Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Now this could really happen
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5774
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trading down 5 or 6 times is an impossibility. Anyone thinking it can happen has no idea of the logistics involved. McKenzie would have to communicate with and agree with 5 or 6 different general managers on these trades, all within 5 picks of each other.

Trades for first round picks don't come easy. 6 of them happening in one round is just unrealistic to the point where you just aren't realizing how much time and effort it takes to pull even one off. It doesn't matter how "good" McKenzie is in such a scenario. It's naive because time itself and the amount of parties involved will never be aligned to have this happen.

It's a nice dream.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raidr4life


Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 4627
Location: Fresno, California
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

holyghost wrote:
Trading down 5 or 6 times is an impossibility. Anyone thinking it can happen has no idea of the logistics involved. McKenzie would have to communicate with and agree with 5 or 6 different general managers on these trades, all within 5 picks of each other.

Trades for first round picks don't come easy. 6 of them happening in one round is just unrealistic to the point where you just aren't realizing how much time and effort it takes to pull even one off. It doesn't matter how "good" McKenzie is in such a scenario. It's naive because time itself and the amount of parties involved will never be aligned to have this happen.

It's a nice dream.
Twice could be possible the 2 teams being MIA and then SF. Unlikely but I think it could happen.
_________________
I felt a great disturbance in the forum, like millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, then were silenced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tacos


Joined: 12 Jan 2011
Posts: 1182
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Should have just put "Mock Draft" in the title. Those can be absolutely terrible and no one says anything.




Just kidding, we tear those apart too.

I'd love to acquire an extra first or two and a second or third. This scenario couldn't happen though, teams would take notice and not trade with us after awhile I'd think. That and its a ton of work to do in such a short time.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
holyghost


Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 5774
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

raidr4life wrote:
holyghost wrote:
Trading down 5 or 6 times is an impossibility. Anyone thinking it can happen has no idea of the logistics involved. McKenzie would have to communicate with and agree with 5 or 6 different general managers on these trades, all within 5 picks of each other.

Trades for first round picks don't come easy. 6 of them happening in one round is just unrealistic to the point where you just aren't realizing how much time and effort it takes to pull even one off. It doesn't matter how "good" McKenzie is in such a scenario. It's naive because time itself and the amount of parties involved will never be aligned to have this happen.

It's a nice dream.
Twice could be possible the 2 teams being MIA and then SF. Unlikely but I think it could happen.


Twice could happen. And twice does happen. On rare occasion..


And trading back in general can even happen three, four times for a team in a draft. But in a 3 day draft, and usually with 3 of those 4 times being in late rounds where there isn't much value surrendered and not much at stake. The deals in the 5th, 6th round are easy in comparison.
So, given alot of time and not gaining or losing much value, maybe 4 or 5 trade-backs can happen if the GM is a real wheeler and dealer.

But 5 or 6 in the first round, 20 minutes apart? It's just not ever EVER going to happen. Too much work, too much value, not enough time to even get it done or enough people out there who are willing to give up that much. It carries the same odds as winning the lottery. Everything in the world would have to go just right for 3 hours, and every other party involved would have to be in some sort of drug induced stupor that makes them say yes to everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 6474
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With all due respect, it's idiotic. If this premise held true why not trade back all your picks every year until you own the entire 1st round? Then you couldn't possibly miss on a future Pro-Bowler right? A good organization should accomplish:

1) Correctly identify transcendent talent
2) Correctly identify players who fit their system/culture
3) Properly assess a draft value based on ability vs position vs system vs need

Taking a player you like regardless of draft position is a failure imo. That is the draft strategy of the last regime. Al wanted DHB and he drafted him. Ditto with Jano & Mike Mitchell. Did Al hit on a few? Absolutely. However, more often than not it is this draft philosophy that has contributed greatly to the current state of the organization.

Drafting AND correctly identifying a future pro-bowler regardless of position (ie: drafting Warmack @ #3) doesn't make you a genius It makes you a reckless gambler who will eventually find himself with a team full of junk and too few elite talents (see current roster). Nearly missing on players that are drafted at the proper value will still leave you with a competitive roster.

I know that all of McKenzie's FAs won't pan out. However, all I'd like to see a similar approach to the draft that leaves the Raiders coming away with a "smart" draft (I know, hard to imagine smart and the Raiders in the same sentence for quite some time for some of us). Before someone quips about what good is a "smart" draft or "smart" FAs if they don't pan out: 1) Eventually it will as this philosophy doesn't mortgage the future as the Raiders have done in the past and 2) We've tried the old way for over a decade to no avail.
_________________
Nodisrespect wrote:
(on building inside out) teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
attack_in_s/b


Joined: 11 Aug 2010
Posts: 543
PostPosted: Tue Apr 23, 2013 3:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
With all due respect, it's idiotic. If this premise held true why not trade back all your picks every year until you own the entire 1st round? Then you couldn't possibly miss on a future Pro-Bowler right? A good organization should accomplish:

1) Correctly identify transcendent talent
2) Correctly identify players who fit their system/culture
3) Properly assess a draft value based on ability vs position vs system vs need

Taking a player you like regardless of draft position is a failure imo. That is the draft strategy of the last regime. Al wanted DHB and he drafted him. Ditto with Jano & Mike Mitchell. Did Al hit on a few? Absolutely. However, more often than not it is this draft philosophy that has contributed greatly to the current state of the organization.

Drafting AND correctly identifying a future pro-bowler regardless of position (ie: drafting Warmack @ #3) doesn't make you a genius It makes you a reckless gambler who will eventually find himself with a team full of junk and too few elite talents (see current roster). Nearly missing on players that are drafted at the proper value will still leave you with a competitive roster.

I know that all of McKenzie's FAs won't pan out. However, all I'd like to see a similar approach to the draft that leaves the Raiders coming away with a "smart" draft (I know, hard to imagine smart and the Raiders in the same sentence for quite some time for some of us). Before someone quips about what good is a "smart" draft or "smart" FAs if they don't pan out: 1) Eventually it will as this philosophy doesn't mortgage the future as the Raiders have done in the past and 2) We've tried the old way for over a decade to no avail.


I completely disagree. Lots of teams make questionable picks on a guy they like and it works out... WE just haven't been one of them because we made decisions based seemingly entirely on their combine... Call me crazy, but i would rather draft a projected pro-bowler at a position that wasn't necessarilly the biggest need than a bum at a position in need. We are in a good situation though.... every position is a need so we really can just draft BPA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group