Jon Gruden

[Oriole81]

I'm not convinced bottoming out was the plan when he was hired though, I think he's just making this up as he goes. Here's some things that don't add up for me...

*If Oakland wants to bottom out, they can do that for a helluva lot cheaper than paying Gruden $10 million per year for the next few years until they get to Vegas. Reggie McKenize is solid, so Oakland could have just instructed him to start that process and have him execute the Mack trade, and they could have saved a helluva lot of money in the short term. Now granted Gruden is a commodity and if he gives you an opening I get that you need to listen, but to pay the guy $10M each year for the next few years to be the worst team in the league, doesn't seem to be worth it.

*Gruden isn't a Moneyball guy, he's a football guy. I'm sure he didn't come in and pitch the mathematics of tanking and how it can work in an NFL model, and he's the one guy unique enough to be able to pull it off.

*Why sign Jordy Nelson for guaranteed $13M knowing he's not on the Vegas radar? That's just spending alot of good money to make them slightly better, which would be counter productive if the true goal was to bottom out.

*Why trade a 3rd rd pick for Martavis Bryant? If the goal is to win in a few years and not necessarily now, that's a huge price to pay on a long shot. That's a move a team makes that thinks they're close, not a team that is trying to stock pile draft capital.

*Why trade a future 5th for AJ McCarron? If Carr goes down and the goal is to bottom out anyway, then who cares if your backup QB is trash? Mid round picks have alot of value if you're trying to be aggressive and move up, so why burn that like this?

*Why not draft Derwin James like you say you wanted to? I read an article where Gruden said he personally wanted Derwin but they didn't take him because they already had high picks at S in Karl Joseph and Obi Melinfonwu. If you're really drafting to bottom out and plan for the future, then who cares what previous regimes spent picks on, especially when they haven't lived up to their draft position anyway? That obviously means there's either other people here that have influence (meaning this isn't a Gruden masterplan), or they were in fact trying to draft a competitive team at that time.
To pass on a blue chip player for an average OL prospect doesn't add up to a team that is trying to bottom out.

I think Gruden was brought in to take this team that, just a year prior, was 12-4 and one of the most popular up and coming teams, and be able to keep the core intact and be the missing piece needed to put them over the top. I think mgmt asked him when he was interviewing what he could do regarding Mack's contract, and I bet Gruden sold him on his ability to be exuberant and inspiring and get Mack back into the fold like no other new coach could, and that's why they agreed to pay him $100M. Gruden didn't come in selling the value of bottoming out, Oakland could do that already on their own. Gruden came in thinking he could pick up exactly where he left off in my opinion.

I think once Gruden finally got in the door though, he soon realized that he was in over his head regarding what Mack was really about. Now granted he was able to shift and get a fine trade, but I think any GM probably could have gotten a similar trade. I certainly don't think he added so much value in negotiating to make up the salary difference between himself and a replacement level executive.

It may ultimately end up working out, but at least the 76ers were honest and upfront about their tanking from an analytics standpoint. This just seems like somebody that grossly oversold themselves, and is now trying to shift the narrative.

[mlhouse]

I'm not convinced bottoming out was the plan when he was hired though, I think he's just making this up as he goes. Here's some things that don't add up for me...

*If Oakland wants to bottom out, they can do that for a helluva lot cheaper than paying Gruden $10 million per year for the next few years until they get to Vegas. Reggie McKenize is solid, so Oakland could have just instructed him to start that process and have him execute the Mack trade, and they could have saved a helluva lot of money in the short term. Now granted Gruden is a commodity and if he gives you an opening I get that you need to listen, but to pay the guy $10M each year for the next few years to be the worst team in the league, doesn't seem to be worth it.

*Gruden isn't a Moneyball guy, he's a football guy. I'm sure he didn't come in and pitch the mathematics of tanking and how it can work in an NFL model, and he's the one guy unique enough to be able to pull it off.

*Why sign Jordy Nelson for guaranteed $13M knowing he's not on the Vegas radar? That's just spending alot of good money to make them slightly better, which would be counter productive if the true goal was to bottom out.

*Why trade a 3rd rd pick for Martavis Bryant? If the goal is to win in a few years and not necessarily now, that's a huge price to pay on a long shot. That's a move a team makes that thinks they're close, not a team that is trying to stock pile draft capital.

*Why trade a future 5th for AJ McCarron? If Carr goes down and the goal is to bottom out anyway, then who cares if your backup QB is trash? Mid round picks have alot of value if you're trying to be aggressive and move up, so why burn that like this?

*Why not draft Derwin James like you say you wanted to? I read an article where Gruden said he personally wanted Derwin but they didn't take him because they already had high picks at S in Karl Joseph and Obi Melinfonwu. If you're really drafting to bottom out and plan for the future, then who cares what previous regimes spent picks on, especially when they haven't lived up to their draft position anyway? That obviously means there's either other people here that have influence (meaning this isn't a Gruden masterplan), or they were in fact trying to draft a competitive team at that time.
To pass on a blue chip player for an average OL prospect doesn't add up to a team that is trying to bottom out.

