Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 26 of 26
  1. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Murph2432 View Post
    What really worries me about this is that you could draft all 3 guys and if your 2020 prediction is correct. We may still be a bad oline and may still need to draft OT. If Bolles is avg or below again with Munchyk then I believe he is done here if not moved. With James, I am excited to see him take over RT and is prob the best RT we have had in years but he too has been beaten quiet a bit and holds a lot too.

    Hopefully Risner can play T at the next level even though that are projecting him at G.
    I understand your point that draft picks may or may not turn out as projected. However, hopefully, Denver's pro scouts and new OL coach can solidify the OL for once.

    Then next year Fangio can solidify the DL via FA/draft, followed by WR/TE the following year.

    Assuming Flacco works out for the next two to three years.

    Fix the trenches first then work on skilled O players.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    31,559
    Quote Originally Posted by -Rod- View Post
    Unrealistic IMO that Oakland would want to reduce their draft capital from 3 to 2 1st-rd picks while increasing a division rival's from 1 to 2 1st-rd picks. However, in terms of value, it would be a fair deal.

    Pick #10 = 1300 points
    Pick # 24 + #27 = 740 + 680 = 1420 points

    http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

    This difference of 120 points equals a late 3rd-rd pick. Even if teams don't exactly follow Jimmy Johnson's chart anymore, the current value must be close to that.

    The Raiders know the Broncos could rebuild their o-line with this move, so I don't see why they'd do it.
    I agree. One, the draft value is reasonable, but if I'm The Raiders I expect another pick. And if I'm The Raiders, I keep my 3 firsts, and high second, and draft 4 potential starters to fill holes on my team. They need help on D, so they go for a stud pass rusher at 4, and then use their next 3 picks to land a quality CB, perhaps an ILB, maybe another Edge, and an RB. Four good picks makes them a decent team for the future. Selecting at 10 is great, but they have one too many holes to fill.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    hampshire,england
    Posts
    12,504
    Interesting question, I think the value is fair as they are jumping into the top 10 and teams nowadays seem to give up much more to jump up in the draft then when that chart was created.

    Although there are no guarantees in the draft picking at 10 gives up a very highly rated player who could become a difference maker. By pick 24 the likes of Bush / Smith / Oliver / Hockensen / Dillard / Fant + the top QB's will all be long gone. I like Greedy at corner but I seriously doubt he will last either.

    The value at the end of the first is OL, I would be happy if we came away with McCoy and Bradbury, but I would be equally happy if we came away with an outstanding prospect at 10 and then picked up OL in round 2 and 3 or 4. I want 2 OL from our first 4 picks.

    Personally I think it would be better to stay at 10, and if that trade was offered to Oakland they would accept it IMO. With picks 4 and 10 they could come away with 2 studs that would shape their team for years.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DENVER
    Posts
    7,126
    Yes, but not for what you have proposed as I find it unlikely.

    Much more likely, and acceptable, would be Denver trading up for Oakland's #4 overall.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    1,031
    I suppose I should mention that this isnít really meant to be a question of whether or not you think the Raiders would actually pull the trigger on this trade, but for a moment suspend your disbelief. Imagine the draft falls in a particular order where somebody is available at 10 that the Raiders canít believe is still there and want to try and get. As others have mentioned, the Broncos would be gaining a little draft captial if youíre to go by Jimmy Johnsonís old chart. Iím mostly curious to see what people would do with those two picks.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Ear2dastreets View Post
    Nope, and If we did i would NOT use the 1st 3 picks on the oline wow. Worst mock I'd seen in a while imo
    I dont think I've ever agreed with you until now.

    In the event that this would happen I would want the best TE on the board and then trade back again to load up picks for next years draft to get our Qb

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    1,897
    I would never Trade with the Raiders I am a Raider Hater For Life !!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    31,559
    Quote Originally Posted by ChupaThingy View Post
    I suppose I should mention that this isn’t really meant to be a question of whether or not you think the Raiders would actually pull the trigger on this trade, but for a moment suspend your disbelief. Imagine the draft falls in a particular order where somebody is available at 10 that the Raiders can’t believe is still there and want to try and get. As others have mentioned, the Broncos would be gaining a little draft captial if you’re to go by Jimmy Johnson’s old chart. I’m mostly curious to see what people would do with those two picks.
    I get ya! In fact, if not for threads like this, the board can become a little slow at times.

    Don't worry about how some of us respond, if not how you had intended. And thanks for adding some dialogue to the place, whether or not it could happen. It's always good to think, and to assess, and yes, to challenge when need be.

    I have often stated, "here's to the thread starters!" Without a starter, there is no middle or end. Nothing! And sure, I start a load of threads, so this may come off us "boastful". But I see it as a place to converse, whether fact or perhaps fiction. Once a person understands that point, all is good!

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,523
    Quote Originally Posted by DENVERSB50CHAMP View Post
    I would never Trade with the Raiders I am a Raider Hater For Life !!
    well then look at it from this perspective:

    we'd give up a top 10 (save cap space) AND get two 1sts and stop the Raiders from loading up on 1st round talent.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    15,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_C View Post
    well then look at it from this perspective:

    we'd give up a top 10 (save cap space) AND get two 1sts and stop the Raiders from loading up on 1st round talent.
    Depends on whoís still left. The Raiders need a pass rusher(s) and thereís an abundance of them early. If we gave them the 10th pick in a trade they could end up with any combo of Allen, Bosa, Williams, Oliver, Wilkins, Gary, etc. Iíd rather not give them a dynamic duo of pass rushers

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    493
    If we are trying to get the ammunition to get our qb next season (as a trade down from 10 would indicate) this trade makes a lot of sense but I would want 24, 27 and next years 2nd from them

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •