Ground hog Day/Raiders

Post Reply  
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 20013
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012
Sand$: 22,607.70
rugger48 wrote:
Killa CAM CAN!! wrote:nobody compared him to juju.



edit: you brought up the situation, you didnt say it , but its the same situation you are referring too.

Not comparing him to juju , Im bring up the idea that he will see targets because ab will draw coverage. he wont see that many targets.. its worked for juju because of the style of football he plays and the offense. It wont work the same in oakland, he wont see those targets because of how he will be used in the offense.

i didnt say how many targets he will receive because idk. obviously he wont get as much attention as AB. teams will worry about AB and Williams will see alot of opportunities to make plays. Williams has showed he can make plays when given the opportunity
_______________________________________

"If I shot at you with a gun and the only reason you were alive was because I missed how would you feel?"
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 32707
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004
Sand$: 34,854.58
jamcutpost wrote:OAK simply HAVE to take OL this draft. Just a question of who, when & how good.


we have the best center in football, and we have gabe jackson at G. we absolutely do not HAVE TO take OL's at any point in the draft, much less early. if ford or bradbury fall to the 2nd, then maybe it makes sense, depends on who else is there. i could see lindstrom (who seems like a gruden type guy) or mccoy in the 3rd if they fell there too. but it's not a must by any means.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 32707
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004
Sand$: 34,854.58
If you want to talk about a must, we MUST get a better CB to play opposite Conley. If we can come out of round one with one of Greedy/Murphy/Mullen/Ya-Sin, I will be pleased.
Moderator
Posts: 55816
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 112,860.02
SJSwarm wrote:If you want to talk about a must, we MUST get a better CB to play opposite Conley. If we can come out of round one with one of Greedy/Murphy/Mullen/Ya-Sin, I will be pleased.

Maybe one those corners will bridge the gap between Oakland's team sack total and the next one above them.

2018
Oakland sacks - 13, dead last
New England and Giants - 30, T-2nd to last
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 32707
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004
Sand$: 34,854.58
OarChambo wrote:
SJSwarm wrote:If you want to talk about a must, we MUST get a better CB to play opposite Conley. If we can come out of round one with one of Greedy/Murphy/Mullen/Ya-Sin, I will be pleased.

Maybe one those corners will bridge the gap between Oakland's team sack total and the next one above them.

2018
Oakland sacks - 13, dead last
New England and Giants - 30, T-2nd to last



Come on Oar, I've been pretty clear that I want a DL at 4. I'm clearly talking about the late round one picks with the players I mentioned, you're smarter than that.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 32707
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004
Sand$: 34,854.58
And for those that said we overpaid for Tyrell, I give you Sammy Watkins, who is has a base salary of $11.95M this year and a cap charge of $19.2M. Tyrell is a bargain compared to that.
Moderator
Posts: 55816
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 112,860.02
SJSwarm wrote:And for those that said we overpaid for Tyrell, I give you Sammy Watkins, who is has a base salary of $11.95M this year and a cap charge of $19.2M. Tyrell is a bargain compared to that.

The Raiders didn't overpay for Tyrell Williams.

The Raiders also don't have a cash flow problem.
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 32707
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004
Sand$: 34,854.58
OarChambo wrote:
SJSwarm wrote:And for those that said we overpaid for Tyrell, I give you Sammy Watkins, who is has a base salary of $11.95M this year and a cap charge of $19.2M. Tyrell is a bargain compared to that.

The Raiders didn't overpay for Tyrell Williams.

The Raiders also don't have a cash flow problem.


Dead horse, meet Mark's bat.
Moderator
Posts: 55816
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 112,860.02
It was only alive in the first place because the minions ate what Grue spoon fed them.
Megalodon
Posts: 23885
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009
Sand$: 19,313.36
SJSwarm wrote:we absolutely do not HAVE TO take OL's at any point in the draft, much less early.


1. Who said Early? I like people adding to the conversation. Love it. Have no time for anyone just posting what they think theyve read - id recommend re-reading my post.

2. Injuries happen. Who's your Swing. Who starts if Jackson goes down, tomorrow?

3. Heres the current lineup, is this right?

    LT - Brown: "?"
    LG -
    C - Hudson
    RG - Jackson
    RT - Miller
    SWING: ??

    Backups: ??

Seems liek everythign Left of Hudson has a questionmark over either who it is or its potential and im assuming if the current backups were any good, there wouldve been less starts by Osemele last season.

When youve swung over $30m of cap this year on deeper guys, it could be slightly problematic very quickly.

So yes. With Zero depth, no swing, no LG. Yes, you absolutely have to.

