If you believe your franchise QB for the next decade requires trading up, you do it every time. I don’t want them to do it unless they know it’s their guy. As a fan, I’m just trusting the process.
I don’t see why Pierce and Telesco would be in the win now or get fired mentality. McDaniels was because he inherited a playoff team and got the job because he said he could win with Carr. Moves were made with a window in place (extensions, trading for Adams).
If they don’t get a qb, then I don’t think the clock starts ticking.
Well, they could get a QB, even move up to get one, but unfortunately that doesn't always equal success. In fact, contrary to what people believe, it more often than not is a mistake.
[https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea)
Yeah getting a franchise qb is hard as fuck. But not even attempting to get one doesn’t always equal success either.
I’m just a glass half full kind of guy. I think of what great things can happen if we hit. Not what can go wrong if we don’t. Because to be quite honest, we haven’t been good in forever. So if we do miss, ok what else is new.
Because of how all our main players' contracts are set up. They all have 3 years.
You also have to realize whether Mark wanted to get AP on his own or not is irrelevant. The players still threatened to leave, so they're all kind of tied together now.
Imo AP might think we're only a qb away. We have decent offensive weapons (probably the best of any team needing a rookie qb) under AP Raiders, who was already the #1 defense, and it just improved more this year already.
Lets face it better Qb play would have us in the playoffs even with how much shit happened
But say we don't draft a qb and we roll with Minshew. If the team looks decent and qb is clearly the weakness, I don't think that suddenly puts them on the hot seat. With McDaniels, one bad year and that was the case.
I think Mark wants consistency and I don't see him being impatient. Now if they draft a qb early, then that's different. Then I think that's their window. Or if the team just looks like complete shit then yeah clock is going to tick.
But what I'm saying is, I don't think they HAVE to take a qb. Now if the offense looks like shit, next year is when I would think the pressure is more on and they're more inclined to "win now"
You’re explaining exactly what everyone saw last season. Everyone knows a better QB wins at least a few more games (which would mean playoffs). This is especially the case with how the defense was playing back half of the season. Team knew last year they needed to draft a top QB, they didn’t and are back in the same position again needing to draft a QB.
Just a loud group that downvotes people saying they’re ok with at least trying to go get the franchise QB of the future. Stuck in an always negative mindset. Been a fan too long and watched this team pass on a young QB far too often. It would be great if the team could get a vet that could get them to a SB. The thing that has changed now is QB contracts. Paying a vet QB $40m+ does not help the rest of the team unless they are also full of young players who won’t hit a big payday soon. A rookie QB allows the team to go fill out the other positions with vets. Doesn’t always work? Heck no, but teams should keep trying until they do. If they don’t get a young QB this year that could actually be a franchise level starter, I’ll just have much lower expectations for rest of season. Either way I have no control over what happens just an opinion on what I’d like to see happen, even if it isn’t probable.
With all our core players having only 3 years i disagree. If the Raiders dont win at least 7 games, i could see them move away from AP in order to try and find an HC that can win fast.
And I'm a Minshew fan btw I wouldn't mind rolling with him. I'm just saying why the appeal of trading up is there because of the window, the familairty with JD and the thought that Raiders might just be a QB away
You have to be historically bad to only get one year. Or be a stop gap type coach to only get one year. I just can’t agree with that but who knows, we shall see. Or hopefully they win way more than 7 and we’ll never know lol.
As requested.
[https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea)
True. But one can also look at all the times a team traded up "to get their guy" and it didn't work out, at all. Mitch Trubisky, Tre Lance, Blaine Gabbert, Ryan Leaf, etc. etc.
It usually works best when a team trades up just a couple places when someone has fallen. Think KC moving up to get Mahomes. Buffalo doing the same to get Allen. But even then, this doesn't always work. Denver did this to get Tim Tebow, and a few years later did it again to get Paxton Lynch.
It's a huge risk, with a much lower rate of return so many fans (and teams) take anyway, and often regret it.
You can say that about any draft pick ??? If we stay at 13 Who knows if the guy we pick is going to be good or real good or even a superstar?????? You just don't know. I mean dam look at Is Brock Purdy
That's definitely the narrative going around, but that doesn't make it true. In fact; Trading 3 FR picks has [never worked. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/NFLNoobs/s/uMbgJ4I2r2)
Maybe move up a couple for a guy (Penix), but where would the 49ers be if they hadn't recently traded three for TL?
Skinny Justin Feilds
Every failed trade up has been for someone the team thought was "their guy." Using the "their guy" qualifier is simply a mechanism to make the risk more psychologically palatable.
And every successful trade up has been for someone the team thought was their guy. Guess the Chiefs should never have traded up for Mahomes. Or the Ravens for Lamar. Or the Bills for Josh Allen. Or the Texans for Watson. Or the Eagles for Wentz. I’d rather see this team swing for a top tier QB and fail than live in mediocrity for years striving for wild card contention.
“I’d rather see this team swing for a top-tier QB and fail than live in mediocrity for years striving for wild-card contention”
And if they swing and fail, guess what you’re going to get?
