Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
joey

== OFFICIAL OAKLAND RAIDERS 2018 thread ==

Recommended Posts

I guess I’m in the minority thinking 2 1st rounders is pretty good deal for the Raiders. Don’t follow them closely enough to know about their cap and why they just didn’t pay Mack but it’s a good haul. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KingPrawn said:

And you know that how?

Because the Bears aren’t that stupid. 

If I’m wrong and it is Smith and 2 1sts, then Kudos to Gruden 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Silver & Black said:

They were never secretly working on a contract.  Please go back and read my initial post.  I said they made a best foot forward offer many months ago, Mack countered with something the team thought was outrageous and nothing has happened between them since.  Both sides miscalculated the other's position and resolve, hence the lack of communication.  Oakland was never seeking to trade Mack, but when the offers came pouring in, they had to listen and here we are.

I have a few friends who have been with team for a billion years and while not directly involved in things, they are in a position to know things that the outside world doesn't.  I always try to responsibly pass along things I hear because that is one of the things that make this board so fantastic.  Sometimes, quite often in fact, the end result isn't what I heard.  I always preface my comments by saying that.  I will continue to post things I hear.  If you aren't interested or feel my sources are guff, then don't read them. 

people just get jealous of those who know individuals within organizations and hear things they dont. I dont understand it. it's as if people dont like information

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Silver & Black said:

They were never secretly working on a contract.  Please go back and read my initial post.  I said they made a best foot forward offer many months ago, Mack countered with something the team thought was outrageous and nothing has happened between them since.  Both sides miscalculated the other's position and resolve, hence the lack of communication.  Oakland was never seeking to trade Mack, but when the offers came pouring in, they had to listen and here we are.

I have a few friends who have been with team for a billion years and while not directly involved in things, they are in a position to know things that the outside world doesn't.  I always try to responsibly pass along things I hear because that is one of the things that make this board so fantastic.  Sometimes, quite often in fact, the end result isn't what I heard.  I always preface my comments by saying that.  I will continue to post things I hear.  If you aren't interested or feel my sources are guff, then don't read them. 

I haven't followed any of your previous posts nor did I even know you were posting about things you heard from the inside. Get over yourself. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:

If it is then that is essentially three-1st round picks and that is an automatic win for Oakland.

I would doubt it is but we don't know for sure. Can't really label anything a "steal" at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KingPrawn said:

I would doubt it is but we don't know for sure. Can't really label anything a "steal" at this point.

You don't think three-1st round picks and bypassing the highest defensive and possibly overall contract is a steal?

They won't include Roquain Smith but if they did then it would be a complete fleecing by the Raiders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam Schefter‏Verified account @AdamSchefter

FollowFollow @AdamSchefter

The most an NFL team has surrendered for a defensive player is when Vikings traded a 1, two 3’s and a swap of 5’s to Chiefs for DE Jared Allen. Bears trade for Khalil Mack, when it gets done, will top that, making it the most an NFL team has surrendered for a defensive player.

7:03 AM - 1 Sep 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flapgreen said:

OH MY GOD!  VGGFDDFHK

Are you Ian Rappaport? :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bracie Smathers said:

You don't think three-1st round picks and bypassing the highest defensive and possibly overall contract is a steal?

They won't include Roquain Smith but if they did then it would be a complete fleecing by the Raiders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam Schefter‏Verified account @AdamSchefter

FollowFollow @AdamSchefter

The most an NFL team has surrendered for a defensive player is when Vikings traded a 1, two 3’s and a swap of 5’s to Chiefs for DE Jared Allen. Bears trade for Khalil Mack, when it gets done, will top that, making it the most an NFL team has surrendered for a defensive player.

7:03 AM - 1 Sep 2018

I was referring to someone labeling it a "steal" for the Bears before we know all the details. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IHEARTFF said:

Mack now is worth way more than Jared Allen 1 dui away from expulsion was. 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Are you Ian Rappaport? :shock:

I have inside sources! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IHEARTFF said:

Mack now is worth way more than Jared Allen 1 dui away from expulsion was. 

He is and the deal is already 'reported' to start at two-1st round picks PLUS...  so it has already surpassed the Jared Allen deal at the most that any team has ever given up for a defender in the history of the league.

The 'PLUS' has to be a player but that information won't be released until Mack has negotiated and signed his contract.

They NEVER release the name of a player who is part of a deal unless the deal is complete or it creates a bad locker room situation if they can't work out a contract and that player who was supposed to be part of the deal is still on the team.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our 1st round picks for the last 20 years or so. Could make 1st rd picks for the next 10 or 20 years before you hit on a Woodson or Mack again. 2 1st rounders do not compensate for a known, proven stud. Let's hope it works out

Charles WoodsonDBMichigan

Mo CollinsGFlorida

Matt StinchcombGGeorgia

Sebastian JanikowskiPKFlorida State

Derrick GibsonDBFlorida State

Phillip BuchanonDBMiami

Napoleon HarrisLBNorthwestern

Nnamdi AsomughaDBCalifornia

Tyler BraytonDEColorado

Robert GalleryTIowa

Fabian WashingtonDBNebraska

Michael HuffDBTexas

JaMarcus Russell*QBLSU

Darren McFaddenRBArkansas

Darrius Heyward-BeyWRMaryland

Rolando McClainLBAlabama

2011—No pick——

2012—No pick——

D. J. HaydenDBHouston

Khalil MackLBBuffalo

Amari CooperWRAlabama

Karl JosephSWest Virginia

Gareon ConleyCBOhio State

Kolton MillerTUCLA

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, massraider said:

I don't care if it's two 1's and Roquon, which it's probably not.

Winning teams don't make this move.

It's on you, Gruden .

I agree with this.

put all the lipstick on that pig ya like, this still stinks for the Raiders. 

Talking about saving $ pales when do it by  losing one of the best defensive players in the NFL. 

And now y’all have to hope Gruden & Co don’t screw up those draft picks. If either are a bust, this trade is awful. 

Risky deal. Good teams make Mack a cornerstone of their team and build their identity around him. 

In a way the raiders have now done that in all the wrong ways. This is who they are now: the team that couldn’t successfully keep their best player. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way Smith is included in the deal.  Will be interesting to see what he winds up signing for to see just how ridiculous his demands were.

While the picks and cap space are nice, the entire point of having those things is so that you can draft and keep a guy like Mack.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Are you Ian Rappaport? :shock:

Wait until they announce the player is Trevethan or Kwiatkoski

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best manager in one of my leagues just picked up the Bears D/ST, which I admit is the shark move. I’m kinda mad I didn’t think of it. :doh: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Best manager in one of my leagues just picked up the Bears D/ST, which I admit is the shark move. I’m kinda mad I didn’t think of it. :doh: 

Did that an hour ago and trying to flip him to the bears fan, once he wakes up

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Best manager in one of my leagues just picked up the Bears D/ST, which I admit is the shark move. I’m kinda mad I didn’t think of it. :doh: 

I did in two leagues as well. Early in the year so can afford to roster 2 defenses for a few weeks until you see how it plays out. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d give Carr and the WRs a bump.  They already had a suspect D and it got worse. Some shootouts coming up.  First on MNF vs Rams.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Lord, so where does our pass rush come from now?  

Does Reggie and Chucky expect Arden Key and Maurice Hurst to be instant impact players?   

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I agree with this.

put all the lipstick on that pig ya like, this still stinks for the Raiders. 

Talking about saving $ pales when do it by  losing one of the best defensive players in the NFL. 

And now y’all have to hope Gruden & Co don’t screw up those draft picks. If either are a bust, this trade is awful. 

Riaky deal. Good teams make Mack a cornerstone of their team and build their identity around him. 

In a way the raiders have now done that in all the wrong ways. This is who they are now: the team that couldn’t successfully keep their best player. 

But I think there is more involved here than just player evaluation. Do the Raiders have the money to give Mack a large sum of guaranteed money? That move to Vegas has to cost them a pretty penny which drains the bank.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sources say they just didnt have the capital reserve to pay the signing bonus.  That’s why there was no conversations about a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KingPrawn said:

But I think there is more involved here than just player evaluation. Do the Raiders have the money to give Mack a large sum of guaranteed money? That move to Vegas has to cost them a pretty penny which drains the bank.

I was called crazy for saying they couldn’t afford him. But then it was the same dude I put on ignore who said emphatically they weren’t trading him & I was “chicken littling” so...

If Mark Davis can’t afford to pay his best player, then he shouldn’t own a football team. It’s that simple. It’s a billionaire’s game & Mark ain’t a billionaire. 

Not to mention the obscene $ they paid their HC. 

Mark should take on a partner or sell the team. Losing Mack should be an unacceptable line for Raiders fans. The should send 1,000,000s of angry letters and emails. 

Instead they’ll somehow try to justify it like it’s a good thing, just like many have done with the move to Vegas. 

Gotta be hard to be a Raiders fan. If they were my team I’d be furious. Who cares if they save $$$. Ain’t my money. I want the best players, period. Mack was their best player. Now he’s not. That should be unacceptable to fans. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any guesses on our revised win total this year, assuming no Mack? My assumption is the player we get, if any at all, won't be Smith.

I think we're strong contenders for a mediocre losing season, say 7-9.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LAUNCH said:

My sources say they just didnt have the capital reserve to pay the signing bonus.  That’s why there was no conversations about a deal.

