| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KamTrus20
Joined: 17 Nov 2009
Posts: 4774
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| macklemore wrote: | | KamTrus20 wrote: | What do you guys do if Kansas City goes Star Lotulelei and Jacksonville takes Damontre Moore?
Luke Joeckel? Dee Milliner, Jarvis Jones? |
100% chance we trade down.
We have limited cap-space, no 2nd round pick and way too many holes to not trade down. Arizona could be a possible partner to trade up for Joeckel in this scenario, or a team trading up for a QB.
Why would KC draft a NT when they drafted a NT in the first round last year? they will draft a QB. |
Many people are projecting Star Lotulelei as a 5tech.
80% chance you cannot find a trade partner, so I highly doubt there is a 100% chance you trade down. Probably guaranteed to try regardless of how the first 2 picks go, but he odds are against it.
Who is the player Oakland would target?
_________________
Jamison on the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Baggabonez
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 3855
Location: RaiderNation
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| KamTrus20 wrote: | | macklemore wrote: | | KamTrus20 wrote: | What do you guys do if Kansas City goes Star Lotulelei and Jacksonville takes Damontre Moore?
Luke Joeckel? Dee Milliner, Jarvis Jones? |
100% chance we trade down.
We have limited cap-space, no 2nd round pick and way too many holes to not trade down. Arizona could be a possible partner to trade up for Joeckel in this scenario, or a team trading up for a QB.
Why would KC draft a NT when they drafted a NT in the first round last year? they will draft a QB. |
Many people are projecting Star Lotulelei as a 5tech.
80% chance you cannot find a trade partner, so I highly doubt there is a 100% chance you trade down. Probably guaranteed to try regardless of how the first 2 picks go, but he odds are against it.
Who is the player Oakland would target? |
With Lewan and Matthews returning to school and so many teams in desperate need of a LT. A prospect who is drawing early comparisons to Joe Thomas will spark interest. Whether or not the Raiders FO has the vision enough to trade back is in question. I'll put the odds at 20% chance a trade actually happens although 90% want to see it.
_________________
2013 Mancrush: DT Richardson, OT Joeckel, FS Vaccaro, FS Rambo, WR Dobson, RB Michael, TE McDonald, OT Foketi, WR Swope |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macklemore
Joined: 27 Apr 2012
Posts: 1425
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| KamTrus20 wrote: | | macklemore wrote: | | KamTrus20 wrote: | What do you guys do if Kansas City goes Star Lotulelei and Jacksonville takes Damontre Moore?
Luke Joeckel? Dee Milliner, Jarvis Jones? |
100% chance we trade down.
We have limited cap-space, no 2nd round pick and way too many holes to not trade down. Arizona could be a possible partner to trade up for Joeckel in this scenario, or a team trading up for a QB.
Why would KC draft a NT when they drafted a NT in the first round last year? they will draft a QB. |
Many people are projecting Star Lotulelei as a 5tech.
80% chance you cannot find a trade partner, so I highly doubt there is a 100% chance you trade down. Probably guaranteed to try regardless of how the first 2 picks go, but he odds are against it.
Who is the player Oakland would target? |
Luke Joeckel
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RaidersAreOne
Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 4777
Location: Canada, Where All We Do Is Play Hockey And Sleep In Igloos
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
We take the best player in the draft, Luke.
_________________
First jersey purchased: Jamarcus Russell.
Second jersey purchased: Rolando McClain.
Next purchases: Every Chiefs, Chargers and Broncos player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlackPrestige92
Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'm starting to lean towards Luke as well...I just think the best player must be picked when the others don't stand out just yet like this guy does.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agarcia34
Joined: 24 Feb 2011
Posts: 1816
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
KC picking a QB first overall would be the worst thing they can do when all these QBs are mid first round talent at best. I'm saying this now there going to draft Joeckle. They wanna move Albert inside to LG. Anf they will get there QB in the secound round.
_________________
I-O_O-I Hanley Ramirez " I SEE YOU! " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macklemore
Joined: 27 Apr 2012
Posts: 1425
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| agarcia34 wrote: | | KC picking a QB first overall would be the worst thing they can do when all these QBs are mid first round talent at best. I'm saying this now there going to draft Joeckle. They wanna move Albert inside to LG. Anf they will get there QB in the secound round. |
Why would KC draft Joeckel? When they can resign Branden Albert, have a promising 3rd round LT (Donald Stephenson) from last years draft and Eric Winston at RT. KC's biggest hole is QB, If there was an elite defensive prospect I could see them going in that direction but there isn't really one, QB is likely their only option.
