Go for Carr hard and save #9 pick?

[Mr. Scot]

8 hours ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Yeah and the Raiders chose McDaniels over Carr.

That should tell you what they think of Carr. Even being a good person and great leader they still gave him the boot. You don't have those weapons Carr had and not make the playoffs.

They literally couldn't afford to fire McDaniels. And again, the Raiders are one of the dumbest teams in the league. Trusting their judgment reinforces that you don't know much.

To be clear, it's all right to not know much about football...until you start acting like you know more than everybody else. That's when you come up looking really stupid.

[ForJimmy]

45 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

If these people--"draft a QB at all costs" looked at the past drafts, they would realize that it's more likely a failed experiment than successful one.  Oh, but "look the 2020 draft!!!" there are outliers in statistics for a reason.  Cue the "things have changed" or  "You have to take a swing" crowd.  No, you play the odds and right now we have a first year staff, very incomplete roster, weak QB draft and a couple of FA QBs that have played in the system that Reich uses.  This is a very simple answer to me.   Take off the QB blinders and see the big picture folks.

Why do you think this is a weak QB class? Dane Brugler (who is pretty on point with his draft player rankings) has 4 QBs in his top 15 this year. I think the “weak class” comment comes up almost every year. If you aren’t getting a QB at 1 or 2, the QB you are drafting will have some questions. Allen, Mahomes, Watson, Jackson, Herbert for example all had questions about being successful in the NFL. You just have to trust the staff to do their job and we actually have a good one now.

[45catfan]

Just now, ForJimmy said:

Why do you think this is a weak QB class? Dane Brugler (who is pretty on point with his draft player rankings) has 4 QBs in his top 15 this year. I think the “weak class” comment comes up almost every year. If you aren’t getting a QB at 1 or 2, the QB you are drafting will have some questions. Allen, Mahomes, Watson, Jackson, Herbert for example all had questions about being successful in the NFL. You just have to trust the staff to do their job and we actually have a good one now.

It is. Take last year's craptasic QB class as the comparison, sure, it looks fantastic.  Stroud and Young are good and AR/Levis are major projects. None are great.  Beyond those Hooker would have been a nice fall back play, but the ACL.  Go beyond that and most of these guys won't even make a NFL roster after cut downs. People are talking themselves into this being a better QB class than it actually is because we NEED one.  I'm willing to bet most of these people on here would not be hyping these guys nearly as hard if we had a solid QB and took a more pragmatic view of these QB prospects.

[top dawg]

36 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

They literally couldn't afford to fire McDaniels. And again, the Raiders are one of the dumbest teams in the league. Trusting their judgment reinforces that you don't know much.

To be clear, it's all right to not know much about football...until you start acting like you know more than everybody else. That's when you come up looking really stupid.

Do you really believe that Mark Davis is broke? I have a hard time believing that they "literally can't afford to fire" McDaniels. That would be unprecedented.

 

Hondo, I love your work, man. I read this week that Mark Davis is not firing Josh McDaniels and Dave Ziegler because he is broke. Is Mark Davis and the Raiders broke? --Thanks, man, Kyle T.

He isn't firing Josh McDaniels and Dave Ziegler because Mark Davis craves stability. Mark Davis understands what McDaniels and Ziegler are doing to make this franchise a sustainable winner. As far as the report of him being broke, according to an NFL source close to Davis: "That is complete bullshit. It is laughable, but I bet it got a lot of clicks."

The source added:, "This isn't the Oakland Raiders, and these are the Las Vegas Raiders. He made a move because he does have plenty of dough now."

https://www.si.com/nfl/raiders/the-black-hole-plus/josh-mcdaniels-dave-ziegler-mark-davis-derek-carr-darren-waller-las-vegas-raiders

Further evidence that that's bullshit.

https://raiderramble.com/2022/11/19/raiders-owner-mark-davis-cash-poor-nfl/

https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/looks_like_espn_panelist_was_wrong_about_mark_davis_being_cash_poor/s1_16460_38154152

https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy.com/sports/las-vegas-raiders/josh-mcdaniels-mark-davis-money-poor/amp/

When it sounds like it doesn't make any sense, it probably doesn't make any sense.