That’s been the rumor around talk radio for months. Greg Papa talked about it many many times on 95.7 the game.

i mentioned this a few pages back & was called a fool for listening to Papa. 

:whistle: 

If it’s true, then Mark Davis should sell the team to someone who can afford to pay players. Mack was getting paid one way or another. Sucks it’s another team doing it. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LAUNCH said:

My sources say they just didnt have the capital reserve to pay the signing bonus.  That’s why there was no conversations about a deal.

My sources say this dumb narrative made the rounds before Carr was signed. 

I'm completely willing to believe this was a Gruden getting clever move. Doesn't think it makes sense to pay one guy like that. 

I figure it'll wind up hurting both teams. Raiders defense suffers, and Bears lack draft capital to surround Man and Trubisky with talent.

Unless Key is Von Miller, and Hurst is John Randle, this year is gonna be tough.

And even if they are, we could have put them next to Mack. 

Awful. 

They get a ton, that's great. But it pushes the team back. Sick of wasting years building.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, steelwind said:

I’d give Carr and the WRs a bump.  They already had a suspect D and it got worse. Some shootouts coming up.  First on MNF vs Rams.

I was thinking this too. Losing elite pass rush makes an already suspect secondary that much worse. Though they did just bring in some players. 

Rams aren’t exactly slouches on defense though, ironically that’s in part because they got a deal done with Donald. 

Shootouts might happen, but not a lot of teams find success against the Rams like that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Best manager in one of my leagues just picked up the Bears D/ST, which I admit is the shark move. I’m kinda mad I didn’t think of it. :doh: 

I regret not taking them in my 16 team league now. Was drafted. :bag:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, massraider said:

 

I figure it'll wind up hurting both teams. Raiders defense suffers, and Bears lack draft capital to surround Man and Trubisky with talent.

 

Have to disagree here. If the Bears had a chance to take Mack with their first rounder next year, it would be a slam dunk pick, so essentially, they are giving up a 2020 1st rounder for one of the top 3 defensive players in all of football. 

The money they have to pay is an important part of the equation but I don’t think the draft capital they gave up is hurting them, especially if they finish over 8-8 where that pick is not in the top portion of the draft. 

Edited by efactor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, flapgreen said:

I regret not taking them in my 16 team league now. Was drafted. :bag:

 They were drafted in the last round but then subsequently dropped in my D/ST league. I’m pretty sure the dude who dropped them is pissed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, efactor said:

Have to disagree here. If the Bears had a chance to take Mack with their first rounder next year, it would be a slam dunk pick, so essentially, they are giving up a 2020 1st rounder for one of the top 3 defensive players in all of football. 

The money they have to pay is an important part of the equation but I think the draft capital they gave up is not hurting them, especially if they finish over 8-8 where that pick is not in the top portion of the draft. 

I'm reading it's more than two#1s, and these mega trades normally don't work for the team getting the one player. 

I'm not trying to spin this. History says the big deals aren't good for the team getting the player. 

 this is like the Pats trading Chandler Jones. Thinking you don't wanna pay top dollar for one guy, we saw how no pass rush worked out in the Super Bowl. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, efactor said:

Have to disagree here. If the Bears had a chance to take Mack with their first rounder next year, it would be a slam dunk pick, so essentially, they are giving up a 2020 1st rounder for one of the top 3 defensive players in all of football. 

The money they have to pay is an important part of the equation but I think the draft capital they gave up is not hurting them, especially if they finish over 8-8 where that pick is not in the top portion of the draft. 

I agree. 

And what message does this send the rest of the Raiders players? 

“Don’t be too good or we won’t be able to keep you.”

not exactly a way to inspire the best play. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, efactor said:

Have to disagree here. If the Bears had a chance to take Mack with their first rounder next year, it would be a slam dunk pick, so essentially, they are giving up a 2020 1st rounder for one of the top 3 defensive players in all of football. 

The money they have to pay is an important part of the equation but I think the draft capital they gave up is not hurting them, especially if they finish over 8-8 where that pick is not in the top portion of the draft. 

Due to poor drafting by previous regime, they have the 4th most salary cap space in the league with only really one guy on the roster they need to extend by next year.  It's a great deal for the Bears, considering where they are at the current time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, massraider said:

I'm reading it's more than two#1s, and these mega trades normally don't work for the team getting the one player. 

I'm not trying to spin this. History says the big deals aren't good for the team getting the player. 

 this is like the Pats trading Chandler Jones. Thinking you don't wanna pay top dollar for one guy, we saw how no pass rush worked out in the Super Bowl. 

Will be interesting to see who the player is for sure. 

