AP names Gardner Minshew starting QB

[ronjon1990]

4 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Your problem, you continue to believe they could have made a small affordable trade up for a QB. Worse, with no evidence what so ever you insist they didn't even try. And the cherry on top, you keep repeating it ad nauseam.

Let's try this another way.... Tell us exactly how the Raiders were going to outbid Minnesota to move up to #10 with Minnesota having a higher pick, an additional first round pick and higher picks in every subsequent round. Answer that questions.....

See though, the problem there is it's equally conjecture heavy. 

Sure, Minnesota had the ammo, but there's no more a guarantee they would've used it than there is they wouldn't have. Minnesota had more holes than just a QB. There's no more hard evidence that Minnesota was going to move heaven and earth in a bidding war for a QB than there is that Telesco simply opted not to and was totally happy with AOC and Minshew. 

For what it's worth, I think they would have as well. But there's only so much you can use as a counterpoint before you're using hypotheticals the same way Frankie is. 

For all we know, Telesco could've offered 13, Adams, and 2025 1st to move up and Minnesota could've looked at that and said "We're rebuilding, we'll happily hedge our bets on next year for a QB rather than trade multiple 1sts and a decent player to match in order to move up a couple of spots. No prospect is worth that much to us."

That's why I tend to stick to accepting there are unanswerable questions about our 2024 QB efforts and maintaining a little bit of skepticism about the regime for now.

If it came out that AP threw a fit and balked hard at the idea of trading for anything other than Daniels and corralled Mark and/or Champ Kelly into his corner despite Telesco trying to get a deal worked out for QB XYZ, I'll be the first to riot. If it came out they both sat and looked and took the "Eh, there's 6 QBs and we pick 13, someone will be there" route and didn't try, I'd riot.

But that won't happen, so for now I'm cool seeing where it goes without admonishing or adoring them. When/if cracks form the way they did with JMD and Zeigler, who knows. But until then, best to leave conjecture at the door. 

 

 

[Geezy]

19 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

See though, the problem there is it's equally conjecture heavy. 

Sure, Minnesota had the ammo, but there's no more a guarantee they would've used it than there is they wouldn't have. Minnesota had more holes than just a QB. There's no more hard evidence that Minnesota was going to move heaven and earth in a bidding war for a QB than there is that Telesco simply opted not to and was totally happy with AOC and Minshew. 

For what it's worth, I think they would have as well. But there's only so much you can use as a counterpoint before you're using hypotheticals the same way Frankie is. 

For all we know, Telesco could've offered 13, Adams, and 2025 1st to move up and Minnesota could've looked at that and said "We're rebuilding, we'll happily hedge our bets on next year for a QB rather than trade multiple 1sts and a decent player to match in order to move up a couple of spots. No prospect is worth that much to us."

That's why I tend to stick to accepting there are unanswerable questions about our 2024 QB efforts and maintaining a little bit of skepticism about the regime for now.

If it came out that AP threw a fit and balked hard at the idea of trading for anything other than Daniels and corralled Mark and/or Champ Kelly into his corner despite Telesco trying to get a deal worked out for QB XYZ, I'll be the first to riot. If it came out they both sat and looked and took the "Eh, there's 6 QBs and we pick 13, someone will be there" route and didn't try, I'd riot.

But that won't happen, so for now I'm cool seeing where it goes without admonishing or adoring them. When/if cracks form the way they did with JMD and Zeigler, who knows. But until then, best to leave conjecture at the door. 

 

 

Good post 

[NickButera]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

See though, the problem there is it's equally conjecture heavy. 

Sure, Minnesota had the ammo, but there's no more a guarantee they would've used it than there is they wouldn't have. Minnesota had more holes than just a QB. There's no more hard evidence that Minnesota was going to move heaven and earth in a bidding war for a QB than there is that Telesco simply opted not to and was totally happy with AOC and Minshew. 

For what it's worth, I think they would have as well. But there's only so much you can use as a counterpoint before you're using hypotheticals the same way Frankie is. 

For all we know, Telesco could've offered 13, Adams, and 2025 1st to move up and Minnesota could've looked at that and said "We're rebuilding, we'll happily hedge our bets on next year for a QB rather than trade multiple 1sts and a decent player to match in order to move up a couple of spots. No prospect is worth that much to us."