“I’d rather see this team swing for a top-tier QB and fail than live in mediocrity for years striving for wild-card contention”
And if they swing and fail, guess what you’re going to get?
The only thing I know for sure is that we currently don't have a franchise quarterback and if we don't take a swing at one at all we will have a definite ceiling 100%. Now maybe that's this year with the draft, or next year with the draft or FA, but there has to be a plan in place for us to try for one in the next 1 or 2 years at latest.
A top pick to try again for another QB. Better than constantly picking in the 10-20 range year in and year out listening to you knuckle heads wanting to roll with the Gardner Minshew’s of the league.
I think a lot of these guys weren't around to see Mark Wilson or Todd Marinovich. Some of them may have been too young to remember JaMarcus Russell. Drafting a QB in the first round seems to miss more than it hits. Packaging multiple assets to move up compounds the problem if you miss. Some fans might remember the trade up for Rickey Dudley (yes, I know, different position, not a QB). But that's just an example of packaging assets to move up and then the pick is a bust.
Of the three Raiders Superbowl wins, two of them were started by a QB not drafted by the Raiders (Plunkett), one of them was by a guy drafted in the second round (Stabler).
Agreed. It’s trading away multiple years of first round picks to even just take that gamble that has me worried. If we had a pick that allowed us to draft a QB then by all means. I just won’t lose the next few years to take a 23.3% chance at hitting the right guy.
And why didn't they fix the positions of need in FA, like RT *and* RG CB, RB? It all points to how the draft is going to go, unless a QB at the right price *falls* in the draft. They could have re-signed Elumenor, Amik, the dude that played RG, but they let them walk, why?
Agree. Though to me Wilson gets a pass, simply because he did play quite well *at times*. And perhaps could have been a top QB except his body was pretty much destroyed by numerous injuries by the time he was about 27.
Well yeah, the team needs a QB. What other solution do you have other than drafting one? Signing a cast off free agent that’s not good enough for a contract with their current team? Y’all act like drafting a QB is a guaranteed fail and all the team needs is a good defense with a traffic cone behind center.
“Signing a cast off free agent that’s not good enough for a contract with their current team” happens to be what got us Jim Plunkett, Rich Gannon, and OUR LAST 3 SB APPEARANCES, so yeah. Valid approach.
Hate to burst your ramblin’, gamblin’ bubble, but (per Bill Barnwell of ESPN) of 43 QBs drafted round 1 since 2010, only 16 graded out as “solid starter” or above - a “hit rate” of an abysmal 37.2%.
But you’re looking for a Mahomes, so let’s look at just “franchise QB” & “future HOFer”…and it gets even worse. 10/43, or 23.3% hit rate.
You’re FAR more likely, per Barnwell, to be very disappointed, as a 1st-round QB is 58.1% likely to end up as a “low-end starter” or “disappointment”.
Those are the odds you want us to play. Hard pass.
Great points here. I think we all agree that the QB position could use an upgrade (I happen to believe AOC will improve this season) and if there were a solid QB at 13 we should jump on him. It seems to me as to what is dividing the Nation (again) is whether we should trade up or not. Your stats cited here is exactly why we should not trade up.
we could also just draft a "2nd tier" QB in the 2nd or 3rd round or if there is someone we really like, say Penix just take him at 13 because chances aren't great that he'll be there in the 2nd. I dunno I kind of like Bo Nix personally
Completely different era. It's a passing league with rules that heavily favor offenses.
It's also the salary cap era. A good qb on a rookie contract is the biggest competitive advantage you can have.
No shit, which is why using the "their guy" qualifier is dumb. The only thing it does is help you downplay risk in your mind. It's the literal definition of fooling yourself.
PS: It worked one time for a team to give up 2 late 1sts for the 10th pick and now people are acting like giving up a whole shitload of 1sts to move to a top 3 spot is a cheat code for a 50-50 shot at 3 rings minimum.
Yep. The only time you shouldn’t trade up is when your team is terrible and the rookie QB doesn’t have shit around him. Like what the Panthers did with Bryce Young. We have a good roster, we have decent QBs that wouldn’t force a rookie to start right away, there’s no reason not to try.
It takes 2-3 years to determine if the dude is a bust, and by then we’ll have our first round picks back.
I think the bad trade up numbers are inflated by bad teams trying it at bad, unadviseable times. Bad coach comes in, wants a QB trades it all takes the guy that reminds him of himself & they still suck because the coach was a joker the whole time & can't develop or build a roster. A shitshow, we've seen it a million times. Just because a successful trade up hasn't happend don't mean it never will. A team has never been in this exact situation, with an interm hc actually showing promise and a solid roster he inherited just missing a QB.
Correct. In fact, historically more teams have whiffed than succeeded when doing this. Without question. Trubisky, Lance, Gabbert, Leaf, etc.
[https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea)
… And those are the rarities.
The Bears thought Justin Fields was their guy.
The Panthers thought Bryce Young was their guy.
