Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

         One has to wonder whether the Patriots erred in insisting on the Raiders' #1 draft choice in 2011, instead in 2010, in the Richard Seymour trade. Based upon what I've seen of them in pre-season, the Raiders appear to be improved, and could provide the San Diego Chargers with some competition in the relatively weak AFC West. Of course, the more games that the Raiders win this season, the less their #1 draft pick will be worth to the Pats.

         Let's look at a list of some of the players that the Pats' could have selected, had they accepted Oakland's #1 pick...which turned out to be the 8th overall pick, in the 2010 draft:

    1.) ILB Rolando McClain;

    2,) RB C.J. Spiller;

    3.) RB Ryan Matthews;

    4.) DE/OL Brandon Graham; 

    5.) OG Mike Iupati;

    6.) C/OG Maurkice Pouncey;

    7.) DE Derrick Morgan;

    8.) DE Jason Pierre-Paul.

         Here's 2011 mock draft...which has the Raider pick falling top the Pats at 10th overall (does not include underclassmen): 
    http://walterfootball.com/draft2011.php 

           
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman2. Show Patsman2's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    The Pats passed on the 1st round pick this year because they didnt want to pay the huge contract and expect there to be a rookie salary cap next year.  They didnt pass because there was no talent.

    I do however think the Raiders have a shot of being around 8-8, and this pick may not end up being in the top 10 after all.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]The Pats passed on the 1st round pick this year because they didnt want to pay the huge contract and expect there to be a rookie salary cap next year.  They didnt pass because there was no talent. I do however think the Raiders have a shot of being around 8-8, and this pick may not end up being in the top 10 after all.
    Posted by Patsman2[/QUOTE]

    Their best reciever is still hurt, and while Cambell is better than Russel I still like our chances.  This will be a top 15 pick regardless, which is effeicient considering we still have our own first rounder.  Possibilities are endless with two first rounders, especially with BB working his economics degree.  I just want to see the name Ingram selected.... I really do. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]I am not sold on the Raiders.  Sorry. Not buying it. No one game plans in the preseason and even though they look like they are improved, I don't see them anymore than an 8-8 team at best.  More like 6-10.
    Posted by russgriswold[/QUOTE]

         8-8 would be aa significant improvement...and the Pats would draft around 17th overall.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheFantasyBaron. Show TheFantasyBaron's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised :      8-8 would be aa significant improvement...and the Pats would draft around 17th overall.
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    The Pats don't want to pick too high up anyway. They would just trade for two more picks. What would they have done with the Raider's pick this year if they had it? I bet they would have traded it for a 1 next year and a spot to pick McCourty in.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from vtfanofcs. Show vtfanofcs's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

      The Raiders looked pretty decent in the second half of last year whenever they could get semi-competent quarterbacking.  Their division does not look good and they will also be playing the NFC West this year if I am not mistaken.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]     One has to wonder whether the Patriots erred in insisting on the Raiders' #1 draft choice in 2011, instead in 2010, in the Richard Seymour trade. Based upon what I've seen of them in pre-season, the Raiders appear to be improved, and could provide the San Diego Chargers with some competition in the relatively weak AFC West. Of course, the more games that the Raiders win this season, the less their #1 draft pick will be worth to the Pats.      Let's look at a list of some of the players that the Pats' could have selected, had they accepted Oakland's #1 pick...which turned out to be the 8th overall pick, in the 2010 draft: 1.) ILB Rolando McClain; 2,) RB C.J. Spiller; 3.) RB Ryan Matthews; 4.) DE/OL Brandon Graham;  5.) OG Mike Iupati; 6.) C/OG Maurkice Pouncey; 7.) DE Derrick Morgan; 8.) DE Jason Pierre-Paul.      Here's 2011 mock draft...which has the Raider pick falling top the Pats at 10th overall (does not include underclassmen):  http://walterfootball.com/draft2011.php          
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    I agree about the Raiders being better. I have talked about this before and they are my dark horse to make the playoffs. I do not in any way agree that the Pats would have been better off with this years pick.

    Reason being with the uncertainty of the new CBA(or lack there of) looming we already have had to prolong re-signing the best player in the game. Why woul we want to make a HUGE gamble by drafting any of the above mentioned players and committing 20-40 million for a guy who may or may not make it in this league?

    2nd reason is a more then likely rookie wage scale in effect for next year. Now we can actually draft a top 10 guy(given the raiders stink it up again) and not endure the financial commitment it would normally take.

    Also out of your mentioned players Rolondo McClain is the only guy I could see us taking. We have our rb core(to draft one meant paying a ton and trading/cutting a guy who already knows our system) Graham/Morgan are in the same boat as Cunningham but costs 5x the price and beside Logan Mankins(who I think was the 32nd pick) it just doesn't fit the Parcells/Belichick philosphy to draft a -o-linemen in the top 10.(Phins needed Jake Long over anybody else in that draft) With all of that said I don't know that Mcclain is 15-20 million dollars better then 1st rd faller Brandon Spikes.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised : I agree about the Raiders being better. I have talked about this before and they are my dark horse to make the playoffs. I do not in any way agree that the Pats would have been better off with this years pick. Reason being with the uncertainty of the new CBA(or lack there of) looming we already have had to prolong re-signing the best player in the game. Why woul we want to make a HUGE gamble by drafting any of the above mentioned players and committing 20-40 million for a guy who may or may not make it in this league? 2nd reason is a more then likely rookie wage scale in effect for next year. Now we can actually draft a top 10 guy(given the raiders stink it up again) and not endure the financial commitment it would normally take. Also out of your mentioned players Rolondo McClain is the only guy I could see us taking. We have our rb core(to draft one meant paying a ton and trading/cutting a guy who already knows our system) Graham/Morgan are in the same boat as Cunningham but costs 5x the price and beside Logan Mankins(who I think was the 32nd pick) it just doesn't fit the Parcells/Belichick philosphy to draft a -o-linemen in the top 10.(Phins needed Jake Long over anybody else in that draft) With all of that said I don't know that Mcclain is 15-20 million dollars better then 1st rd faller Brandon Spikes.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    I agree Champ. You can't stay horrible forever unless you're the lions.
    The raiders have a mediocre schedule and play in a week division. Their defense isn't that bad and they actually have an NFL Caliber QB this year.I figured 7-9 to 9-7 with an outside shot at a wildcard.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]     One has to wonder whether the Patriots erred in insisting on the Raiders' #1 draft choice in 2011, instead in 2010, in the Richard Seymour trade. Based upon what I've seen of them in pre-season, the Raiders appear to be improved, and could provide the San Diego Chargers with some competition in the relatively weak AFC West. Of course, the more games that the Raiders win this season, the less their #1 draft pick will be worth to the Pats.      Let's look at a list of some of the players that the Pats' could have selected, had they accepted Oakland's #1 pick...which turned out to be the 8th overall pick, in the 2010 draft: 1.) ILB Rolando McClain; 2,) RB C.J. Spiller; 3.) RB Ryan Matthews; 4.) DE/OL Brandon Graham;  5.) OG Mike Iupati; 6.) C/OG Maurkice Pouncey; 7.) DE Derrick Morgan; 8.) DE Jason Pierre-Paul.      Here's 2011 mock draft...which has the Raider pick falling top the Pats at 10th overall (does not include underclassmen):  http://walterfootball.com/draft2011.php          
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    I 'll take 5.) OG Mike Iupati. That guy could very very good.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised :      8-8 would be aa significant improvement...and the Pats would draft around 17th overall.
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]
    I just think the QB & WRs aren't that good, short a couple DBs too.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tcal2. Show Tcal2's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    I believe in the BB world picks 11-20 are better value then 1-10 assuming there is no rookie salary cap next year.  So a little better is not necessarily a bad thing.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from changes1677. Show changes1677's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    where did you ever get it was a first round pick this year or a first round pick next year?  It was either a 2nd rounder in 2010 or a 1st rounder in 2011.  There was never 2 different first round picks offered.  So clearly we would have never had a chance on any of those players and BB made the best choice.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]     One has to wonder whether the Patriots erred in insisting on the Raiders' #1 draft choice in 2011, instead in 2010, in the Richard Seymour trade. Based upon what I've seen of them in pre-season, the Raiders appear to be improved, and could provide the San Diego Chargers with some competition in the relatively weak AFC West. Of course, the more games that the Raiders win this season, the less their #1 draft pick will be worth to the Pats.      Let's look at a list of some of the players that the Pats' could have selected, had they accepted Oakland's #1 pick...which turned out to be the 8th overall pick, in the 2010 draft: 1.) ILB Rolando McClain; 2,) RB C.J. Spiller; 3.) RB Ryan Matthews; 4.) DE/OL Brandon Graham;  5.) OG Mike Iupati; 6.) C/OG Maurkice Pouncey; 7.) DE Derrick Morgan; 8.) DE Jason Pierre-Paul.      Here's 2011 mock draft...which has the Raider pick falling top the Pats at 10th overall (does not include underclassmen):  http://walterfootball.com/draft2011.php          
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    It pains me to say this but in the world of salary cap management Bill took the draft that would cost less.  This decision also probably cost the Pats a higher draft pick as the Raiders have improved in my eyes.  Looks like Al got of the meds for a day and drafted really well.  Then he goes out and gets Jason Campbell.  I don't thing anyone saw that one coming.  He may not scare you but he's a big enough improvement to change where the Pats draft.  We're looking at outside of the top 10 now as I see it.
    Another way of looking at it is that the Pats had 12 selections already and I found this years draft to be real good.  Only so many slots out there.  Plus you have a couple of LBs who were out the year before that you don't know about.  A lot of assessments to make.
    Out of those selections in this year's draft I would have been smooth after Brandon Graham.  I wonder if Belichick would have been though.  I don't know if he fits what the Pats look for in an OLB.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    The Pats weren't going to draft Ingram, people. 