That's why I tend to stick to accepting there are unanswerable questions about our 2024 QB efforts and maintaining a little bit of skepticism about the regime for now.

If it came out that AP threw a fit and balked hard at the idea of trading for anything other than Daniels and corralled Mark and/or Champ Kelly into his corner despite Telesco trying to get a deal worked out for QB XYZ, I'll be the first to riot. If it came out they both sat and looked and took the "Eh, there's 6 QBs and we pick 13, someone will be there" route and didn't try, I'd riot.

But that won't happen, so for now I'm cool seeing where it goes without admonishing or adoring them. When/if cracks form the way they did with JMD and Zeigler, who knows. But until then, best to leave conjecture at the door. 

 

 

Yes but.... you can leave conjecture at the door while still using common sense. The facts are, Vikings loved the player a lot more than us..... while also having a metric ton more draft capital than us, and also having a higher origin pick to offer compared to our 13th pick.

There comes a point where stating "well all we had to do was outbid 'those' guys" starts looking like a highly improbable task. That's not necessarily conjecture, it's more of using Occam's Razor.  It's most likely closest to the truth compared to other theories. 

And this is coming from a poster who preffered us to trade the farm to trade up and get a high prospect (me). But I have to admit the difficulties and probable impossibilities that would have presented this particular draft. 

[ronjon1990]

28 minutes ago, NickButera said:

Yes but.... you can leave conjecture at the door while still using common sense. The facts are, Vikings loved the player a lot more than us..... while also having a metric ton more draft capital than us, and also having a higher origin pick to offer compared to our 13th pick.

There comes a point where stating "well all we had to do was outbid 'those' guys" starts looking like a highly improbable task. That's not necessarily conjecture, it's more of using Occam's Razor.  It's most likely closest to the truth compared to other theories. 

And this is coming from a poster who preffered us to trade the farm to trade up and get a high prospect (me). But I have to admit the difficulties and probable impossibilities that would have presented this particular draft. 

If common sense was common, right? 

My main point is if all you have is an idea of what another party may or may not do, that's fine. But some people are going well beyond simply stating is as a probability, regardless of how high, and have, since the Draft, echoed it as concrete fact to diminish other takes or opinions. 

Like I said, I too tend to agree Minnesota would've gone through a bid war and outbid us. But that's different than saying "Hey idiot, Minnesota was ahead of us so explain what you would've done!" only to then revert back to "They would've outbid us" when said answer is provided. 

Frankie's beef is that we didn't try. Given Telesco's history of not moving up in the Draft and AP's love affair with Jayden Daniels, is it not "common sense" to say they likely didn't even try? It's no more probable or disprovable than saying they couldn't have struck a deal if they wanted to. 

Palooka's stance has been to point out that "nobody would have traded back", demand an explanation of how we would've jumped whomever, then say it's unreasonable or illogical because either A. "They wouldn't trade back" or B. "So and so would've just outbid us" therefore it's stupid and you're just hating like you hated on McZeigler. 

One take lacks concrete evidence either way, the other is a self-fulfilling prophecy in rejecting any reasonable answer off-hand before said answer is even given. 

For what it's worth, I think there's a bit of both. I don't think AP and/or Telesco (whom moreso, I do not know) made a particularly strong or genuine effort to move up based on their history and the concrete news that we do have (ie: it's indisputable that AP wanted Daniels, it's secondhand fluff if a beat writer claims "all efforts were made"). I also don't think there was a whole lot they could've done. Hence my stance being cool with the result, so long as they tried, but not cool with it if they didn't- and which of those two is honestly more "common sense" given the facts we know for certain (AP ❤️ Jayden; Telesco historically staying put in the draft no matter what; the Vikings loving McCarthy and having more ammo; etc)

"We couldn't have outbid XYZ" can be as easily negated with "Tom Telesco historically never tries to move up in the first place, what makes you so sure he even made a single call with a realistic offer?"- which I'd find problematic when you know you're stuck behind a few QB needy teams. You can try and fail to move up, but if you indignantly refuse to try because your schtik is to stand pat, no wonder you were jobless and your last team impoverished. 