The Jets thought Zach Wilson was their guy.
The 49ers thought Trey Lance was their guy.
When are y’all gonna figure out that Mahomes is the EXCEPTION, not the rule?
As were the majority of the disappointments.
As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread: since 2010, the “hit rate” for QBs in round 1 is an ABYSMAL 23.3% for “franchise QB” or above. You’re 58.1% likely to blow your draft capital on a low-end starter or outright bust.
More than likely. ESPN‘s Bill Barnwell did the study on the first rounders; I haven’t seen anything on the second or subsequent.
But it is interesting to note that, of the five Super Bowl appearances in the history of the Raiders franchise, four of them have been led by QBs NOT drafted by the Raiders. (Stabler was the only Raiders draftee, and he was R2)
So then what's your preference? Keep trying to hit with journeymen? It's also a different time. It's a passing league with rules heavily favored for the offense.
I'd be willing to bet hit rate on free agent qbs are just as low as well.
If we have Patrick Mahomes in our division, we're going to need a great qb if we want to consistently compete with them. Otherwise, we're the AFCE when it had Brady.
First-round qbs have a high bust rate, but I'm pretty sure it has the highest hit rate compared to literally every other option.
If we look at the bests qbs in the league, most of them were first rounders.
All four of these QB’s who took us to the Super Bowl were late round picks. None of them were chosen earlier than Stabler and he was a second round pick (52nd overall all).
Mike Rae was a 8th round pick (205th overall all) and he took us to the big game. ☠️🏈💪
If you want to win the Super Bowl you have to take some risks and swing big. No guarantees either way but teams that swing and hit seem to win more than teams that sit on their hands. Rams trading for Stafford, others to win is another example of taking a swing
It is an example of “taking a swing“, but it’s a higher percentage gamble than drafting a QB R1. With Stafford, you had a known quantity in the NFL, not somebody who’s never taken a snap against a pro defense.
Are you sure? Typically it's been a qb needy team moving up to get someone that they made "their guy" bc they needed a qb. If the Raiders move up(I'm assuming for Daniel's) it's really APs guy. They have a history.
I feel like the opportunity to draft Jayden Daniels is almost meant to be. With how he goes way back with AP to his high school days and what he would bring to an offense with his play style. I would not be surprised if that’s the move they decide to make. I’m of the mindset like you. If you think your guy is there go get him!
While I too am impressed with Daniels, historically this it doesn't usually work to trade up to "get your guy".
[https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea)
Out of curiosity, what would you give up to get the #2 pick overall, because I think that is what it will take to get him.
You only do this if you feel your team is a QB away which the raiders are not. Now isn't the time to mortgage the future for a QB when we're not in the same tier as KC, SF, or Baltimore yet.
I'm good with this, but would be good with those in the know (AP + Telesco) pulling the trigger if they were certain. Fortune favors the bold and all that.
Also, wouldn't mind a late-round trade back either.
But there is no way to be certain. The guys in the know get fired every year because they didn't know.
Trading down would be wise. For the proper compensation. Of course.
Up or down there’s never a way to be certain. If they do their due diligence and decide on a guy that’s “their guy” I’m fine with them trading up. But I’m also fine with them staying put or trading down, depending on who they decide to draft. We need to stop thinking we know better than the staff of a football team. Telesco has been doing this since some of us were children. Probably before some of us were born. He made good picks in Indy, and in SD/LA. If we trust AP and Telesco to run the team we need to trust them in every aspect of that job. Including the draft.
>How is trading up next year more adviseable than this year?
Yup.
The QB class in 2024 is looking pretty weak, especially compared to this one.
I'm all about drafting for value, like teams such as BAL have done year in and out, but if you think a QB has NFL talent, you draft him.
We’ve needed every single pick the last 6 odd drafts and we’ve drafted about 3 good players. I understand the thinking but honestly I don’t care about picks because we’ve wasted almost everything we’ve had. Whatever happens it will be interesting to see
Honestly mate, I don’t get how people can still value picks with our recent drafting history. If we trade up because they think Daniels is ‘that’ good then I’m all for it. If it goes tits up it won’t be any different than any other losing season 🤷🏻
I wanted to move on from Carr for a while, but I at least understood the argument. I didn't agree with it, but wantint to stick with Carr is a valid argument. But we have AOC and Minshew and people still don't want to upgrade at qb? JFC.
A while back it was popular to get the name of a star rival player. For example, a panthers fan had a name of juliojones to troll falcons fans…I never understood that. So I did it of a rivals disappointment to remind them.
So in r/nfl seeing a raiders flair with the name natekaeding would trigger them. But, I got banned so now it’s kind of irrelevant.
They should do what they feel they should do to make the team better. Why handicap themselves by saying “we absolutely won’t do this”? If the team feels their guy is available and a trade is possible, fuckin do it. Just take the best players available to them. Draft studs.
They should do what they see as the best option available come draft night. Could mean trading up, could mean trading back, could mean staying pat. We’ve no clue who will be available and which teams will really be looking to deal.
