Unnamed team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick

Rob0729 · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

Deus Irae said:
They could have gotten a first, but they were playing games with all the QBs. They should have been shopping McNabb when there was still an active QB market, instead of playing cute about Vick.

Serously doubt they would get a first whether Vick entered into the equation or not at least not without McNabb being willing to play game in a contract extension. Even then, I doubt they could get a first.

BTW, what QB was signed or traded that is remotely worthy of a starter? The following teams still need a QB starter: The Rams, 49ers, potentially Seahawks (depending on if Hasselbeck has anything left), maybe the Panthers, maybe the Vikings, Broncos, Browns, maybe the Steelers (although not likely), Jags, and Bills.

1.) I don't know, but he's certainly not had more major injuries than Brady in the past few years.

2.) Two words: JaMarcus Russell

McNabb had a far longer and extensive injury history than Brady. Yes, Brady missed the 2008 season, but that was the only season since 2004 where McNabb was able to stay on the field the last five years. Also, Brady is a pure pocket passer and McNabb likes to scramble. Two different QBs.

As for JaMarcus Russell as proof the Raiders would give up the eight pick for McNabb is really not connecting the dots. Yes, the Raiders used a number one pick on a bust like Russell, but he was considered high first round talent (although few thought he was the first overall pick). It wasn't even as bad of a pick as Darrius Heyward-Bey when everyone knew that he clearly wasn't the best WR receiver on the board when they picked. Many people had Russell as the best QB on the board that year.

I still cannot see any team giving up a first for McNabb under most situations

So, given your above comments, you must be opposed to the Patriots re-signing Brady, correct?

How did you jump to this insane conclusion?

First, I think the Eagles are probably better off keeping McNabb than trading him at all. He is probably more valuable to them than the draft pick compensation they will get. But they have wanted to dump him for years for some reason.

Second, Brady is a far different QB and in a different situation than McNabb. He is a pocket passer. That means he is more likely to have a longer career because he doesn't rely on his physical abilities as much as McNabb does. The Pats have never given the indication they ever want to trade him. Also, Brady is far better than McNabb. Brady doesn't have the long injury history that McNabb had.

The Raiders have been in the hopper for years, having not won more than 5 games in a season since they took that beating in the Super Bowl. It's bad enough there that they have to throw ridiculous sums of money at players in order to bring them in and/or keep them. Just by getting to the point of respectability, they can begin to change the perception of the franchise. Moves like the Seymour deal and a McNabb deal would be excellent stepping stones. Other moves, like not drafting stiffs the like of Russell, would be better in the long term, but I don't know how long-term Davis can afford to be thinking at his age.

Good let them get McNabb and get their 7-8 wins and then let them suck for the next ten years for doing so. I really don't care other than it hurts the Pats' draft pick. For a team with so many problems as the Raiders, they need more than 1-2 rent a player veterans who don't want to be there and cost tons in draft picks and franchise tags. They can't tag both Seymour and McNabb in 2011 and I don't see either being willing to sign a long term deal unless Davis breaks the bank.

Rob0729 · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

MoLewisrocks said:
Absent a long term deal for Seymour and a contender, that trade was ridiculous. Same deal with McNabb. Ditto his deal with Nnamdi. And all the other overpays he's wasted seasons on. Not to mention the coaching gafs. Al ain't getting any younger or any smarter probably. You make a play for a top tier player, potentially even an overpay, when you believe it makes you a legit contender. If Al believes anything will make the Raiders one at this juncture, he's not just senile he's delusional.

My biggest question is if the Raiders trade for McNabb, will they have spent a first round pick to get Seymour for two years or a second round pick for McNabb for one. I don't see either guy resigning with the Raiders unless they get money that will make Peppers and Haynesworth or Manning and Rivers look like they got screwed in their contract negotiations. Davis can't franchise both next year and I don't see either one resigning unless Davis gives them so much money that they can just take the money and mail it in on a bad team.