They didn't want Carr because they didn't want Carr. It has nothing and everything to do with McDaniels if you understand what I'm saying.

Edited February 19, 2023 by top dawg

[ForJimmy]

8 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

It is. Take last year's craptasic QB class as the comparison, sure, it looks fantastic.  Stroud and Young are good and AR/Levis are major projects. None are great.  Beyond those Hooker would have been a nice fall back play, but the ACL.  Go beyond that and most of these guys won't even make a NFL roster after cut downs. People are talking themselves into this being a better QB class than it actually is because we NEED one.  I'm willing to bet most of these people on here would not be hyping these guys nearly as hard if we had a solid QB and took a more pragmatic view of these QB prospects.

Do you think many other classes would have more than 2 (Stroud, and Young), that could be week 1 starters? Most draft QBs are projects. Mahomes didn’t start for a while, Herbert wasn’t suppose to, Watson played 7 games, Allen played but looked awful. 

[frankw]

1 hour ago, 45catfan said:

If these people--"draft a QB at all costs" looked at the past drafts, they would realize that it's more likely a failed experiment than successful one. 

I'd have to imagine the odds of striking gold on other teams discarded rejects turned reclamation projects can't be any better just saying. But let's pay Carr a boatload...

[Mr. Scot]

5 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Do you really believe that Mark Davis is broke? I have a hard time believing that they "literally can't afford to fire" McDaniels. That would be unprecedented.

 

Hondo, I love your work, man. I read this week that Mark Davis is not firing Josh McDaniels and Dave Ziegler because he is broke. Is Mark Davis and the Raiders broke? --Thanks, man, Kyle T.

He isn't firing Josh McDaniels and Dave Ziegler because Mark Davis craves stability. Mark Davis understands what McDaniels and Ziegler are doing to make this franchise a sustainable winner. As far as the report of him being broke, according to an NFL source close to Davis: "That is complete bullshit. It is laughable, but I bet it got a lot of clicks."

The source added:, "This isn't the Oakland Raiders, and these are the Las Vegas Raiders. He made a move because he does have plenty of dough now."

https://www.si.com/nfl/raiders/the-black-hole-plus/josh-mcdaniels-dave-ziegler-mark-davis-derek-carr-darren-waller-las-vegas-raiders

Further evidence that that's bullshit.

https://raiderramble.com/2022/11/19/raiders-owner-mark-davis-cash-poor-nfl/

https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/looks_like_espn_panelist_was_wrong_about_mark_davis_being_cash_poor/s1_16460_38154152

https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy.com/sports/las-vegas-raiders/josh-mcdaniels-mark-davis-money-poor/amp/

When it sounds like it doesn't make any sense, it probably doesn't make any sense.

They didn't want Carr because they didn't want Carr. It has nothing and everything to do with McDaniels if you understand what I'm saying.

It was reported by SI, Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times and others.

Granted they can't compete with the credibility of "Hondo" from RaiderMaven.com, but hey

[45catfan]

8 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Do you think many other classes would have more than 2 (Stroud, and Young), that could be week 1 starters? Most draft QBs are projects. Mahomes didn’t start for a while, Herbert wasn’t suppose to, Watson played 7 games, Allen played but looked awful. 

No I don't, but Young is at best somewhere between Tua and Murray and Stroud is a Fields clone.  Is that something I'm willing to give up the farm for?  No. Pull up our roster and tell me how a rookie QB, even if Stroud or Young (not happening) is making this team better?  The pipe dream is Levis and AR not only starting day 1, but also panning out.  Neither of those guys are plug/play and will absolutely bust if forced into action prematurely.

Edited February 19, 2023 by 45catfan

[45catfan]

8 minutes ago, frankw said:

I'd have to imagine the odds of striking gold on other teams discarded rejects turned reclamation projects can't be any better just saying. But let's pay Carr a boatload...

I don't want Carr.