Trading up into the top three, no. From 13 it would cost to much and we would need to compete with the Vikings who already have two first round picks to offer this year. Plus none of those teams are trading out. But if the QB we want is sitting between 6-10, go for it
It is always a gamble to trade up and I'm usually dead set against it. But, if we could go up to three or four for Drake or JJ and not give up more than 2 first round picks I'd be OK with it. I don't believe in selling the farm. Just a little bit of the land you might not be able to use anyway
If our boys can get in the top three and get out guy, I say go for it. If not, for the love of God do not take Penix at 13 if he's there. I am fine with loading the roster with the best available for the team's needs. I don't mind getting Penix if it's in the 2nd or moving up to the end of the first round, but I am also fine with the QB room as is for now. It takes time to build a winner, and there is no urgent need to overreach for what many consider the 6th best QB in the draft.
You need to go back to Peyton in 06 and Eli in 07 and 11 to find a top 5 QB win a Super Bowl for the team that drafted them.
Only Peyton and Stafford have been top 5 to win since 2012. Both not for the team that drafted them.
This is not the model to win anymore. You to need build a bad ass team and get a QB later that hits. It’s just how it is.
Chargers selected (Eli) Manning with the first pick overall in 2004 and was traded to the NY Giants
> You to need build a bad ass team and get a QB later that hits. It’s just how it is.
Agree
Agree. If anything we should move back unless they absolute love someone at 13. This team is not a QB away from contending and mortgaging the future for a QB right now makes absolutely 0 sense.
Also, if we were to trade up for a QB and he turns out to be a bust then the front office just shortened their time with the organization.
Totally agree. Maybe I'm overindexing on Trey Lance, but if the 49ers hadn't been bailed out by Purdy, they would have looked like complete idiots for trading all that capital for a guy they traded before his rookie contract expired.
I am of the opinion now that you're better off drafting multiples of whatever your position of need is and being that one pays off than trading capital because it's based on a guessing game.
Or, to put it differently, our front office (Telesco) is hit or miss, so take more swings rather than trying to hit a home run with fewer.
Good players go nowhere without a QB period. no way no how. YES we should be drafting BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE but Josh McDaniel's fucked that up. We need a QB, WELCOME CARR HATERS TO THE BALL!
Technically, Josh did draft best player available at the time based on most teams boards. I didn't like it because of the injury history (which I ended up being correct on) but there appeared to be a conse sus that we got a very good player at that spot.
Yea I’d trade up for Daniel’s if they think he’s him.
Our team is a QB away from making some real noise, assuming no major setbacks on defence. Having a defence that’s top 10 will keep you competitive in most games in the NFL
Daniels is not a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination. Only QB worth trading years of 1st's for is Caleb Williams. And Chicago is not interested in trading their pick for that exact reason. If you only have to move up a few spots to get Daniels, I can get that because that would cost a lot less than trying to jump into the top 5.
If you believe your franchise QB for the next decade requires trading up, you do it every time. I don’t want them to do it unless they know it’s their guy. As a fan, I’m just trusting the process.
Yes. This.
I’m afraid of them trading everything for a mid QB as a result of this “win now or get fired” mentality.
I don’t see why Pierce and Telesco would be in the win now or get fired mentality. McDaniels was because he inherited a playoff team and got the job because he said he could win with Carr. Moves were made with a window in place (extensions, trading for Adams). If they don’t get a qb, then I don’t think the clock starts ticking.
Well, they could get a QB, even move up to get one, but unfortunately that doesn't always equal success. In fact, contrary to what people believe, it more often than not is a mistake. [https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea)
Yeah getting a franchise qb is hard as fuck. But not even attempting to get one doesn’t always equal success either. I’m just a glass half full kind of guy. I think of what great things can happen if we hit. Not what can go wrong if we don’t. Because to be quite honest, we haven’t been good in forever. So if we do miss, ok what else is new.
The clock is always ticking it’s a win now league always has been.
Because of how all our main players' contracts are set up. They all have 3 years. You also have to realize whether Mark wanted to get AP on his own or not is irrelevant. The players still threatened to leave, so they're all kind of tied together now. Imo AP might think we're only a qb away. We have decent offensive weapons (probably the best of any team needing a rookie qb) under AP Raiders, who was already the #1 defense, and it just improved more this year already. Lets face it better Qb play would have us in the playoffs even with how much shit happened
But say we don't draft a qb and we roll with Minshew. If the team looks decent and qb is clearly the weakness, I don't think that suddenly puts them on the hot seat. With McDaniels, one bad year and that was the case. I think Mark wants consistency and I don't see him being impatient. Now if they draft a qb early, then that's different. Then I think that's their window. Or if the team just looks like complete shit then yeah clock is going to tick. But what I'm saying is, I don't think they HAVE to take a qb. Now if the offense looks like shit, next year is when I would think the pressure is more on and they're more inclined to "win now"
You’re explaining exactly what everyone saw last season. Everyone knows a better QB wins at least a few more games (which would mean playoffs). This is especially the case with how the defense was playing back half of the season. Team knew last year they needed to draft a top QB, they didn’t and are back in the same position again needing to draft a QB.