Rob0729 · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

AndyJohnson said:
The story at the time was that the Raiders offered the 2010, but BB wanted the 2011 because he thought it was more valuable, with the idea that it may cost 10mill rather than 50mill when the new rules go into place There was a lot of commentary then about how no one even wanted top 5 picks before the changes.
I havent looked up links either, but that was the story being told. The assumption that a 2010 is more valuable than a 2011 ignores the rule changes that are certainly going to happen.
The Raiders would have been better off trading the 2010 pick especialy when they are capped out on all the other failed high picks.

Actually, it was more speculation than anything else. I think MOLewis posted proof to the contrary on this issue. Michael Lombardi (who has ties to both teams) said it was a second in 2010. In fact, Lombardi, at the time, said that it was the Raiders not the Pats who made it a first in 2011.

Again, here is the quote and the original article from September 7th of last year:

At first, this deal was being framed around a two in 2010, but it moved to a one because the Raiders wanted to keep their draft alive next year.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/12171106

jmt57 · Apr 1, 2010

Triumph said:
Totally disagree.

First off, defense wins championships, that came directly from BBs mouth to Bob Kraft. That leaves 3 positions on the Pats where you would draft and pay a player that high: CB, OLB, DE. A shutdown CB is the key piece to a top defense. A guy that can work alone without Saftey help so you can roll coverage to other parts of the field.

NE had its best defense when Law was here and it allowed NE that flexibility.

If NE does not upgrade the CB position, this year, expect more games where NE cannot hold a lead and Brady has to be involved in a shootout like 2007. A Pass rusher is not going to get to the QB every time and teams will wise up and put whatever players necessary to take that guy out of the equation.

Triumph said:
What good is a pass rush with CBs that cannot cover?

You have Wilhite who doesnt look back for the ball and doesnt even belong on the team. Wheatley who gets hurt putting on his uniform. And, Butler, who you hope can play CB in the NFL. Thus far, he hasnt beat Wilhite out of a job and thats pathetic.

Bodden is mediocre.

Just like a good NT tackle is essential for a stellar run defense a TRUE CB is for a pass defense.

Not these jagoffs NE has been rolling out there like Hobbs and the rest. BUMS.

I follow your line of reasoning, but I still believe that an effective pass rush is more important than Pro Bowl corners to an effective pass defense.

By effective pass rush I don't mean sacks - possibly one of the most overrated stats in all the NFL - I'm referring to pressure on the QB. Make him put the ball down and run a bit, block his passing lanes, hurry him into throwing the ball sooner than he would like, and hit him and knock him down enought times that it starts getting into the back of his mind to get rid of it quick - before the receiver has time to complete his route. For an added bonus the opposition may leave a tight end in to help out with blocking, resulting in one less receiver to cover.

Look at the '07 Giants, for example. They had no-name jags on the corners, but had a great pass defense because of their pass rush. The '07 and '08 Denver Broncos had one of the best corners in the game, Champ Bailey, but were still one of the worst defenses in the NFL those years. As for the example of the Pats with Ty Law, I would conter that the difference is more about the Pats' dropoff in generating pressure on the opposing QB and less about the play of their corners.

In today's NFL with the way pass interference rules are enforced, if a QB is given time his receivers will get open. Sure, there are one or two exceptions like Revis, but those are extreme exceptions. Mediocre and below average quarterbacks can and do have huge days if they get enough time to throw. By contrast even the best quarterbacks end up having below average days with multiple picks when they don't have time to throw.

I'm not saying that the Pats should disregard the CB position entirely, especially in a game where 3-WR formations are so commonly used. I just think improving the pass rush is a much higher priority. On defense the DE and OLB positions are much bigger areas of need to be addressed this offseason by the Pats than CB is.

RobertWeathers · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

condon84 said:
If they do, that would be a spectacular move.

And when I say "spectacular," I mean this type of spectacular:

He must have lost some chicklets and busted a nose with that move. Sheesh.

PatsFanSince74 · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

condon84 said:
If they do, that would be a spectacular move.

And when I say "spectacular," I mean this type of spectacular:

I saw that once and said to myself, "Poor guy, but what kind of person would enjoy watching something like that?"

