Jump to content

Random Raider Stuff


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rich7sena said:

Gruden's comments on using technology and analytics made the rounds today, but I thought this was a more telling piece of context.

Pretty sure when Reggie came in, they overhauled things. I remember reading that everything was outdated at that time and he made vast changes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, reddevil said:

Yeah. And it's never too bad an idea to keep players who can do a job going into the draft. As much as we all have our favourite prospects and positions to fill, the draft is so unpredictable, you don't know whether the guy you want will be around when you hoped to pick him. Or a player high on your board slides and you feel he's too good to pass on. Go into the draft with as few needs as possible. The FO probably rates Lynch higher than any realistic RB FA. Doesn't mean we won't draft one. Same goes or Irvin.

If they see Lynch as the bell cow (and my how they shouldn't) they likely don't take a RB in the first 3 rounds and will loose all positional value at that point. 

Lynch at 5.9 mil is ridiculous IMO for a 32 year old RB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, big_palooka said:

If they see Lynch as the bell cow (and my how they shouldn't) they likely don't take a RB in the first 3 rounds and will loose all positional value at that point. 

Lynch at 5.9 mil is ridiculous IMO for a 32 year old RB. 

i'd say it's ridiculous if it was a multiyear deal averaging 5.9 mil

5.9 mil for him to be a good runner for 1 year isn't the worst thing. he showed he's still a tackle-breaker. we have enough holes as is, don't think it's wise to create another one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, big_palooka said:

If they see Lynch as the bell cow (and my how they shouldn't) they likely don't take a RB in the first 3 rounds and will loose all positional value at that point. 

Lynch at 5.9 mil is ridiculous IMO for a 32 year old RB. 

And keeping him around now shouldn't prevent us from taking one in the early rounds if we like the prospect enough. What I was getting at was - let's not make a hole now, before the draft. Let's go into the draft with as few holes as possible so we can pick the best player. Having Lynch shouldn't stop us picking Barkley if he is there at 9/10 or Guice/Michel if their there in the 2nd. What if, in your scenario Lynch was cut and our FO feels that the 3 aforementioned players are the only players who can perform the role of bell cow and they're gone before our picks? And what if they then had to reach for a player in round 2 as a result of having a hole (and perhaps missing out on a player they really like in another position of need), let's say picking up Chubb and then he isn't as good as they'd hoped? Is it not more sensible to keep Lynch, who played pretty well at the back end of last season and if you find in camp that a draft pick, from whatever round outplays him, then you cut him. At least this way you have the security of going into the draft knowing that you have a player who can at least perform to a decent standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, reddevil said:

And keeping him around now shouldn't prevent us from taking one in the early rounds if we like the prospect enough. What I was getting at was - let's not make a hole now, before the draft. Let's go into the draft with as few holes as possible so we can pick the best player. Having Lynch shouldn't stop us picking Barkley if he is there at 9/10 or Guice/Michel if their there in the 2nd. What if, in your scenario Lynch was cut and our FO feels that the 3 aforementioned players are the only players who can perform the role of bell cow and they're gone before our picks? And what if they then had to reach for a player in round 2 as a result of having a hole (and perhaps missing out on a player they really like in another position of need), let's say picking up Chubb and then he isn't as good as they'd hoped? Is it not more sensible to keep Lynch, who played pretty well at the back end of last season and if you find in camp that a draft pick, from whatever round outplays him, then you cut him. At least this way you have the security of going into the draft knowing that you have a player who can at least perform to a decent standard.

Good in theory. But as is the case with Lynch (and I assume the rest of these guys), they are due bonuses before the draft. March 18 is the drop dead date for Lynch for example.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not paying Lynch. Team needs cap space, you can't tie 5.9 mil up in a 32 year old RB. I'd drop him before the draft and look at capable FA back to fill the hole and turn to the draft. Cheap and can fit the rotation in your scenario of "if" they don't get someone they like in the draft. 