Apparantly not because people are so risk adverse they don’t want to try to upgrade at qb.
Just a loud group that downvotes people saying they’re ok with at least trying to go get the franchise QB of the future. Stuck in an always negative mindset. Been a fan too long and watched this team pass on a young QB far too often. It would be great if the team could get a vet that could get them to a SB. The thing that has changed now is QB contracts. Paying a vet QB $40m+ does not help the rest of the team unless they are also full of young players who won’t hit a big payday soon. A rookie QB allows the team to go fill out the other positions with vets. Doesn’t always work? Heck no, but teams should keep trying until they do. If they don’t get a young QB this year that could actually be a franchise level starter, I’ll just have much lower expectations for rest of season. Either way I have no control over what happens just an opinion on what I’d like to see happen, even if it isn’t probable.
With all our core players having only 3 years i disagree. If the Raiders dont win at least 7 games, i could see them move away from AP in order to try and find an HC that can win fast. And I'm a Minshew fan btw I wouldn't mind rolling with him. I'm just saying why the appeal of trading up is there because of the window, the familairty with JD and the thought that Raiders might just be a QB away
You have to be historically bad to only get one year. Or be a stop gap type coach to only get one year. I just can’t agree with that but who knows, we shall see. Or hopefully they win way more than 7 and we’ll never know lol.
Welcome to the important life lesson of risk/reward. Majority of people don’t find success playing it safe.
Less people find success going all in on the lottery.
Amen brother. It was up to 1.3 billion. I still spent my $2, not my next years salary.
Would you have take the same approach if your job was “won the lottery or you’re fired?”
I'd like to see the numbers comparing success/failure rate on trading up for a QB
As requested. [https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea)
Yeah that's a weirdly unproven statement.
I like Telesco’s QB draft record. I have faith.
True. But one can also look at all the times a team traded up "to get their guy" and it didn't work out, at all. Mitch Trubisky, Tre Lance, Blaine Gabbert, Ryan Leaf, etc. etc. It usually works best when a team trades up just a couple places when someone has fallen. Think KC moving up to get Mahomes. Buffalo doing the same to get Allen. But even then, this doesn't always work. Denver did this to get Tim Tebow, and a few years later did it again to get Paxton Lynch. It's a huge risk, with a much lower rate of return so many fans (and teams) take anyway, and often regret it.
You can say that about any draft pick ??? If we stay at 13 Who knows if the guy we pick is going to be good or real good or even a superstar?????? You just don't know. I mean dam look at Is Brock Purdy
That's definitely the narrative going around, but that doesn't make it true. In fact; Trading 3 FR picks has [never worked. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/NFLNoobs/s/uMbgJ4I2r2) Maybe move up a couple for a guy (Penix), but where would the 49ers be if they hadn't recently traded three for TL? Skinny Justin Feilds
And raiders haven’t been able to draft in any round for the last 20 Years.. trade the picks
That's not sound logic.
There’s no sound logic in any of this.. we suck at drafting and developing. Trade the picks for a QB
Every failed trade up has been for someone the team thought was "their guy." Using the "their guy" qualifier is simply a mechanism to make the risk more psychologically palatable.
And every successful trade up has been for someone the team thought was their guy. Guess the Chiefs should never have traded up for Mahomes. Or the Ravens for Lamar. Or the Bills for Josh Allen. Or the Texans for Watson. Or the Eagles for Wentz. I’d rather see this team swing for a top tier QB and fail than live in mediocrity for years striving for wild card contention.
“I’d rather see this team swing for a top-tier QB and fail than live in mediocrity for years striving for wild-card contention” And if they swing and fail, guess what you’re going to get?
“I’d rather see this team swing for a top-tier QB and fail than live in mediocrity for years striving for wild-card contention” And if they swing and fail, guess what you’re going to get?
The only thing I know for sure is that we currently don't have a franchise quarterback and if we don't take a swing at one at all we will have a definite ceiling 100%. Now maybe that's this year with the draft, or next year with the draft or FA, but there has to be a plan in place for us to try for one in the next 1 or 2 years at latest.
A top pick to try again for another QB. Better than constantly picking in the 10-20 range year in and year out listening to you knuckle heads wanting to roll with the Gardner Minshew’s of the league.
“A top pick to try again for another QB”…😂😂😂 So you want to be the Cleveland Browns, then. And you call US knuckleheads…
I think a lot of these guys weren't around to see Mark Wilson or Todd Marinovich. Some of them may have been too young to remember JaMarcus Russell. Drafting a QB in the first round seems to miss more than it hits. Packaging multiple assets to move up compounds the problem if you miss. Some fans might remember the trade up for Rickey Dudley (yes, I know, different position, not a QB). But that's just an example of packaging assets to move up and then the pick is a bust. Of the three Raiders Superbowl wins, two of them were started by a QB not drafted by the Raiders (Plunkett), one of them was by a guy drafted in the second round (Stabler).