"We did try" can be as easily negated with "For who? Jayden Daniels? And then AP got miffed and all bets for a QB were off because his boy was out of reach?"- which I'd find problematic for a HC to be that blindly enamored with any single player if that were indeed the case. It's also possible AP wanted any or none of the QBs at all. We don't know what his logic or motivations were in that respect beyond he really really liked Daniels. 

The problem I have with both of their points of view is both are coming across as if they were in the room and absolutely know what's up. Frankie is being irrationally critical of the lack of movement, Palooka is doing his annual fanboying over anyone we bring in to run the zoo and leaving little to no room for criticism. 

Edited Wednesday at 05:27 PM by ronjon1990

[Darbsk]

19 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

Plus, I like the QBs in this draft a lot better.

A lot of chatter online was that this year would be a major let down after the last draft but really, I think a number of QBs were clearly overdrafted this last draft due to desperation. Maybe this year could be sneaky good and have better results for the rookie QBs as they may be headed to better teams overall.

[Darbsk]

19 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

You have to keep the same coaching staff and system and have the quarterback grow within the system over years.

my number one thing is the quarterback should not start his rookie year.

Brady,  Rogers, Mahomes and Love all did not start right away.( that’s just off the top of my head)

That interview with Tom Brady someone posted he was saying the same thing, QBs being forced to start early and when he first came into the league he had time to learn schemes and read a defence rathe than just a playbook. Very interesting!

[Darbsk]

10 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Your problem, you continue to believe they could have made a small affordable trade up for a QB. Worse, with no evidence what so ever you insist they didn't even try. And the cherry on top, you keep repeating it ad nauseam.

Let's try this another way.... Tell us exactly how the Raiders were going to outbid Minnesota to move up to #10 with Minnesota having a higher pick, an additional first round pick and higher picks in every subsequent round. Answer that questions.....

This. 

I really would have loved to have walked away from the draft with JJ McCarthy. I’d have tried to trade up to around #10 and acquire him but I’m also reasonable enough to know that if Minnesota really wanted him, they were in better position and could outbid us unless we did something outlandish. I didn’t want Nix or Penix higher than the very end of the first or second and the top 3 guys would have literally cost us multiple years worth of 1st and 2nd round picks.

I really wanted us to come away with a QB but sometimes the situation is untenable and the one thing @Frankie2Gunz said was he didn’t want to mortgage the future with multiple first round picks to trade up, that was I fear the only real way to get in the mix for those top 4 QBs. Of course, Penix too would probably have cost an arm and a leg as we’d have to outbid Atlanta who took him very high so obviously loved him.

I really don’t know how we’d have landed a prospect without doing something outlandish and I don’t think many wanted that.

Edited Wednesday at 08:46 PM by Darbsk

[Darbsk]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

what makes you so sure he even made a single call with a realistic offer?

Didn’t Tom Telesco when asked say something akin to “we didn’t try too hard to trade up” implying that they did try but they didn’t make a concerted effort. 

Maybe they didn’t like the prospects enough once they knew Daniels was out of reach, maybe they knew the price would be too steep for say, McCarthy, maybe they were just lazy and literally didn’t try hard. Who knows, but I agree with your general point.

[ronjon1990]

1 minute ago, Darbsk said:

Didn’t Tom Telesco when asked say something akin to “we didn’t try too hard to trade up” implying that they did try but they didn’t make a concerted effort. 

Maybe they didn’t like the prospects enough once they knew Daniels was out of reach, maybe they knew the price would be too steep for say, McCarthy, maybe they were just lazy and literally didn’t try hard. Who knows, but I agree with your general point.

Yeah, pretty much. 

And, hey, as I've said, there are plenty of reasonable answers for the how and why that we'll never get. 

If it all works out, fantastic. If it doesn't, there shouldn't be some built in excuse and revisionist history either. Saw too much of that with Gruden and Mayock and McDaniels and Zeigler. 

[MrOaktown_56]

13 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

What you're asking for is unrealistic. Our corners are playing fantastic. Koonce is a very good #2 edge. We just need a few more key hits and a QB. This team is much closer than you're giving them credit for.