Bottom line... well known the Raiders like Alvin Kamara last year. Passed on him because they had Lynch (a veteran RB) and that looks like a big whiff in hindsight. Let's not make the same mistake twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Pretty sure when Reggie came in, they overhauled things. I remember reading that everything was outdated at that time and he made vast changes 

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/02/28/nfl-combine-2018-jon-gruden-raiders-coaches-general-managers

Quote

First, last year the feeling internally was that quarterback Derek Carr and other young players in the building needed harder coaching, and Gruden’s in-your-face style will certainly address that. I believe that in saying he’s going to “throw the game back to 1998”, he’s telling his players that it’ll be a rough road to September for a team that could use that kind of tough love.

Second, Reggie McKenzie is still in the building, and the seventh-year GM has done much to modernize Oakland as a franchise—in particular by building up the team’s analytics operation. The Raiders employ a three-man staff, headed by former ESPN and NFL Network researcher George Li, and all the progress they’ve made in that area isn’t going out the window.

I understand why people would scoff at what Gruden said. But honestly, I don’t think there’s any reason read too much into it, given the coach’s history, his team’s needs and the organization’s work in the area of data.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Good in theory. But as is the case with Lynch (and I assume the rest of these guys), they are due bonuses before the draft. March 18 is the drop dead date for Lynch for example.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not paying Lynch. Team needs cap space, you can't tie 5.9 mil up in a 32 year old RB. I'd drop him before the draft and look at capable FA back to fill the hole and turn to the draft. Cheap and can fit the rotation in your scenario of "if" they don't get someone they like in the draft. 

Bottom line... well known the Raiders like Alvin Kamara last year. Passed on him because they had Lynch (a veteran RB) and that looks like a big whiff in hindsight. Let's not make the same mistake twice.

I agree with this. Guise is a guy I'd love to get personally but he might not be there in the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Good in theory. But as is the case with Lynch (and I assume the rest of these guys), they are due bonuses before the draft. March 18 is the drop dead date for Lynch for example.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not paying Lynch. Team needs cap space, you can't tie 5.9 mil up in a 32 year old RB. I'd drop him before the draft and look at capable FA back to fill the hole and turn to the draft. Cheap and can fit the rotation in your scenario of "if" they don't get someone they like in the draft. 

Bottom line... well known the Raiders like Alvin Kamara last year. Passed on him because they had Lynch (a veteran RB) and that looks like a big whiff in hindsight. Let's not make the same mistake twice.

4

I hyped Kamara more than anyone last year... but lets not get it confused. No way he has the same impact in Downing's offense as on the Saints last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

I hyped Kamara more than anyone last year... but lets not get it confused. No way he has the same impact in Downing's offense as on the Saints last year.

Clearly but having him under contract who be streets ahead of Lynch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

I hyped Kamara more than anyone last year... but lets not get it confused. No way he has the same impact in Downing's offense as on the Saints last year.

Guessing you didn't read my posts then lol. 

Agree, but it's one season, not a career. Would you rather have Kamara in Gruden's system for the next 5-8 years or Lynch for one meaningless season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RaidersAreOne said:

Easily Lynch! Because he is from Oakland! And he broke a lot of tackles! And because he is Lynch! 

Sadly... you sound like Mark Davis, which is most likely why Lynch is still on the roster. You can't convince me Gruden/McKenzie would still want him at this price and after his antics a year ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Guessing you didn't read my posts then lol. 

Agree, but it's one season, not a career. Would you rather have Kamara in Gruden's system for the next 5-8 years or Lynch for one meaningless season?

 

In hindsight, if we can cherry pick anyone we want, of course. That being said, there are a lot of needs for this team and I'd rather not create a need by cutting Lynch. If we want to draft a rookie back, sure. I'm all for it 100%. But don't force yourself to take one earlier than you want to by creating a need. Keep Lynch and then go BPA. If BPA is a back, so be it. But going in with just Washington and Richard is a bad, bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

In hindsight, if we can cherry pick anyone we want, of course. That being said, there are a lot of needs for this team and I'd rather not create a need by cutting Lynch. If we want to draft a rookie back, sure. I'm all for it 100%. But don't force yourself to take one earlier than you want to by creating a need. Keep Lynch and then go BPA. If BPA is a back, so be it. But going in with just Washington and Richard is a bad, bad idea.

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...