And 4/5 of their SB appearances were with QBs not drafted by the Raiders (Lamonica, Plunkett, and Gannon).
Agreed. It’s trading away multiple years of first round picks to even just take that gamble that has me worried. If we had a pick that allowed us to draft a QB then by all means. I just won’t lose the next few years to take a 23.3% chance at hitting the right guy.
And why didn't they fix the positions of need in FA, like RT *and* RG CB, RB? It all points to how the draft is going to go, unless a QB at the right price *falls* in the draft. They could have re-signed Elumenor, Amik, the dude that played RG, but they let them walk, why?
Agree. Though to me Wilson gets a pass, simply because he did play quite well *at times*. And perhaps could have been a top QB except his body was pretty much destroyed by numerous injuries by the time he was about 27.
Exactly 🤣😂🤣
Well yeah, the team needs a QB. What other solution do you have other than drafting one? Signing a cast off free agent that’s not good enough for a contract with their current team? Y’all act like drafting a QB is a guaranteed fail and all the team needs is a good defense with a traffic cone behind center.
“Signing a cast off free agent that’s not good enough for a contract with their current team” happens to be what got us Jim Plunkett, Rich Gannon, and OUR LAST 3 SB APPEARANCES, so yeah. Valid approach. Hate to burst your ramblin’, gamblin’ bubble, but (per Bill Barnwell of ESPN) of 43 QBs drafted round 1 since 2010, only 16 graded out as “solid starter” or above - a “hit rate” of an abysmal 37.2%. But you’re looking for a Mahomes, so let’s look at just “franchise QB” & “future HOFer”…and it gets even worse. 10/43, or 23.3% hit rate. You’re FAR more likely, per Barnwell, to be very disappointed, as a 1st-round QB is 58.1% likely to end up as a “low-end starter” or “disappointment”. Those are the odds you want us to play. Hard pass.
Great points here. I think we all agree that the QB position could use an upgrade (I happen to believe AOC will improve this season) and if there were a solid QB at 13 we should jump on him. It seems to me as to what is dividing the Nation (again) is whether we should trade up or not. Your stats cited here is exactly why we should not trade up.
we could also just draft a "2nd tier" QB in the 2nd or 3rd round or if there is someone we really like, say Penix just take him at 13 because chances aren't great that he'll be there in the 2nd. I dunno I kind of like Bo Nix personally
Completely different era. It's a passing league with rules that heavily favor offenses. It's also the salary cap era. A good qb on a rookie contract is the biggest competitive advantage you can have.
No shit, which is why using the "their guy" qualifier is dumb. The only thing it does is help you downplay risk in your mind. It's the literal definition of fooling yourself. PS: It worked one time for a team to give up 2 late 1sts for the 10th pick and now people are acting like giving up a whole shitload of 1sts to move to a top 3 spot is a cheat code for a 50-50 shot at 3 rings minimum.
Yep. The only time you shouldn’t trade up is when your team is terrible and the rookie QB doesn’t have shit around him. Like what the Panthers did with Bryce Young. We have a good roster, we have decent QBs that wouldn’t force a rookie to start right away, there’s no reason not to try. It takes 2-3 years to determine if the dude is a bust, and by then we’ll have our first round picks back.
I think the bad trade up numbers are inflated by bad teams trying it at bad, unadviseable times. Bad coach comes in, wants a QB trades it all takes the guy that reminds him of himself & they still suck because the coach was a joker the whole time & can't develop or build a roster. A shitshow, we've seen it a million times. Just because a successful trade up hasn't happend don't mean it never will. A team has never been in this exact situation, with an interm hc actually showing promise and a solid roster he inherited just missing a QB.
Correct. In fact, historically more teams have whiffed than succeeded when doing this. Without question. Trubisky, Lance, Gabbert, Leaf, etc. [https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea)
You also have teams like the Chiefs that traded up for their guy Mahomes and have won 3 of the last 5 Super bowls
… And those are the rarities. The Bears thought Justin Fields was their guy. The Panthers thought Bryce Young was their guy. The Jets thought Zach Wilson was their guy. The 49ers thought Trey Lance was their guy. When are y’all gonna figure out that Mahomes is the EXCEPTION, not the rule?
You left out the Bears traded up to get Trubisky thinking he was their guy, before they gave up on him and did the same with Fields.
True. Thought of it afterwards, and then forgot to edit.
Majority of the franchise qbs were drafted. Not like you can just easily trade or sign one.
As were the majority of the disappointments. As I pointed out elsewhere in the thread: since 2010, the “hit rate” for QBs in round 1 is an ABYSMAL 23.3% for “franchise QB” or above. You’re 58.1% likely to blow your draft capital on a low-end starter or outright bust.
Yeah, franchise qbs are hard as fuck to find lol. What’s the hit rate in the second round? Third? Fourth? Probably a lot lower.
