it might worst the try to hit big in the draft. With a strong draft class they could take a bigger step forward, many expects, since the depth is NFL level now finally. (Minus LB position  )

[NYRaider]

5 minutes ago, Rolni said:

It could go either way IMO.

When your roster is weak you should try to get a superstar to elevate it, however you have smaller room for error and if your high upside eraly draft pick busts you might lose your job...

 

It will be interesting to see what DZ does. He filled out this roster with nice depth, now it might worst the try to hit big in the draft. With a strong draft class they could take a bigger step forward, many expects, since the depth is NFL level now finally. (Minus LB position  )

That’s the name of the game though. Tbh GM / HC’s long term job security is almost 100% determined by their ability to identify and develop an elite QB. If you’re lucky you get two swings at it but if you miss on both you’re almost guaranteed to get booted 

[Dessie]

8 hours ago, big_palooka said:

This would match my point. Pass on a guy with big time traits, leadership, etc. for "just a guy". The upside of Nolan Smith, you have a franchise level player that changes the trajectory of your defense. Take the conservative pick, you have a guy who probably doesn't get a second contract.

Nowhere do I advocate the Jihand Wards, PJ Halls of the world which is simply trying to outsmart everyone taking a player miles earlier than projected. 

Simply saying when picking, if you have 2 players projected in the same range I like the high ceiling player vs. the solid lower floor player personally. 

I think I get what you are saying but if Burns hadn’t of worked out, wouldn’t it have been deemed a reach as no one had him going that high? It does seem that you can swing for the fences but if it doesn’t work out then it was always a reach.

[big_palooka]

2 hours ago, Dessie said:

I think I get what you are saying but if Burns hadn’t of worked out, wouldn’t it have been deemed a reach as no one had him going that high? It does seem that you can swing for the fences but if it doesn’t work out then it was always a reach.

Yes and no. 

In my view, there are probably 3-4 blue chip players in any draft "worth" a top 10 pick. And probably only another 12-15 guys that are first round talents for varying reason. But there are 32 teams and they have to draft. So there is going to be some variation in who is taken where. 

In that particular draft you had 2 blue chip guys, Bosa and Williams. After that.... I'll always value drafting traits and production which Burns had and why I liked him or Allen over the alternatives. 

In this class you have 2 blue chip players (Anderson/Carter). Past that, take your pick of CB or Edge with traits and hope to hit a home run (Gonzalez).  

[MrOaktown_56]

1 hour ago, big_palooka said:

Yes and no. 

In my view, there are probably 3-4 blue chip players in any draft "worth" a top 10 pick. And probably only another 12-15 guys that are first round talents for varying reason. But there are 32 teams and they have to draft. So there is going to be some variation in who is taken where. 

In that particular draft you had 2 blue chip guys, Bosa and Williams. After that.... I'll always value drafting traits and production which Burns had and why I liked him or Allen over the alternatives. 

In this class you have 2 blue chip players (Anderson/Carter). Past that, take your pick of CB or Edge with traits and hope to hit a home run (Gonzalez).  

It's weird though. Both the edge and CB class are very deep. You can get a 1st round talent in the 2nd at both positions. Personally I prefer CB 1st and then edge, only because I really really like the edge guys you can get in the 2nd in this class, like Ojulari, etc. And I also think Gonzalez/Witherspoon are both surefire #1 CB's, but that's just me.

[Roninho]

23 hours ago, big_palooka said:

This would match my point. Pass on a guy with big time traits, leadership, etc. for "just a guy". The upside of Nolan Smith, you have a franchise level player that changes the trajectory of your defense. Take the conservative pick, you have a guy who probably doesn't get a second contract.

Nowhere do I advocate the Jihand Wards, PJ Halls of the world which is simply trying to outsmart everyone taking a player miles earlier than projected. 

Simply saying when picking, if you have 2 players projected in the same range I like the high ceiling player vs. the solid lower floor player personally. 

First of all, i fully agree that reaching on guys like Jihad Ward and PJ Hall is a recipe for failure.

Having said that, we also tend to let go of these guys because they don't produce for the position we drafted them. And then spend big $ in FA on guys who don't produce.

I feel if we would just keep guys on our team much longer we wouldnt have a roster depleted of talent. Jihad Ward played over 60 nfl games for other franchises, including starting over 10. Not 2nd round pick material, but a good role player. Same for PJ Hall, who started 10 games for the Texans before he got arrested and had personal/relationship problems.

If you look at our 2014 to 2016 drafts we let top quality players in Mack and Cooper go very early. Traded Gabe Jackson later in his career. But we also did not re-sign these guys who went on to be decent role players to starters for other teams (games & games started for other franchises):

Shelby Harris    90-64
Jon Feliciano    49-46
TJ Carrie    65-17
Jihad Ward    64-12
Justin Ellis    51-12
Mario Edwards    69-8
Calhoun        25-1
Karl Joseph    16-8

Add in:
Mack        70-69
Cooper        73-71
Jackson        32-32

I am absolutely certain we would have had a better team if we simply paid these guys over the guys we drafted and signed in FA.

 

 

[Rolni]

1 hour ago, Roninho said:

First of all, i fully agree that reaching on guys like Jihad Ward and PJ Hall is a recipe for failure.

Having said that, we also tend to let go of these guys because they don't produce for the position we drafted them. And then spend big $ in FA on guys who don't produce.

I feel if we would just keep guys on our team much longer we wouldnt have a roster depleted of talent. Jihad Ward played over 60 nfl games for other franchises, including starting over 10. Not 2nd round pick material, but a good role player. Same for PJ Hall, who started 10 games for the Texans before he got arrested and had personal/relationship problems.

If you look at our 2014 to 2016 drafts we let top quality players in Mack and Cooper go very early. Traded Gabe Jackson later in his career. But we also did not re-sign these guys who went on to be decent role players to starters for other teams (games & games started for other franchises):

Shelby Harris    90-64
Jon Feliciano    49-46
TJ Carrie    65-17
Jihad Ward    64-12
Justin Ellis    51-12
Mario Edwards    69-8
Calhoun        25-1
Karl Joseph    16-8

Add in:
Mack        70-69
Cooper        73-71
Jackson        32-32

I am absolutely certain we would have had a better team if we simply paid these guys over the guys we drafted and signed in FA.

 

 

You need stability in an organization to keep, retain guys and build a good roster for years.

The constant coaching and scheme changes what we have makes it hard to retain depth guys, since most coaches want their own guys, their own style of players when he joins a new team.

RM first tried to draft for Dennis Allen and "his" scheme, then had to draft for JDR and "his" scheme, then to Gruden and his scheme.

Even Gruden had to switch the D scheme, so Mayock had to somewhat rethink the D draft philosophy...

 

When you have the coaches and the schemes in place for multiple years it becomes easier to draft, develope and build a quality roster IMO.

 

We will see, but hopefully guys like Farrell, M.Butler, Zeus will start to show up during this upcoming season and they could become integral part of our team moving forward. If they can step up with Parham and we can put a strong draft together this year, our roster would look a lot better...

[BobbyPhil1781]

Why the hell did we bring this bum back? Surprised no one posted the tweet of him literally just letting a guy run right by him w/o even putting a hand on him.

Dude is worthless