Against Justin Herbert and Lamar Jackson. We will see if it holds but you couldn't watch Jack Jones last year and tell me he isn't playing like a #1 CB

[Geezy]

20 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Against Justin Herbert and Lamar Jackson. We will see if it holds but you couldn't watch Jack Jones last year and tell me he isn't playing like a #1 CB

i for one, love our CBs. Really liked Jones and Hobbs coming in. Wanted a vet like Stephon Gilmore to man the other side of the field. Then realized they must really like JB, and hes been one of the most improved guys on the roster so far. 

Guys want stability but dont want to see things through. Look at Koonce, didnt do much in years 1 and 2, got a shot then exploded 2nd half of year 3. Sometimes it takes time. I get guys frustration with Wilson, but im hoping it eventually clicks for him like it has for many others before him. 

[Nightmare]

2 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Against Justin Herbert and Lamar Jackson. We will see if it holds but you couldn't watch Jack Jones last year and tell me he isn't playing like a #1 CB

Jack Jones’ ability shouldn’t be the issue, as he’s undeniably very talented. The worry with him is keeping his head on straight and avoiding stupid distractions off the field. So far it seems like he’s been fine in that regard as a Raider, and if he can keep that up then he’ll be a good CB for us for years.

[big_palooka]

6 hours ago, ronjon1990 said:

Sure, Minnesota had the ammo, but there's no more a guarantee they would've used it than there is they wouldn't have. Minnesota had more holes than just a QB. There's no more hard evidence that Minnesota was going to move heaven and earth in a bidding war for a QB than there is that Telesco simply opted not to and was totally happy with AOC and Minshew. 

Minnesota's only hole was QB. The had/have a top tier defense. A good Oline and bevy of pass catchers including Jefferson who is the top guy in the game. Where were their holes exactly that outweighed QB?

There is a video post draft in which the Rams brass try to trade up with the Jets for Bowers. The Jets tell them no, we don't want to come back that far. The Rams then look at the board to see where they can come up. Someone mentions the Vikings, to which Snead says (very matter of fact) they want their guy (JJ). Sean get on the phone to confirm with O'connell that they are all in on JJ. So there is more evidence than you think. Not to mention the Vikings spent more time than any team with McCarthy in the offseason. All the tells were there to the point to them coveting and not passing on McCarthy. 

[ronjon1990]

4 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

Minnesota's only hole was QB. The had/have a top tier defense. A good Oline and bevy of pass catchers including Jefferson who is the top guy in the game. Where were their holes exactly that outweighed QB?

There is a video post draft in which the Rams brass try to trade up with the Jets for Bowers. The Jets tell them no, we don't want to come back that far. The Rams then look at the board to see where they can come up. Someone mentions the Vikings, to which Snead says (very matter of fact) they want their guy (JJ). Sean get on the phone to confirm with O'connell that they are all in on JJ. So there is more evidence than you think. Not to mention the Vikings spent more time than any team with McCarthy in the offseason. All the tells were there to the point to them coveting and not passing on McCarthy. 

Ok, Mr. Hyperbole. I'm going to hold you to that. Minnesota's only hole was QB. Noted. No further discussion required. 

Everyone take note, Minnesota's only hole for their entire squad was QB, so exoect them to run away with the division at the very least. 

This is why it's as hard to take you seriously sometimes as it is NYRaider. You'll make broad matter of fact claims that are as ridiculous as they sound. 

Also, who gives a flip about the Rams? They picked, what, 19? That's a far cry from 13. False equivalent, much? 

Edited Wednesday at 10:03 PM by ronjon1990

[Jeremy408]

7 hours ago, NickButera said:

Yes but.... you can leave conjecture at the door while still using common sense. The facts are, Vikings loved the player a lot more than us..... while also having a metric ton more draft capital than us, and also having a higher origin pick to offer compared to our 13th pick.

There comes a point where stating "well all we had to do was outbid 'those' guys" starts looking like a highly improbable task. That's not necessarily conjecture, it's more of using Occam's Razor.  It's most likely closest to the truth compared to other theories. 

And this is coming from a poster who preffered us to trade the farm to trade up and get a high prospect (me). But I have to admit the difficulties and probable impossibilities that would have presented this particular draft. 

Let's out bid the team that has two first round picks in the same draft for player we have no idea is going to work out but the other team loved throughout the entire draft process. How many picks do you think that would've costed us?