    They were going to trade their picks to get more picks. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    First off, a 2011 high first round pick will be worth more than a 2010 high first round pick because of lower salaries.  This has meaning to a capologist.

    Second, the Raiders have a pretty good quarterback who is behind an atrocious turnstile offensive line and has atrocious receivers, so as the season progresses the improvement at QB might not work out.  They have another imbalance on defense - a pretty good back seven and a defensive line that can't stop the run.

    Finally, they still have Grandpa Al calling down specific plays this summer from the luxury box.  How's that for a handicap?

    They might revert toward the mean and get to 6-10, or they might not.  Right now my numbers have them at 3.9 victories and a #4 pick, but they've been rising somewhat from the July numbers.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    I'd like to see what they could do with a top ten pick again, aside from Mayo they haven't had the oppurtunity in a while. Speaking of Mayo, I sure hope he has a break out season, we need it. I thought he was a beast his rookie year until after the Jets game at home were he had like 17 tackles and was the best player on the field. During that game he made a tackle at the goal line and I think he got hurt and suffered the rest of the season. Last year was a washout because of his ankle injury, let's see if he can regain the form that caused him to be a top ten pick. If he does then it will be interesting to see how the front seven performs, because the guy has the quickness to blitz. If he doesn't perform to levels of expectation; struggles in coverage, misses tackles, doesn't hold his ground and can't pressure, then we have to start questioning him. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised : It pains me to say this but in the world of salary cap management Bill took the draft that would cost less.  This decision also probably cost the Pats a higher draft pick as the Raiders have improved in my eyes.  Looks like Al got of the meds for a day and drafted really well.  Then he goes out and gets Jason Campbell.  I don't thing anyone saw that one coming.  He may not scare you but he's a big enough improvement to change where the Pats draft.  We're looking at outside of the top 10 now as I see it. Another way of looking at it is that the Pats had 12 selections already and I found this years draft to be real good.  Only so many slots out there.  Plus you have a couple of LBs who were out the year before that you don't know about.  A lot of assessments to make. Out of those selections in this year's draft I would have been smooth after Brandon Graham.  I wonder if Belichick would have been though.  I don't know if he fits what the Pats look for in an OLB.
    Posted by garytx[/QUOTE]


    You should have stopped at outside of top ten pick, because that's exactly were Bill would want to be anyhow.  Honestly I bet it's going to be 13th overall, which is perfect.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolltide1963. Show rolltide1963's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    Jamarcus is gone.  The Addition of Campbell should be a 3-game improvement.  The Raiders played tough at the end of last season with a cast of less than steller NFL QBs after finally sending Jamarcus to the sidelines.  Plus, they used the off season to bolster their Defense.  They could easily leap over Denver as the 2nd best team in the relatively unstable AFC West. 