Unless of course we're big fans of that old adage of "failing to prepare being a presucrsor to preaparing to fail"
Last edited by jamcutpost on Thu 03.14.2019, 12:19, edited 1 time in total.
_______________________________________

“There is an art to flying ... learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
Moderator
Posts: 55816
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 112,860.02
jamcutpost wrote:
SJSwarm wrote:
jamcutpost wrote:OAK simply HAVE to take OL this draft. Just a question of who, when & how good.


we have the best center in football, and we have gabe jackson at G. we absolutely do not HAVE TO take OL's at any point in the draft, much less early. if ford or bradbury fall to the 2nd, then maybe it makes sense, depends on who else is there. i could see lindstrom (who seems like a gruden type guy) or mccoy in the 3rd if they fell there too. but it's not a must by any means.


    LT - Brown: "?"
    LG -
    C - Hudson
    RG - Jackson
    RT - Miller
    SWING: ??

    Backups: ??

I dont know if you ntoiced, but OL do get hurt. Also nothing is a given on anything to the Left of Hudson

So yes. With Zero depth, no swing, no LG. Yes, you absolutely have to. Especially with the 30ish million of cap sunk in two deeper targets.

Unless of course we're big fans of that old adage of "failing to prepare being a presucrsor to preaparing to fail"

They didn't have to address it til they started spending like a team that intends to faux compete this year. Now they do. Until the course is reversed again anyway.
Megalodon
Posts: 23885
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009
Sand$: 19,313.36
I think they had to address it regardless.

#28 ranked.

Carr regressed on his ADoT a little bit and i got tired about hearing about his checkdowns.

$30+m or w/ever those 2 additions at WR are combined on, seems an odd duck for a checkdown.

Sure, I expect the OL to have improved, even if only by moving Miller across, but no one knows if Brown is any better than Penn yet.

As good as Hud & Jackson are, they both started 16 & 13 games respectively at their best positions and the OL still performed less well - because its a unit..

Its still short a Swing an LG and cpl decent backups.

Vs the bengals i think they had to start 4 backups. Injuries happen on the OL. Frequently. Was it 4 or 5 sacks?

Failure, post FA, to admit "Yeah, we need at least one draft pick - unless hes amazingly good value that drops" seems ... kinda out there, to me :dontknow:
Last edited by jamcutpost on Thu 03.14.2019, 12:27, edited 1 time in total.
_______________________________________

“There is an art to flying ... learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 32707
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004
Sand$: 34,854.58
jamcutpost wrote:
SJSwarm wrote:we absolutely do not HAVE TO take OL's at any point in the draft, much less early.


1. Who said Early? I liek people adding to the conversation, im no fan of people adding things i havent said though.

2. Injuries happen. Whos swing. Whos starts RIGHT NOW if Jackson goes down?

3. Heres the current lineup, is this right?

    LT - Brown: "?"
    LG -
    C - Hudson
    RG - Jackson
    RT - Miller
    SWING: ??

    Backups: ??

Seems liek everythign Left of Hudson has a questionmark over either who it is or its potential.

Which could be somewhat problematic when youve swung over $30m of cap this year on deeper guys.

So yes. With Zero depth, no swing, no LG. Yes, you absolutely have to.

Unless of course we're big fans of that old adage of "failing to prepare being a presucrsor to preaparing to fail"


Denzelle Good showed well last year, hence us bringing him back. I'm just saying we have more pressing needs. Like EVERYWHERE on D. We could still sign a competent guard/swing tackle and not waste a pick in one of the best defensive drafts I have seen. I'd wager that the Raiders are hoping Parker develops into a swing tackle. As I've said before, people are giving up on him way too early. He's a small school player who needed time to develop.

You also have a much lower opinion of Trent Brown than the rest of the football world seems to. Yeah we overpaid for him, but he's significantly better than what we trotted out at LT last year, and he's a million times better than at least 2 of the consensus top 3 tackles in this draft. I havent watched enough of Jawaan Taylor to have an opinion, but Dillard and McGary are straight up trash. I'd rather roll the dice on Parker's development than waste likely our 2nd rounder to get one of those guys.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 6544
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010
Sand$: 23,578.42
SJSwarm wrote:And for those that said we overpaid for Tyrell, I give you Sammy Watkins, who is has a base salary of $11.95M this year and a cap charge of $19.2M. Tyrell is a bargain compared to that.





Sammy was an overpay, but specifically intended to be a safety valve and field opener for a young QB.
Sammy's been productive when on the field. He just got injured again. The O was much better with him than without due to the coverage he demands, even independent of his individual stats. He's also droppable after next year with zero cap hit. basically a two year deal.

I'm not sure Tyrell offers similar value, being a long range and much less of an underneath route guy, especially with Oakland's O line issues and Carr's inability/unwillingness to throw deep.

I'm not even going to address the illogic of defending an overpay by trying to point to another overpay and arguing it's not as bad.
Moderator
Posts: 55816
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 112,860.02
jamcutpost wrote:I think they ahd to address it regardless.

If we pretend there's competence running this show after that 14 month circus then the answer to that question depends on if you're really committed to Carr long term. If it's all a show and you are making alternative plans then let him die out there and save the resources for future use. But if you really believe he is your guy then the line should be of greater priority than it's already been. No use spending your resources on vanity items on the outside when the foundation is sinking.

But, again - this assumes competence.