After watching it another five or six times, I guess I know.

Thanks!

vyrago · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

condon84 said:
It's from a show called "So You Think You Can Dance" from a couple of years ago.

Talk about hard headed.

YouTube - Faceplant of Death

I don't know if I'd say that. After all, we don't see him get up.

eagle eye · Apr 1, 2010

If the Pats move up the draft its for Pierre-Paul.

Deus Irae · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

Rob0729 said:
Serously doubt they would get a first whether Vick entered into the equation or not at least not without McNabb being willing to play game in a contract extension. Even then, I doubt they could get a first.

BTW, what QB was signed or traded that is remotely worthy of a starter? The following teams still need a QB starter: The Rams, 49ers, potentially Seahawks (depending on if Hasselbeck has anything left), maybe the Panthers, maybe the Vikings, Broncos, Browns, maybe the Steelers (although not likely), Jags, and Bills.

Well, we disagree on the worth of an older player. It's not surprising given your recent stances.

Also, the Broncos, Steelers, Panthers, 49ers and Vikings have their QBs, at least moving forward. The Seahawks and Browns are drafting 6 and 7. Bradford will be gone, unless the Rams decide to trade for McNabb and take Suh/McCoy. Detroit and Tampa Bay have their Qbs, and so does Kansas City. That means that only Washington stands between Seattle/Cleveland and one of the top QBs in the draft, so it makes much more sense for them to wait and see how the draft shakes out. If the Rams were to go with Suh, for example, Seattle and Cleveland could then talk trade with Detroit in order to get Bradford. So, other than the Rams, none of the teams on your list make sense as a trading partner. Frankly, I don't think that the Rams make sense, either, but it's been a rumor going around so I'll give it at least a hat tip.

Rob0729 said:
McNabb had a far longer and extensive injury history than Brady. Yes, Brady missed the 2008 season, but that was the only season since 2004 where McNabb was able to stay on the field the last five years. Also, Brady is a pure pocket passer and McNabb likes to scramble. Two different QBs.

McNabb rarely scrambles now, and Brady's been injured in 2007, 2008 and 2009. You seem to be hearkening back to the first few years of the 2000's.

Rob0729 said:
As for JaMarcus Russell as proof the Raiders would give up the eight pick for McNabb is really not connecting the dots. Yes, the Raiders used a number one pick on a bust like Russell, but he was considered high first round talent (although few thought he was the first overall pick). It wasn't even as bad of a pick as Darrius Heyward-Bey when everyone knew that he clearly wasn't the best WR receiver on the board when they picked. Many people had Russell as the best QB on the board that year.

Actually, the point was that a deal was more likely because Russell has sucked so much. And, you've got to be kidding with the "not as bad as..." silliness. Russell, to date, is one of the biggest busts in NFL history. DHB isn't anywhere approaching that Ryan Leaf area where Russell is currently ensconced.

Rob0729 said:
I still cannot see any team giving up a first for McNabb under most situations

Of course you can't.

Rob0729 said:
How did you jump to this insane conclusion?

First, I think the Eagles are probably better off keeping McNabb than trading him at all. He is probably more valuable to them than the draft pick compensation they will get. But they have wanted to dump him for years for some reason.

Second, Brady is a far different QB and in a different situation than McNabb. He is a pocket passer. That means he is more likely to have a longer career because he doesn't rely on his physical abilities as much as McNabb does. The Pats have never given the indication they ever want to trade him. Also, Brady is far better than McNabb. Brady doesn't have the long injury history that McNabb had.

It's not an "insane conclusion" at all, given your post, and the fact that you went red herring on the issue really shows that. You were the one talking about the amount of money to an older, injury prone QB, after all. If it's too much to pay McNabb, it's too much to pay Brady for the same reasons.

Unless you're just spouting off because it's a non-Patriots player, of course.

Rob0729 said:
Good let them get McNabb and get their 7-8 wins and then let them suck for the next ten years for doing so. I really don't care other than it hurts the Pats' draft pick. For a team with so many problems as the Raiders, they need more than 1-2 rent a player veterans who don't want to be there and cost tons in draft picks and franchise tags. They can't tag both Seymour and McNabb in 2011 and I don't see either being willing to sign a long term deal unless Davis breaks the bank.