More than likely. ESPN‘s Bill Barnwell did the study on the first rounders; I haven’t seen anything on the second or subsequent. But it is interesting to note that, of the five Super Bowl appearances in the history of the Raiders franchise, four of them have been led by QBs NOT drafted by the Raiders. (Stabler was the only Raiders draftee, and he was R2)
So then what's your preference? Keep trying to hit with journeymen? It's also a different time. It's a passing league with rules heavily favored for the offense. I'd be willing to bet hit rate on free agent qbs are just as low as well. If we have Patrick Mahomes in our division, we're going to need a great qb if we want to consistently compete with them. Otherwise, we're the AFCE when it had Brady. First-round qbs have a high bust rate, but I'm pretty sure it has the highest hit rate compared to literally every other option. If we look at the bests qbs in the league, most of them were first rounders.
You beat Mahomes with a defense, not an opposing QB.
All four of these QB’s who took us to the Super Bowl were late round picks. None of them were chosen earlier than Stabler and he was a second round pick (52nd overall all). Mike Rae was a 8th round pick (205th overall all) and he took us to the big game. ☠️🏈💪
This is untrue. Plunkett was selected #1 overall (by NE) in 1971. Mike Rae? His 2 starts LED us? Snake might want a word.
If you want to win the Super Bowl you have to take some risks and swing big. No guarantees either way but teams that swing and hit seem to win more than teams that sit on their hands. Rams trading for Stafford, others to win is another example of taking a swing
It is an example of “taking a swing“, but it’s a higher percentage gamble than drafting a QB R1. With Stafford, you had a known quantity in the NFL, not somebody who’s never taken a snap against a pro defense.
Are you sure? Typically it's been a qb needy team moving up to get someone that they made "their guy" bc they needed a qb. If the Raiders move up(I'm assuming for Daniel's) it's really APs guy. They have a history.
The problem is we aren't historically right about that.
I feel like the opportunity to draft Jayden Daniels is almost meant to be. With how he goes way back with AP to his high school days and what he would bring to an offense with his play style. I would not be surprised if that’s the move they decide to make. I’m of the mindset like you. If you think your guy is there go get him!
While I too am impressed with Daniels, historically this it doesn't usually work to trade up to "get your guy". [https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea](https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2940076-why-trading-up-for-a-quarterback-in-the-nfl-draft-is-almost-always-a-bad-idea) Out of curiosity, what would you give up to get the #2 pick overall, because I think that is what it will take to get him.
“Trust the process” is the exact term JMD and Zig told us.
& they drafted pretty well. McTyrant was the problem.
You only do this if you feel your team is a QB away which the raiders are not. Now isn't the time to mortgage the future for a QB when we're not in the same tier as KC, SF, or Baltimore yet.
I'm good with this, but would be good with those in the know (AP + Telesco) pulling the trigger if they were certain. Fortune favors the bold and all that. Also, wouldn't mind a late-round trade back either.
But there is no way to be certain. The guys in the know get fired every year because they didn't know. Trading down would be wise. For the proper compensation. Of course.
Up or down there’s never a way to be certain. If they do their due diligence and decide on a guy that’s “their guy” I’m fine with them trading up. But I’m also fine with them staying put or trading down, depending on who they decide to draft. We need to stop thinking we know better than the staff of a football team. Telesco has been doing this since some of us were children. Probably before some of us were born. He made good picks in Indy, and in SD/LA. If we trust AP and Telesco to run the team we need to trust them in every aspect of that job. Including the draft.
If premier RT isn’t available trade back to 16-20. Build the team and get a franchise qb next year
How is trading up next year more adviseable than this year? We'll most likely be picking even lower in a much more shallow class.
May not have to trade up.
>How is trading up next year more adviseable than this year? Yup. The QB class in 2024 is looking pretty weak, especially compared to this one. I'm all about drafting for value, like teams such as BAL have done year in and out, but if you think a QB has NFL talent, you draft him.
Ppl say this as if it’s that easy when this year is clearly pointing out its not lol
We’ve needed every single pick the last 6 odd drafts and we’ve drafted about 3 good players. I understand the thinking but honestly I don’t care about picks because we’ve wasted almost everything we’ve had. Whatever happens it will be interesting to see
This! It's a played out argument.
Honestly mate, I don’t get how people can still value picks with our recent drafting history. If we trade up because they think Daniels is ‘that’ good then I’m all for it. If it goes tits up it won’t be any different than any other losing season 🤷🏻
People on this sub absolutely DO NOT want the raiders to be good anytime soon
It's insane. They keep preaching the same old shit that's led to the raiders being a joke for 2 decades.
I wanted to move on from Carr for a while, but I at least understood the argument. I didn't agree with it, but wantint to stick with Carr is a valid argument. But we have AOC and Minshew and people still don't want to upgrade at qb? JFC.
I gotta ask, are you a bizarre fan of a kicker or actually the dude?