Mack is just such a great player. I was hoping my Niners would make a move to get him for 2 1sts but Lynch was too slow. Snooze, you lose. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, flapgreen said:

I regret not taking them in my 16 team league now. Was drafted. :bag:

just picked them up off the wire...already have the LAC D...wait n see now

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any NFL owner can get a 70 mill line of credit to throw in escrow if needed. 

At very friendly rates. An NFL owner is considered a good risk. Come on now.  

The cash thing has been said for years, and Raiders were always spending in free agency. Please.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, massraider said:

I'm reading it's more than two#1s, and these mega trades normally don't work for the team getting the one player. 

I'm not trying to spin this. History says the big deals aren't good for the team getting the player. 

 this is like the Pats trading Chandler Jones. Thinking you don't wanna pay top dollar for one guy, we saw how no pass rush worked out in the Super Bowl. 

IMO the only way this is bad for the Bears is if Mack gets injured, but that’s a risk all teams take with all players getting guaranteed $.

the only other possible risk is that Mack gets paid, & gets fat &/or lazy, which doesn’t seem to be his character.

if Mack is healthy & productive, Bears for a better deal here. Assuming it gets done, they've successfully acquired a top 2 DL, and a generational talent at that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, efactor said:

Will be interesting to see who the player is for sure. 

Mack is just such a great player. I was hoping my Niners would make a move to get him for 2 1sts but Lynch was too slow. Snooze, you lose. 

Same - he woulda looked soooooo so good in Crimson & Gold. :( 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, massraider said:

Any NFL owner can get a 70 mill line of credit to throw in escrow if needed. 

At very friendly rates. An NFL owner is considered a good risk. Come on now.  

The cash thing has been said for years, and Raiders were always spending in free agency. Please.

So why didn’t he? Mark Davis is the one NFL owner I could see a bank rejecting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

I was thinking this too. Losing elite pass rush makes an already suspect secondary that much worse. Though they did just bring in some players. 

Rams aren’t exactly slouches on defense though, ironically that’s in part because they got a deal done with Donald. 

Shootouts might happen, but not a lot of teams find success against the Rams like that. 

Agree.  Never said they will find success lol.  But MNF they are at home.  Vegas line just updated and the game is currently 50 under.  Sharks are predicting high score game.

Game script looks like Rams up two scores.  I can see Carr throw for 320 3 TD 3 int.

Rams 28 Raiders 21

Edited by steelwind
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, massraider said:

Any NFL owner can get a 70 mill line of credit to throw in escrow if needed. 

At very friendly rates. An NFL owner is considered a good risk. Come on now.  

The cash thing has been said for years, and Raiders were always spending in free agency. Please.

And if that line of credit has been extended to finance the move?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My fear after this morning is that Gruden is going to be the second coming of Tom Walsh's second coming. 

"Commitment to Gamble Away Excellence"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 did we really want a disgruntled player on the team anyways? 

 

If getting him to play by forcing him into a corner ...then franchising him for a couple of years ..was the teams only recourse im thinking its better to just walk away from a potentially sour situation and find players who want to play for Gruden...having 2 first rd picks all but Guarantees we find a guy with serious talent next year...whats the talent pool defensively look like coming out of college? And think of trades the Raiders could make with that kind of bait   

Edited by BustedKnuckles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KingPrawn said:

And if that line of credit has been extended to finance the move?

If I were a banker, I’d be questioning Mark Davis’ judgement / competence based on the weirdo page-boy bowl-cut haircut alone.  :shrug:

seriously - what is up with that hair? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

If I were a banker, I’d be questioning Mark Davis’ judgement / competence based on the weirdo page-boy bowl-cut haircut alone.  :shrug:

seriously - what is up with that hair? 

he was a BIG fan of Moe growing up

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BustedKnuckles said:

 did we really want a disgruntled player on the team anyways? 

 

If getting him to play by forcing him into a corner ...then franchising him for a couple of years ..was the teams only recourse im thinking its better to just walk away from a potentially sour situation and find players who want to play for Gruden...having 3 first rd picks all but Guarantees we find a guy with serious talent next year...whats the talent pool defensively look like coming out of college? And think of trades the Raiders could make with that kind of bait   

There’s that spin I love so much. 

He was only gonna be “disgruntled” (if he actually was) because the contract negotiation stalled. 

This was a self-inflicted wound by the Raiders.

There’s zero reports saying Mack was disgruntled.  

See: Aaron Donald for how a competent team keeps their best player. Pretty sure they’re not worried about him being disgruntled. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BustedKnuckles said:

he was a BIG fan of Moe growing up

 

:lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

If I were a banker, I’d be questioning Mark Davis’ judgement / competence based on the weirdo page-boy bowl-cut haircut alone.  :shrug:

seriously - what is up with that hair? 

Meh, not really the day for this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.