- Congrats: 1 These Raider Fans gave Willmark a high five:
- raider_kin
-
Willmark » Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:06 pm
1. Joe Montanaraider_kin wrote Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:15 am:Meh. Give me Sammy Baugh any day.
16 to 88 » Fri Feb 02, 2024 9:15 pm
No doubt Kliff as well as the other OC's that came in multiple scenario's regarding the quarterbacking was thrown at them. Such as if they couldn't or wouldn't move up because of the asking price what would they do if QB "X" was under center.signal » Sat Feb 03, 2024 7:26 am
I was not taking issue with the notion but merely the argument you put forth. To state that the Raiders can't trade up for a QB because they need to address needs along the lines is simply not a good argument against trading up since, as I stated, that can be accomplished in the free agency. It is a poor argument.JP808 wrote Fri Feb 02, 2024 4:32 pm:I see the point that yes there is cap space for FAs. However, we fall into the same trap as the Chargers. Great starting lineup and zero depth. Starter or starters go down and there goes the season.
If moving up is fair value, betting the farm, then yes move up. But if you have to bet the farm and mortgage the future, no prospect is worth that ransom. In all honesty, I would only do that for Daniels. If Daniels is not there, go with a FA at QB. Caleb doesn’t seem to have that drive that great QBs posses.
The reality is every decision has consequences. Let’s hope AP and Tom make the best decision with the best outcome.
JP808 » Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:55 am
Signal I respect your position that yes needs can be addressed in the off season. I think we are in agreement that moving up in the top 3 is not realistic at all.signal wrote Sat Feb 03, 2024 7:26 am:I was not taking issue with the notion but merely the argument you put forth. To state that the Raiders can't trade up for a QB because they need to address needs along the lines is simply not a good argument against trading up since, as I stated, that can be accomplished in the free agency. It is a poor argument.
To be clear, I am not one who is pounding the table to trade up. I simply think it may be too difficult to do so. Trades only happen when you have two willing partners willing to partake in that trade. I highly suspect that those three teams at the top would like to remain just where they are and to attempt to get them to give up that pick would probably mean trading far more draft capital than usual or what the draft table suggests. In short, your post above as a response to mine, lists a much better argument.
It is not out of the realm of possibilities that the three teams at the top of the draft may even announce publicly that they are not looking to move down and only an incredible deal, one they simply cannot refuse, will get it done. In short, you will have to offer up more than simply two extra first round picks to get it done. Possibly a lot more and frankly, that would be a reckless move.
AdamJoshua28 » Sat Feb 03, 2024 4:27 pm
I'd say we need an OC before we think about the draftSTHfrontrow » Sat Feb 03, 2024 6:26 pm
Wait at 13 and draft a QB. There will a QB that falls to us.signal » Sun Feb 04, 2024 8:09 am
It is still early and I may change my mind on this, but as it stands, I would not pick a QB at 13. That would be an unnecessary reach and possibly a missed opportunity to get actual value at the pick.STHfrontrow wrote Sat Feb 03, 2024 6:26 pm:Wait at 13 and draft a QB. There will a QB that falls to us.
Let AOC and that draft pick battle it out.
Trainnvain » Sun Feb 04, 2024 10:52 am
Atlanta is most likely looking at QB with the #8 pick. The Giants possibly will as well at#6. Additionally, the Vikings and Broncos both need Qbs as much as the Raiders so it's very conceivable that there are 5-6 QBs taken before the Raiders' pickRI RAIDER wrote Sun Feb 04, 2024 9:33 am:If someone picks a QB in the first 8-10 picks aside of the big 3, desperation is going to set in. I would think in this scenario, a minimum of 6 QB's will go in the first.
Dark Horse » Sun Feb 04, 2024 11:23 am
Think about this scenario. The Bears fired Getsy and hired Shane Waldron. If they felt Getsy wasn't a good match with Fields, they could actually be keeping Fields. Now Poles likes to fleece teams. He could play it close to the vest until draft day and cut a deal with Washington and gain a next year's #1. Then they could draft Harrison Jr., giving the Bears and Fields Moore, Kmet and Harrison Jr. along with a new OC. Then NE is likely to take Drake IMO, leaving the Cards at 4 as a trade up spot for us. There will be a bidding war, but it will still cost let than trading for the #1 pick.BoKnows81 » Mon Feb 05, 2024 2:27 pm
Fellas, we will be drafting a QB at some point in Round 1. I'd bet my life on it. There is no way AP goes into next year with Aidan, Cousins, Minshew or some other mediocre scrub. This is his chance to grab his guy and quite honestly, anything less than being aggressive OR grabbing a QB at 13 will be a disappointment.riseNraid09 » Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:40 pm
Look, we aren't drafting a QB at 13. If we are going to draft a QB in the first round, we have to trade up. Do you guys forget what division we are in? the QB/Coach duos we are now surrounded by? We need an elite, other-worldly talent and id say the top 3 QBs in the draft are the only ones that reflect the possibility that potential... So, we HAVE to go get one of them.