Edit - And they won't be moving Albert to LG, They drafted Jeff Allen in the second round last year too.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TiberiusRising
Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 5633
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| agarcia34 wrote: | | KC picking a QB first overall would be the worst thing they can do when all these QBs are mid first round talent at best. I'm saying this now there going to draft Joeckle. They wanna move Albert inside to LG. Anf they will get there QB in the secound round. |
I agree that the chances are very high that they take Joeckel. We will have to see how the next few weeks pan out though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DOCLEW 28
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 10598
Location: East Oakland
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ZoomWaffle wrote: | | DOCLEW 28 wrote: | Well never mind then. 
I would still say that the cost of those cintracts makes it less of a priority to get them on the field. You can still sit them and they would still haqve 2-3 years to show what they can do and earn that next big payday. |
I see both sides of the argument. The risk of taking a QB in the 1st is lower because you wont be paying $40M for a guy, however, you also less time to develop him and see enough of him to make sure he is your guy going forward. IMO, the money outweighs the shorter contract. I'd rather not be paying unproven players a king's ransom. |
But even with that lesser amount of time you still hold the power in terms of his ability to move contractually. And if you haven't seen what he can do after 4 years of practicing with a kid then there is a problem with your coaching staff's skill as evaluators. Even in a case like Aaron Rogers the pack sat him but they knew exactly what they had. He was just behind a Green Bay legend. But I also see your point if the guy can't beat out a journeyman the team just brought in for competition.
Bottom line, I feel more comfortable drafting a QB in the 1st round than ever before.
_________________
Raider X hooked me with the sig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nodisrespect
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2926
Location: in the present
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DOCLEW 28 wrote: | | ZoomWaffle wrote: | | DOCLEW 28 wrote: | Well never mind then.
I would still say that the cost of those cintracts makes it less of a priority to get them on the field. You can still sit them and they would still haqve 2-3 years to show what they can do and earn that next big payday. |
I see both sides of the argument. The risk of taking a QB in the 1st is lower because you wont be paying $40M for a guy, however, you also less time to develop him and see enough of him to make sure he is your guy going forward. IMO, the money outweighs the shorter contract. I'd rather not be paying unproven players a king's ransom. |
But even with that lesser amount of time you still hold the power in terms of his ability to move contractually. And if you haven't seen what he can do after 4 years of practicing with a kid then there is a problem with your coaching staff's skill as evaluators. Even in a case like Aaron Rogers the pack sat him but they knew exactly what they had. He was just behind a Green Bay legend. But I also see your point if the guy can't beat out a journeyman the team just brought in for competition.
Bottom line, I feel more comfortable drafting a QB in the 1st round than ever before. |
Agreed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big_palooka
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 19228
Location: ATL
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| macklemore wrote: | | agarcia34 wrote: | | KC picking a QB first overall would be the worst thing they can do when all these QBs are mid first round talent at best. I'm saying this now there going to draft Joeckle. They wanna move Albert inside to LG. Anf they will get there QB in the secound round. |
Why would KC draft Joeckel? When they can resign Branden Albert, have a promising 3rd round LT (Donald Stephenson) from last years draft and Eric Winston at RT. KC's biggest hole is QB, If there was an elite defensive prospect I could see them going in that direction but there isn't really one, QB is likely their only option.
Edit - And they won't be moving Albert to LG, They drafted Jeff Allen in the second round last year too. |
Their GM is from the Packers. Has already said they would draft the best player available. There isn't a QB right now pushing for that BPA spot.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big_palooka
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 19228
Location: ATL
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| KamTrus20 wrote: | | macklemore wrote: | | KamTrus20 wrote: | What do you guys do if Kansas City goes Star Lotulelei and Jacksonville takes Damontre Moore?
Luke Joeckel? Dee Milliner, Jarvis Jones? |
100% chance we trade down.