Seymour and the Raiders are already in contract talks. Grabbing McNabb for the reported offer and trading the #8 for the 2 picks would actually allow the Raiders to recoup the first they gave up for Seymour while fixing their QB situation and still having second round picks in the next two seasons. That's a solid job for any team.

Whether the Raiders can pull off the moves still remains to be seen, but they would make the situation in Oakland much better.

Rob0729 · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

Deus Irae said:
Well, we disagree on the worth of an older player. It's not surprising given your recent stances.

Also, the Broncos, Steelers, Panthers, 49ers and Vikings have their QBs, at least moving forward. The Seahawks and Browns are drafting 6 and 7. Bradford will be gone, unless the Rams decide to trade for McNabb and take Suh/McCoy. Detroit and Tampa Bay have their Qbs, and so does Kansas City. That means that only Washington stands between Seattle/Cleveland and one of the top QBs in the draft, so it makes much more sense for them to wait and see how the draft shakes out. If the Rams were to go with Suh, for example, Seattle and Cleveland could then talk trade with Detroit in order to get Bradford. So, other than the Rams, none of the teams on your list make sense as a trading partner. Frankly, I don't think that the Rams make sense, either, but it's been a rumor going around so I'll give it at least a hat tip.

McNabb rarely scrambles now, and Brady's been injured in 2007, 2008 and 2009. You seem to be hearkening back to the first few years of the 2000's.

Actually, the point was that a deal was more likely because Russell has sucked so much. And, you've got to be kidding with the "not as bad as..." silliness. Russell, to date, is one of the biggest busts in NFL history. DHB isn't anywhere approaching that Ryan Leaf area where Russell is currently ensconced.

Of course you can't.

It's not an "insane conclusion" at all, given your post, and the fact that you went red herring on the issue really shows that. You were the one talking about the amount of money to an older, injury prone QB, after all. If it's too much to pay McNabb, it's too much to pay Brady for the same reasons.

Unless you're just spouting off because it's a non-Patriots player, of course.

Seymour and the Raiders are already in contract talks. Grabbing McNabb for the reported offer and trading the #8 for the 2 picks would actually allow the Raiders to recoup the first they gave up for Seymour while fixing their QB situation and still having second round picks in the next two seasons. That's a solid job for any team.

Whether the Raiders can pull off the moves still remains to be seen, but they would make the situation in Oakland much better.

I am tired of arguing with you. You have basically turned into the trolls you used to hate. You want throw around a bunch of accusations and insults. I don't have time for it anymore.

I will just let you win and be done with you. You can go on and call me and anyone who doesn't agree with you that Al Davis is a better GM than Belichick homers. The Seymour trade has seemed to pushed you over the edge of sanity. I don't need to encourage it.

Marqui · Apr 1, 2010

eagle eye said:
If the Pats move up the draft its for Pierre-Paul.

Yea, the Pats wouldn't be able to pass up Paul and his whole 5 sacks.

PATSYLICIOUS · Apr 1, 2010

If it is us, let's just say this kid better be the next Richard Seymour or Mike Vrabel

spacecrime · Apr 1, 2010

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

Rob0729 said:
I am tired of arguing with you. You have basically turned into the trolls you used to hate. You want throw around a bunch of accusations and insults. I don't have time for it anymore.

I will just let you win and be done with you. You can go on and call me and anyone who doesn't agree with you that Al Davis is a better GM than Belichick homers. The Seymour trade has seemed to pushed you over the edge of sanity. I don't need to encourage it.

This message is hidden because xxxx xxxx is on your ignore list.

Ignore works. Discussion is one thing, but some people simply enjoy being asshats for whatever reason. They don't mean what they say, they don't care except to rile people up and generate as much discontent as they can. Sort of like the old expression about a bull in a china shop. What they don't break they crap on.

Just use ignore.

SHOWTIME15 · Apr 1, 2010

OT: I'm on the colts board right now and they are still making excuses why they lost.

but i think the thing with Pierre-Paul is his potential, right? If this guy can get to the QB in our system then I'm all for it. However, I think I'd much rather have Brandon Graham, Ryan Matthews, Dennis Pitta and Damian Williams.

spacecrime · Apr 1, 2010

PATSYLICIOUS said:
If it is us, let's just say this kid better be the next Richard Seymour or Mike Vrabel

My guess is that over the next five years he will do more for the Pats than Seymour did for the Raiders and would have done for us during the last one year. One year for for five. And the pick will likely be a top ten. Looking forward to it.

MoLewisrocks · Apr 4, 2010

This is why Bill, an economics major from Wesleyn, doesn't make trades up from bottom ten into the top ten in the first round.

Economic View - When a First Choice May Not Be the Best Choice - NYTimes.com

If they fix the first round financially he might still be disinclined to trade two for one, but at least if the money isn't prohibitive it becomes worth consideration. At the end of the day the draft pick value chart has to be reconfigured as well as the compensation structure for first rounders. Otherwise it doesn't really reflect "value" in the truest sense of the word. Rather it reflects a price that is altogether too steep to almost ever result in value.

eom · Apr 4, 2010

I think drafting high is fine if you're getting a high character guy and a unique game changer, but you better get one of those.

Deus Irae · Apr 4, 2010

MoLewisrocks said:
This is why Bill, an economics major from Wesleyn, doesn't make trades up from bottom ten into the top ten in the first round.

Economic View - When a First Choice May Not Be the Best Choice - NYTimes.com

If they fix the first round financially he might still be disinclined to trade two for one, but at least if the money isn't prohibitive it becomes worth consideration. At the end of the day the draft pick value chart has to be reconfigured as well as the compensation structure for first rounders. Otherwise it doesn't really reflect "value" in the truest sense of the word. Rather it reflects a price that is altogether too steep to almost ever result in value.

The problem with the analysis is that it ignores the obvious (unless I missed this in my first reading):

# of QBs taken first overall in the 2000's: 7
# of all other positions taken first overall in the 2000's: 3

That will skew the results.

SCPatBoy · Apr 4, 2010

Re: Unnamed Team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick.

TommyBrady12 said:
If true, it must be to get Jason Pierre Paul or CJ Spiller.

Other possibilities:

Joe Haden
Taylor Mays
Mike Iupati
Rolando McClain
Carlos Dunlap

but in all honesty, the pats could have had the raiders 1st rounder this year for seymour. we could have gotten the raiders pick this year AND kept all 3 second rounders. I think the pats are now afraid the raiders are going to get McNabb and actually be good or at least better than 4-12.

CJ Spiller a less hyped Reggie Bush. I watch him as my best friend is a huge Clemson hugger and thsi guy is soft! Soft! Soft. He is not an every down running back. He is a kick off returer and situational back. Anytime he plays a team who gets soem hits on him, he shuts it down. Fast and elusive, yes, especially when returning kicks , but he is worse then Reggie Bush was between the tackles in College and will be a role player in the NFL. Look further then the measurables he puts up in the 40 etc and the highlight reel plays you see when ESPN talks about him and when you watch him for entire game he dissapears and again isn't a RB in the NFL! Trust me several will be disspointed when we draft a guy lik thsi only to get a couple return TD's a year out of him!

Bradyfan 75 · Apr 5, 2010

TommyBrady12 said:
OT: I'm on the colts board right now and they are still making excuses why they lost.

but i think the thing with Pierre-Paul is his potential, right? If this guy can get to the QB in our system then I'm all for it. However, I think I'd much rather have Brandon Graham, Ryan Matthews, Dennis Pitta and Damian Williams.[

Your on the Colts board are you shocked that they are saying they are still making excuses why they lost. Please see below nuff said!!!

Unnamed team (Pats?) looking to trade for the Raiders #8 overall pick

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Moderator

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Supporter

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

No asterisks

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

On the Game Day Roster

On the Roster

Similar threads