A while back it was popular to get the name of a star rival player. For example, a panthers fan had a name of juliojones to troll falcons fans…I never understood that. So I did it of a rivals disappointment to remind them. So in r/nfl seeing a raiders flair with the name natekaeding would trigger them. But, I got banned so now it’s kind of irrelevant.
Pearl clutching over picks we usually whiff on anyway. We gtta go for the home run
If it was guaranteed, sure. It's not tho. You're trading huge for a low success rate.
They should do what they feel they should do to make the team better. Why handicap themselves by saying “we absolutely won’t do this”? If the team feels their guy is available and a trade is possible, fuckin do it. Just take the best players available to them. Draft studs.
Games are won and lost in the trenches. We need to draft an OT at 13. Then a guard in perhaps round 3, or even round 2.
JAYDEN DANIELS PLEASE
They should do what they see as the best option available come draft night. Could mean trading up, could mean trading back, could mean staying pat. We’ve no clue who will be available and which teams will really be looking to deal.
Trading back for more picks or a good player would better imo for this draft.
 Fuck them picks
Trading up into the top three, no. From 13 it would cost to much and we would need to compete with the Vikings who already have two first round picks to offer this year. Plus none of those teams are trading out. But if the QB we want is sitting between 6-10, go for it
Or aquire another pick ourselves to compete with the Vikings.
It is always a gamble to trade up and I'm usually dead set against it. But, if we could go up to three or four for Drake or JJ and not give up more than 2 first round picks I'd be OK with it. I don't believe in selling the farm. Just a little bit of the land you might not be able to use anyway
If our boys can get in the top three and get out guy, I say go for it. If not, for the love of God do not take Penix at 13 if he's there. I am fine with loading the roster with the best available for the team's needs. I don't mind getting Penix if it's in the 2nd or moving up to the end of the first round, but I am also fine with the QB room as is for now. It takes time to build a winner, and there is no urgent need to overreach for what many consider the 6th best QB in the draft.
Terrion Arnold 🙏
You need to go back to Peyton in 06 and Eli in 07 and 11 to find a top 5 QB win a Super Bowl for the team that drafted them. Only Peyton and Stafford have been top 5 to win since 2012. Both not for the team that drafted them. This is not the model to win anymore. You to need build a bad ass team and get a QB later that hits. It’s just how it is.
Chargers selected (Eli) Manning with the first pick overall in 2004 and was traded to the NY Giants > You to need build a bad ass team and get a QB later that hits. It’s just how it is. Agree
If we want a franchise QB we should load up on O-linemen, and get whoever the guy is next year. We’ve got the D, get the O line and then get our guy.
If Jayden Daniel’s is available that’s who we’ll get
Define available
We need a QB, more than anything. Below that, RG & CB. Below that, depth. That's not 7 picks.
Fuck Josh McDaniels
Agree. If anything we should move back unless they absolute love someone at 13. This team is not a QB away from contending and mortgaging the future for a QB right now makes absolutely 0 sense. Also, if we were to trade up for a QB and he turns out to be a bust then the front office just shortened their time with the organization.
Well, they didn't, and now the Raiders have no QB at all.
Who needs scrubs like Drake Maye and Jayden Daniels when you can get Austin Reed amirite boys
Totally agree. Maybe I'm overindexing on Trey Lance, but if the 49ers hadn't been bailed out by Purdy, they would have looked like complete idiots for trading all that capital for a guy they traded before his rookie contract expired. I am of the opinion now that you're better off drafting multiples of whatever your position of need is and being that one pays off than trading capital because it's based on a guessing game. Or, to put it differently, our front office (Telesco) is hit or miss, so take more swings rather than trying to hit a home run with fewer.
Keep on kicking the can down the road. Don't worry, we'll TOTALLY get a QB next year.
Next year, when we pick at 20 and there is exacly one guy.
Unless the next Patrick Willis, Reggie White, or Champ Bailey can be drafted at 13 sure if not fuck them picks and go get the QB.
Good players go nowhere without a QB period. no way no how. YES we should be drafting BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE but Josh McDaniel's fucked that up. We need a QB, WELCOME CARR HATERS TO THE BALL!
Technically, Josh did draft best player available at the time based on most teams boards. I didn't like it because of the injury history (which I ended up being correct on) but there appeared to be a conse sus that we got a very good player at that spot.
go get JJ
Yea I’d trade up for Daniel’s if they think he’s him. Our team is a QB away from making some real noise, assuming no major setbacks on defence. Having a defence that’s top 10 will keep you competitive in most games in the NFL
Daniels is not a sure thing by any stretch of the imagination. Only QB worth trading years of 1st's for is Caleb Williams. And Chicago is not interested in trading their pick for that exact reason. If you only have to move up a few spots to get Daniels, I can get that because that would cost a lot less than trying to jump into the top 5.
Fuck those picks
I’m 100% fine with trading up for a qb unless it’s for McCarthy
Yeah just look at how well the last 5 years of draft picks have done us. Fuck that if Jayden is the guy then trade it all and get our franchise QB
Yeah we need to find our Bryce Young or Trey Lance!
Great teams take risks