We have limited cap-space, no 2nd round pick and way too many holes to not trade down. Arizona could be a possible partner to trade up for Joeckel in this scenario, or a team trading up for a QB.
Why would KC draft a NT when they drafted a NT in the first round last year? they will draft a QB. |
Many people are projecting Star Lotulelei as a 5tech.
80% chance you cannot find a trade partner, so I highly doubt there is a 100% chance you trade down. Probably guaranteed to try regardless of how the first 2 picks go, but he odds are against it.
Who is the player Oakland would target? |
Well said. Some are getting carried away with the 'trade down' option as if it's an automatic. They are going to be disappointed. There simply isn't THAT guy worth trading up for as it stands today. Most are forgetting part of trading down requires a team who will actually want to trade up. Not that easy.
As for the pick. My guess, the Raiders take the best player available on the defensive side of the ball. Primarily looking at pass rusher.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZoomWaffle
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 4600
Location: AZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Professor Oak wrote: | | I don't think anyone here is on record for saying he should be our choice. |
Negative ghostrider. I dont feel like going back through old threads but there have been several posters in this forum clammoring for Teo. In fact, there was an entire thread dedicated to it. I never wanted him to begin with, so I hope this is enough to ensure Reggie doesnt trade back and take him.
_________________
Silver&Black88 on the sig
| La_Vader wrote: | | I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZoomWaffle
Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 4600
Location: AZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DOCLEW 28 wrote: | | ZoomWaffle wrote: | | DOCLEW 28 wrote: | Well never mind then.
I would still say that the cost of those cintracts makes it less of a priority to get them on the field. You can still sit them and they would still haqve 2-3 years to show what they can do and earn that next big payday. |
I see both sides of the argument. The risk of taking a QB in the 1st is lower because you wont be paying $40M for a guy, however, you also less time to develop him and see enough of him to make sure he is your guy going forward. IMO, the money outweighs the shorter contract. I'd rather not be paying unproven players a king's ransom. |
But even with that lesser amount of time you still hold the power in terms of his ability to move contractually. And if you haven't seen what he can do after 4 years of practicing with a kid then there is a problem with your coaching staff's skill as evaluators. Even in a case like Aaron Rogers the pack sat him but they knew exactly what they had. He was just behind a Green Bay legend. But I also see your point if the guy can't beat out a journeyman the team just brought in for competition.
Bottom line, I feel more comfortable drafting a QB in the 1st round than ever before. |
I was thinking more along the lines of evaluating him as a backup behind a vet as opposed to him starting from year one. They wont always be as special as Rodgers, and with limited playing time it could be tough to really see what they have. Either way, I agree with you. I am much more comfortable with taking a QB (or really anyone) in the 1st than in previous years.
_________________
Silver&Black88 on the sig
| La_Vader wrote: | | I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chali21
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 1716
Location: Cali
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ZoomWaffle wrote: | | DOCLEW 28 wrote: | | ZoomWaffle wrote: | | DOCLEW 28 wrote: | Well never mind then.
I would still say that the cost of those cintracts makes it less of a priority to get them on the field. You can still sit them and they would still haqve 2-3 years to show what they can do and earn that next big payday. |
I see both sides of the argument. The risk of taking a QB in the 1st is lower because you wont be paying $40M for a guy, however, you also less time to develop him and see enough of him to make sure he is your guy going forward. IMO, the money outweighs the shorter contract. I'd rather not be paying unproven players a king's ransom. |
But even with that lesser amount of time you still hold the power in terms of his ability to move contractually. And if you haven't seen what he can do after 4 years of practicing with a kid then there is a problem with your coaching staff's skill as evaluators. Even in a case like Aaron Rogers the pack sat him but they knew exactly what they had. He was just behind a Green Bay legend. But I also see your point if the guy can't beat out a journeyman the team just brought in for competition.
Bottom line, I feel more comfortable drafting a QB in the 1st round than ever before. |
I was thinking more along the lines of evaluating him as a backup behind a vet as opposed to him starting from year one. They wont always be as special as Rodgers, and with limited playing time it could be tough to really see what they have. Either way, I agree with you. I am much more comfortable with taking a QB (or really anyone) in the 1st than in previous years. |
For real. Imagine taking one of the guy in this draft and paying them 30-40 million guaranteed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