[top dawg]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

It was reported by SI, Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times and others.

Granted they can't compete with the credibility of "Hondo" from RaiderMaven.com, but hey

Oh, now you're suggesting that Hondo doesn't know the Raiders? That's bullshit and you know it. Are you suggesting that Rapp Sheet doesn't know what he's talking about either? Come on, dude. Plaschke got it wrong, and anyone paying attention knows it.

[LinvilleGorge]

On 2/17/2023 at 10:56 PM, TheMaulClaw said:

I totally agree we will get exponentially better with a franchise qb.  I think it just depends on if your really sold on one of the prospects this year.  I like Stroud the most, but deep down I'm a little unsure about all of them this year, but if I had to gamble it would be on Stroud.  I just don't think we have the draft capital to get him without significantly hamstringing this franchise for years to come.  The only way it becomes worth it is if he became a flat out star.

If we were to keep Darnold (Bearded Darnold only), we would have the most flexibility.  Darnold won't inhibit our cap much.  Darnold has improved.  We won't have to pay Carr 30 million dollars a year.  We won't lose our future draft picks. 

Two things can happen with Darnold.  Darnold improves because he is the starter going into mini and training camps.  Darnold will actually have one hell of a coaching staff around him for the first time.  He had Adam Gase and Matt Rhule...poor guy.   Then we win the NFC South with Darnold.

OR

We are back at number 9 next year, because Darnold truly sucks...but this time we are back at number 9 with amazing cap space and we will truly be just a qb away.

We are not just a qb away right now.  We need TE help.  We need another starting linebacker.  We need another receiver.  We need help at corner, I'm not sure if Jackson can return the same player.  We're going to need an opposite edge, and a 1 tech since it appears we're going hybrid 3-4 zone blitz.

 

 

If you want to lose all this fanbase optimism momentum that hiring this staff has created, then stick with Sam Darnold with no legit competition. I just don't see any chance it happens. What happens if you're back at #9 next year? Rumblings that this much hyped staff is a flop. Consternation that we aren't anywhere close to being able to land a Drake Maye or Caleb Williams.

Here's the reality. #9 is always too low to nab the mythological "can't miss QB prospect". You can absolutely land franchise QBs with a borderline top 10 pick but it's gonna be a prospect with warts. Will the warts end up mattering or not? 

[ForJimmy]

1 minute ago, 45catfan said:

No I don't, but Young is at best somewhere between Tua and Murray and Stroud is a Fields clone.  Is that something I'm willing to give up the farm for?  No. Pull up our roster and tell me how a rookie QB, even if Stroud or Young (not happening) is making this team better?  The pipe dream is Levis and AR not only starting day 1, but also panning out.  Neither of those guys are plug/play and will absolutely bust if forced into action prematurely.

Stroud is a Fields clone??? Really? That’s like comparing Tua and Hurts because they played at the same school. They are two completely different players. Stroud can become anywhere from Goff to Burrow (who our new QB coach has already compared him to). You would be better off comparing AR to Fields. 

No Levis and AR aren’t ready to start week 1 unless we just want them to take their lumps like Buffalo did with Allen. That’s actually the norm for rookie QBs. Week 1 starters that look solid are extremely rare. It’s another reason why waiting another year isn’t the best idea. You are typically 2 plus years away from great QB play when you draft one.

[top dawg]

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Here's the reality. #9 is always too low to nab the mythological "can't miss QB prospect". You can absolutely land franchise QBs with a borderline top 10 pick but it's gonna be a prospect with warts. Will the warts end up mattering or not? 

[LinvilleGorge]

14 minutes ago, top dawg said:

/cdn-cgi/mirage/2c732b875a9c937cb45b8f16c1ada27d3c0c9096f3c0e023cb2e326cb3cf3c3c/1280/https://media4.giphy.com/media/uVOlHikaWeY1OC0a7L/200.gif

We know. He had warts too. Didn't win in college. Turnover prone. Played in a gimmicky system that exaggerated stats.

Don't try to pretend in hindsight like he was anything close to a perfect QB prospect.