- Congrats: 1 These Raider Fans gave raiderjohn a high five:
- Rabid Raider
-
raiderjohn » Wed May 01, 2024 1:08 pm
Agreed, interesting. I heard that Telesco's only move up in the 1st round was to draft Mel Gordon. With that, seems TT is looking at his board and going with the BPA at most selections. DJ Glazer was a reach, but there was a run on tackles. (7 of the previous 22 picks were tackles.)Then only 1 of the next 35 selections were tackles and that was Goncalves at 79 to the Colts, 2 picks after Glaze, so seeing that, it made sense to reach a bit there, given the depth we have.RunOverByHubbard wrote Mon Apr 29, 2024 10:36 pm:One thing I noticed— we made no trades. Interesting.
raiderjohn » Wed May 01, 2024 1:11 pm
That's part of the skill set he brings. You want players out there who can do more than 1 thing (Lee Smith would signal, we running the ball). Defenses won't be able to sell out for the run at the 1 with Bower and Mayer in there.BoKnows81 wrote Tue Apr 30, 2024 5:35 am:Exactly, that's the other part of it. He actually CAN block. He may not be an elite blocker but who cares. He's a more than adequate blocker.
KillerRaider30 » Wed May 01, 2024 4:25 pm
Goncalves is my nephew and we all were there at his watch party Friday. So proud of him. Played RT/LT and some Gaurd for Pitt.raiderjohn wrote Wed May 01, 2024 1:08 pm:Agreed, interesting. I heard that Telesco's only move up in the 1st round was to draft Mel Gordon. With that, seems TT is looking at his board and going with the BPA at most selections. DJ Glazer was a reach, but there was a run on tackles. (7 of the previous 22 picks were tackles.)Then only 1 of the next 35 selections were tackles and that was Goncalves at 79 to the Colts, 2 picks after Glaze, so seeing that, it made sense to reach a bit there, given the depth we have.
I have always loved to accumulate future picks via other teams falling in love. But if TT is going BPA with 80-90% of his picks, I can live with that.
16 to 88 » Wed May 01, 2024 8:42 pm
Way cool!KillerRaider30 wrote Wed May 01, 2024 4:25 pm:Goncalves is my nephew and we all were there at his watch party Friday. So proud of him. Played RT/LT and some Gaurd for Pitt.
Our RB comes from Long Island also and his party was in the Hampton about 20m away.
MexicanHulk » Thu May 02, 2024 8:02 am
No they weren’t. Oline, yes. Just cause you draft a player at that position, doesn’t mean it was addressed. If, you go into free agency & sign bottom of the barrel players at the 5 of your positions of need, do you say, “Well, we addressed that need. We’re a superbowl contender now.”? No, you don’t.Raider727 wrote Wed May 01, 2024 9:39 pm:What were the Raiders needs in the draft?
Oline, Secondary, LB and RB
All of those positions were addressed in the draft.
Dark Horse » Thu May 02, 2024 8:18 am
Such a great study! The "reaches" are better than the "steals." This is what people need to hear so they can stop overreacting.
signal » Thu May 02, 2024 8:19 am
To be fair, the draft should be far more about building the best roster possible going into the future and less about filling immediate needs. And given your post, if it were about simply filling needs, there would be no purpose to rounds 4 thru 7 since you dismiss them as immediate help.MexicanHulk wrote Thu May 02, 2024 8:02 am:No they weren’t. Oline, yes. Just cause you draft a player at that position, doesn’t mean it was addressed. If, you go into free agency & sign bottom of the barrel players at the 5 of your positions of need, do you say, “Well, we addressed that need. We’re a superbowl contender now.”? No, you don’t.
Drafting a 4th round CB who has talent but very much is a project in some areas, isn’t exactly addressing the need. Getting Mitchell, Arnold, Wiggins, McKinstry, or even Rakestraw, Melton…you’d say, you addressed the need. Even tho their not proven, the overall balance of talent/polish for the NFL they have, you’d say, “Ok, we addressed that need.” Because you’d feel more comfortable going into to the season with them being a starter or getting lots of reps as a rotational player. So, starter playing time. I don’t think anyone is saying, I’m confident & happy going into the season with Richardson as the #1 or #2 outside CB. If you do, you’re just extremely biased.
Eichenberg is a downhill LB’er. While I like his instincts, motor, what looks like, love for the game, downhill LB’ers are easy to find. The Raiders needed (still do) a good coverage LB. So no, this doesn’t fill the need.
The draft is about collecting as much talent as possible.
If your team drafted a RB &, Mattison is still viewed as the #2 ahead of him, it’s laughable to think that need was met. Mattison is horrible & shoulda never been signed to any guarantee or above the league min.
In short, I completely disagree with your take of those needs being filled.
BoKnows81 » Thu May 02, 2024 8:27 am
I agree with just about everything you said, especially Mattison being garbage. I personally don't even think he makes the team. I do think we are better off at CB than you think though. If we didn't get Jack Jones last year, it would definitely be a problem. I actually like MJ better than Richardson and think he has a shot to crack the starting lineup. But if Richardson hits, he will hit big.MexicanHulk wrote Thu May 02, 2024 8:02 am:No they weren’t. Oline, yes. Just cause you draft a player at that position, doesn’t mean it was addressed. If, you go into free agency & sign bottom of the barrel players at the 5 of your positions of need, do you say, “Well, we addressed that need. We’re a superbowl contender now.”? No, you don’t.
Drafting a 4th round CB who has talent but very much is a project in some areas, isn’t exactly addressing the need. Getting Mitchell, Arnold, Wiggins, McKinstry, or even Rakestraw, Melton…you’d say, you addressed the need. Even tho their not proven, the overall balance of talent/polish for the NFL they have, you’d say, “Ok, we addressed that need.” Because you’d feel more comfortable going into to the season with them being a starter or getting lots of reps as a rotational player. So, starter playing time. I don’t think anyone is saying, I’m confident & happy going into the season with Richardson as the #1 or #2 outside CB. If you do, you’re just extremely biased.
Eichenberg is a downhill LB’er. While I like his instincts, motor, what looks like, love for the game, downhill LB’ers are easy to find. The Raiders needed (still do) a good coverage LB. So no, this doesn’t fill the need.
If your team drafted a RB &, Mattison is still viewed as the #2 ahead of him, it’s laughable to think that need was met. Mattison is horrible & shoulda never been signed to any guarantee or above the league min.
In short, I completely disagree with your take of those needs being filled.
RickRyb » Thu May 02, 2024 9:01 am
The biggest difference between the two posters is Poster #1 stated The Raiders did address those positions, while Poster #2 stated The Raiders did not fill those positions.GUYDON » Thu May 02, 2024 9:15 am
Interesting AP hasnt had a presser or said one word about the draft.miles_j20 » Thu May 02, 2024 9:25 am
This is pretty spot on.MexicanHulk wrote Thu May 02, 2024 8:02 am:No they weren’t. Oline, yes. Just cause you draft a player at that position, doesn’t mean it was addressed. If, you go into free agency & sign bottom of the barrel players at the 5 of your positions of need, do you say, “Well, we addressed that need. We’re a superbowl contender now.”? No, you don’t.
Drafting a 4th round CB who has talent but very much is a project in some areas, isn’t exactly addressing the need. Getting Mitchell, Arnold, Wiggins, McKinstry, or even Rakestraw, Melton…you’d say, you addressed the need. Even tho their not proven, the overall balance of talent/polish for the NFL they have, you’d say, “Ok, we addressed that need.” Because you’d feel more comfortable going into to the season with them being a starter or getting lots of reps as a rotational player. So, starter playing time. I don’t think anyone is saying, I’m confident & happy going into the season with Richardson as the #1 or #2 outside CB. If you do, you’re just extremely biased.
Eichenberg is a downhill LB’er. While I like his instincts, motor, what looks like, love for the game, downhill LB’ers are easy to find. The Raiders needed (still do) a good coverage LB. So no, this doesn’t fill the need.
If your team drafted a RB &, Mattison is still viewed as the #2 ahead of him, it’s laughable to think that need was met. Mattison is horrible & shoulda never been signed to any guarantee or above the league min.
In short, I completely disagree with your take of those needs being filled.
MexicanHulk » Thu May 02, 2024 11:04 am
Well, you’re arguing a different point altogether, than what I was. I’m not dismissing the latter part of the draft nor do I think rounds 4-7 are meaningless. I like some things about it & some of the players upside potential. Although when you say if you addressed a position in the offseason, you do mean, for that upcoming season.signal wrote Thu May 02, 2024 8:19 am:To be fair, the draft should be far more about building the best roster possible going into the future and less about filling immediate needs. And given your post, if it were about simply filling needs, there would be no purpose to rounds 4 thru 7 since you dismiss them as immediate help.
In a way I do agree with you but would simply state that evaluating a draft can only be done effectively well three years down the road when you can see how these players fit into your team. To dismiss a draft because it did not address this need or that need is to misunderstand what the draft is for. Free agency is for filling in immediate needs, and the draft is not about next year it is about the next five years.
P.S. But yes, you are right this draft did not fill all of the immediate needs but that is not the purpose of draft.
MexicanHulk » Thu May 02, 2024 11:19 am
In terms of the CB room, I think I’m evaluating it correctly. With Jones & Hobbs, I think two spots are solidified with pretty good starting production. Somewhere between above avg & pro bowl level. So that’s good. But that other starting outside CB spot is a black hole at the moment. I’m thinking/hoping they will get Gilmore or Howard in FA. So that will be a huge boost. But if (when) injuries hit, I’d be a little worried.BoKnows81 wrote Thu May 02, 2024 8:27 am:I agree with just about everything you said, especially Mattison being garbage. I personally don't even think he makes the team. I do think we are better off at CB than you think though. If we didn't get Jack Jones last year, it would definitely be a problem. I actually like MJ better than Richardson and think he has a shot to crack the starting lineup. But if Richardson hits, he will hit big.
Regarding LB, I agree your take on Eichenberg but I still think we are better off than we were, that's for sure. Esp if Masterson stays on the bench. Trying to find the guys that can cover the Kelces, Gates (in the past), etc is just too hard to do anymore. Give me the instinctual LB all day every day.