    8-8 would not be unfathomable. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    [QUOTE]where did you ever get it was a first round pick this year or a first round pick next year?  It was either a 2nd rounder in 2010 or a 1st rounder in 2011.  There was never 2 different first round picks offered.  So clearly we would have never had a chance on any of those players and BB made the best choice.
    Posted by changes1677[/QUOTE]
    This has been in dispute on this board for some time.

    I couldn't find the Reiss article on this but I did find an Al Davis quote on how the deal went down.

    "They gave me the opportunity to make my choice on draft choices what I wanted to do. As you well now in 2010 we have a 1st, 2nd, two 3rds a 4th and two 5ths. We have a lot of choices. I said I'll go with the 1 in 2011. I'll stick with that. That's what you can have. I just wanted to get it done."
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]I am not sold on the Raiders.  Posted by russgriswold[/QUOTE]

    Me too. Do they an offense that can put up more then 10 points? No. 4-12 at best
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    Every year, one or two teams with no business winning suddenly gets its act together and does just that; win.  Heck, if you go back several years to the Saints first year under Sean Payton, they were horrific the year before.  They were ridiculed on Sirius going into the season.  Everyone said they had zero talent except maybe Brees.  They made the playoffs and did quite well.

    Will the Raiders do that?  I'd never put my money on that, but every year you see a team or two make a giant improvement.  Despite Al Davis, they are as good a candidate as any.  Heck, just dumping JaCarcass makes them a better team.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Getzo. Show Getzo's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]Every year, one or two teams with no business winning suddenly gets its act together and does just that; win.  Heck, if you go back several years to the Saints first year under Sean Payton, they were horrific the year before.  They were ridiculed on Sirius going into the season.  Everyone said they had zero talent except maybe Brees.  They made the playoffs and did quite well. Will the Raiders do that?  I'd never put my money on that, but every year you see a team or two make a giant improvement.  Despite Al Davis, they are as good a candidate as any.  Heck, just dumping JaCarcass makes them a better team.
    Posted by carawaydj[/QUOTE]

    Having a QB like brees can do that, but I don't buy into Cambell in his first year with the Raiders... as many has posted I can see 8-8, and they grow from their a year or two down the road. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonBobBlowhard. Show BostonBobBlowhard's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    In Response to Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised:
    [QUOTE]Am I missing something? If there is a rookie salary cap structure in 2011, the PERFECT pick is #1. If you want to pick in the #10 to #15 slot than trade out and pick up another #1 in 2012 or 2nd or 3rd rounders, whatever you like. If there is a salary cap the value of a Top 5 pick skyrockets. The only reason that top picks are rarely traded is that the cost is so high no-one wants to trade up. If the cost is reasonable everything changes. I believe even if we had the #1 pick it would not be Ingram, we would pick DL.
    Posted by One-If-By-Sea[/QUOTE]
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonBobBlowhard. Show BostonBobBlowhard's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    Ingram is overrated. A first round pick, but lster in round one,
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pancakespwn. Show Pancakespwn's posts

    Re: Raiders Could Be Better Than Advertised

    The Raiders always do well in the preseason. Why the hell are people making threads about how teams are playing in the preseason. No one cares. Aaron Rodgers was on NFL Network today and Rich asked him about his success in the preseason "Well I mean we have stuff but this isnt the things we will be running in the regular season."

    Same goes for the Pats. Most of this stuff is to get injured guys and players quality reps. Look at who the Pats are throwing too and running with. While being more balanced is the key and being under center a bit more. Look at what they did with Wes. 3 straight plays to him. Preseason is about evaluating and just getting getting a feel for one another.

    This nonsense about the Colts, or Raiders needs to seriously stop. When the Raiders go 7-9 people are going to go "WELL I TOLD YOU SO!".

    Anyone remember when the Raiders went 4-1 in the preseason only to follow up with the number 1 overall pick? Yeah I do.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share