mdonnelly21 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) Given what we got last season for the #1 pick. - 1 selection in the 2023 draft to the Panthers in exchange for receiver DJ Moore - 2023 first- and second-round picks - a 2024 first-round choice - a 2025 second-round pick. Given that Caleb Williams, Drake Maye, Marvin Harrison Jr are all more highly touted than Bryce Young in last years draft... What would the Raiders have to give up to move up 12 spots in this years draft. Edited February 6 by mdonnelly21 Forgot s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdonnelly21 Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 (edited) Having looked at their roster. I'd take their number 13 pick. Maxx Crosby DeVante Adams And their second round pick. Edited February 6 by mdonnelly21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) Raiders don't want #1 we want #3 spot. All 3 QB's are fine and we'd even do #4 as a QB might not go 1/2/3 and if they did the Harrison. Raiders wouldn't give Crosby for #1 as he's the culture being established. Look to Washington to trade for Williams. Edited February 6 by G 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) It's been reported that DEN is interested in moving up to the top. Whether it's just smoke or not, we discussed this in the DEN forum, and from past history, and establishing Williams/Drake as elite prospects, it's clear you need at LEAST the value of 3 1sts....and the further back the current-year first is, the more the price rises. I don't know if it's even enough, but I'd set the DEN price with 1.12 at LEAST at 2024 1.12, 2025 1st...and Patrick Surtain Jr. with 2 years left in his rookie contract, and a very reasonable 5th-year option. So whatever LV would want, if they want either 1.1 or 1.2, IMO, would likely have to beat that, since they're at 1.13. Unlike DEN, though, I doubt they'd trade Crosby. DEN already was willing to trade PS2....for 2 1sts, but no one bit (realizing not all 1sts are equal). So I doubt there's a fit. For the 3 or 4 pick, though, as I don't think Daniels has the same view as the other 2 in real-life markets....I can see the Lance package. Edited February 6 by Broncofan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdonnelly21 Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 39 minutes ago, Broncofan said: It's been reported that DEN is interested in moving up to the top. Whether it's just smoke or not, we discussed this in the DEN forum, and from past history, and establishing Williams/Drake as elite prospects, it's clear you need at LEAST the value of 3 1sts....and the further back the current-year first is, the more the price rises. I don't know if it's even enough, but I'd set the DEN price with 1.12 at LEAST at 2024 1.12, 2025 1st...and Patrick Surtain Jr. with 2 years left in his rookie contract, and a very reasonable 5th-year option. So whatever LV would want, if they want either 1.1 or 1.2, IMO, would likely have to beat that, since they're at 1.13. Unlike DEN, though, I doubt they'd trade Crosby. DEN already was willing to trade PS2....for 2 1sts, but no one bit (realizing not all 1sts are equal). So I doubt there's a fit. For the 3 or 4 pick, though, as I don't think Daniels has the same view as the other 2 in real-life markets....I can see the Lance package. Knowing that Eberful is defensive minded, I could see him pulling the trigger on a deal involving Patrick Surtain. I just did a post regarding how I want the Bears to do use all 7 picks on offense whether it's realistic or not. So as much I personally would love Surtain on the Bears. We already have Jaylen Johnson and Tyrique Stevenson both rated at top 10 CBs in the league. And you don't have enough offensive players. Unless you did this years 1st and the next two draft firsts. But I doubt we would do that because we are in a WIN NOW attitude and we would just be prolonging our winning for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp0k2 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Q: What would it take Oakland Raiders to trade up to the #1 spot A: A time machine. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddHatter Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Raiders aren't parting with Crosby and they're not getting to the 1.1 pick without him - so it's a non-discussion IMO 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldfishwars Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 7 hours ago, cp0k2 said: Q: What would it take Oakland Raiders to trade up to the #1 spot A: A time machine. QB is literally the biggest need for the teams picking 1,2 and 3 this year. I could only see a scenario where the Patriots think the roster is so shoddy, they take a deal. But even then, the obvious counter argument is they may never be in a better position to get their guy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 19 minutes ago, goldfishwars said: QB is literally the biggest need for the teams picking 1,2 and 3 this year. I could only see a scenario where the Patriots think the roster is so shoddy, they take a deal. But even then, the obvious counter argument is they may never be in a better position to get their guy. Agreed. I don't see any of the teams trading down, honestly. The one with the greatest chance is probably Chicago, if they decide to keep rolling with Fields. And then, I'd imagine they move down to either 2 or 3. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lavar703 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Honestly, its not even remotely advantageous to do so. The amount the Raiders would have to give up would be crippling and if Williams doesn't pan out you're in no mans land with a bad team and no picks to fix it. I think Pierce deserves a real shot at success and moving up to one wouldn't provide that. Maxx Crosby would almost certainly have to be involved in the trade plus 2 or 3 ones. Its just stupid. They should just take McCarthy if he's there. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Techbert Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 11 hours ago, mdonnelly21 said: ... What would the Raiders have to give up to move up 12 spots in this years draft. Luke Getsy would most likely have to be part of any package. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicMT Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Techbert said: Luke Getsy would most likely have to be part of any package. But that makes any package loses a lot of its value if Getsy is in it... Edited February 6 by MagicMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddHatter Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Think of it this way - if you're trading for an elite proven player at a high value position (QB, DE, LT) you're typically the one giving up multiple high round picks. So if you flip it and say what would the Bears have to give up to trade for Max Crosby, a guy who isn't looking to leave, a guy who isn't unhappy or at the end of a contract per se, then you realize the answer is the Bears are likely giving up multiple first round picks to land him. Maybe not both this year, but they're not getting first round picks AND Crosby for 1.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 3 hours ago, goldfishwars said: QB is literally the biggest need for the teams picking 1,2 and 3 this year. I could only see a scenario where the Patriots think the roster is so shoddy, they take a deal. But even then, the obvious counter argument is they may never be in a better position to get their guy. Yeah. I'm sure it'll get thrown around as smoke and talked up as a possibility right up to the draft. But really just to give the talking heads something to speculate about and engage other fanbases. We don't have one of those situations where trade-downs make sense, when the top teams all desperately need a long-term answer at QB. When a team already has potentially "their guy"...that's the only time we really see those sort of trades happen. I think the "Oakland" Raiders are probably going to be stuck chatting with one of the top-2 teams to make a deal for their spare QB that they'll be moving on from. Fields or Howell are probably two of the better, realistic options that might be out there on the market, without a problematic, huge pricetag. Would also let the Raiders continue to build some talent elsewhere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddHatter Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 minute ago, Tugboat said: I think the "Oakland" Raiders are probably going to be stuck chatting with one of the top-2 teams to make a deal for their spare QB that they'll be moving on from. Fields or Howell are probably two of the better, realistic options that might be out there on the market, without a problematic, huge pricetag. Would also let the Raiders continue to build some talent elsewhere. Yeah I'm curious to know if the Raiders need a full rebuild and start dealing off their older talents or those towards the end of their contract (Adams?) to stock pile younger talent and ride it out for a couple years with a "proven backup" like a Brissett or a Wentz type while they restock and then take a QB when they're in a better spot to do so (Top 5 pick in a good class) like 2026 might offer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.