I think Gruden was brought in to take this team that, just a year prior, was 12-4 and one of the most popular up and coming teams, and be able to keep the core intact and be the missing piece needed to put them over the top. I think mgmt asked him when he was interviewing what he could do regarding Mack's contract, and I bet Gruden sold him on his ability to be exuberant and inspiring and get Mack back into the fold like no other new coach could, and that's why they agreed to pay him $100M. Gruden didn't come in selling the value of bottoming out, Oakland could do that already on their own. Gruden came in thinking he could pick up exactly where he left off in my opinion.

I think once Gruden finally got in the door though, he soon realized that he was in over his head regarding what Mack was really about. Now granted he was able to shift and get a fine trade, but I think any GM probably could have gotten a similar trade. I certainly don't think he added so much value in negotiating to make up the salary difference between himself and a replacement level executive.

It may ultimately end up working out, but at least the 76ers were honest and upfront about their tanking from an analytics standpoint. This just seems like somebody that grossly oversold themselves, and is now trying to shift the narrative.

I don't necessarily disagree that "tanking" was the original plan. I think tanking became the plan after everything broke down.

So, just to make it clear, if you think trading for Matavius Bryant indicaed they wanted to be competitive, trading Amari Cooper means they no longer do.

[Oriole81]

^^yes, Cooper trade is obviously a sign of bottoming out, and I’ll give him credit for that. That was a great deal.

That’s why I focusing more though on pre regular season moves specifically, since those are the ones that fit my narrative. And that’s why I’m not particularly impressed yet, because I think he was hired to be the missing link and instead is positioning them to be the worst team for years to come. Doesn’t exactly install a lot of confidence in him actually pulling this off

[Thrillkill]

^^yes, Cooper trade is obviously a sign of bottoming out, and I’ll give him credit for that. That was a great deal.

That’s why I focusing more though on pre regular season moves specifically, since those are the ones that fit my narrative. And that’s why I’m not particularly impressed yet, because I think he was hired to be the missing link and instead is positioning them to be the worst team for years to come. Doesn’t exactly install a lot of confidence in him actually pulling this off

Everyone said going in that Davis had no money until he got to Vegas and that he was hiring Gruden on kind of a scam this year to sell tickets. That was the talk during the negotiations with Mack Turns out it's true this year. You can bet that has a lot to do with Gruden getting a 10 year huge deal. Because he was going to have to tear down and start from square 1. And seriously, he doesn't care what Oakland fans think and he'll get a good 3 years in Vegas of sellouts and good will. And the chance to entirely build you own roster? What football fan isn't drooling over that job.

[twgerber]

So, lets say you are the Denver Broncos in 2016. Sure, you just won teh Super Bowl, but Peyton Manning is going to retire. Von Miller needs to be resigned. He is the best defender in pro football. So, you sign the 27 year old to a 6 year, $114 million contract with $70 million of that guaranteed and $42 of that guaranteed at signing.

With Trevor Siemian as your QB you go 9-7 in 2016 with Miller getting 13.5 sacks. In 2017 you have a record of 5-11 with Siemian at QB with MIller getting 10 sacks. And this season after signing Case Keenum to a 2 year, $36 million contract and Miller having a great year so far with 9 sacks in 9 games, your record is 3-6.

It would have been almost impossible to do in the circumstances the Broncos were in 2016. You probably can't break up a team coming off a Super Bowl win without alienating the entire fan base. But then, the Broncos haven't reached hte playoffs since. The head coach of the Super Bowl winning team has been fired. THe team is struggling to win and in dumping DeMaryius Thomas they basically have done a bit of "tanking" themselves.

Now, for arguments sake and using hindsight, lets say that this is the 2018 Raiders are the 2016 Broncos. They aren't coming off a Super Bowl victory. They don't have to worry about alienating their entire fan base because that fan base will be adios in two years. The NFL has remarkably changes since even 2016 so unlike the Broncos they could conceivably answer their longterm QB problems in the upcoming draft. ANd the guy they need to sign is Von Miller who in almost every way is identical to having to sign Mack (age, produciton, etc).

Would you do it? My guess is if you gave the Broncos the chance to change history, go 2-14 in 2016, trade Miller and Thomas for multiple picks, draft Mitchell Trubisky, they would take that deal.

All of which proves diddly squat. You are all conjecture. All we know is that Gruden has destroyed this team this year. I doubt losing Mack will be worth the draft picks. He now needs to have everyone of these extra picks work out. If they bat the average of 50% work out then it's a disaster.

Sorry, but your response is nonsense. All of this is conjecture. Gruden has "destroyed" this team this year, meaning they will win 1 or 2 games instead of 5 or 6, but it is being done for a purpose. Is the purpose valid? I think the logic makes a hell of a lot of sense, particularly when they don't give a flying fig about their existing fan base. This gives them a chance to draft a franchise QB, let him sit behind Carr next season, they then dump Carr with only a $5 million cap hit, have the franchise guy ready to play in the new city and stadium, and they still have a bit of honeymoon to work with in the long term development of the team.

THey could easily have the top pick in the 2019 draft and the 2020 draft, acquired a franchise QB without moving up, have multiples of firsts and seconds for both of those drafts, have another top pick in 2021, and then significant financial flexibility because they did not stick big time contracts on players that will not be as effective in 2021 on. Of that team of 2021, they could have more than half of them being first or 2nd round picks from those three drafts.

Carr is their franchise QB. They aren't drafting a new QB IMO.

It might make sense to some on here but it doesn't to me. In the NFL with a few key cornerstone players a team can rebound in a year. Getting rid of most of the cornerstones puts you into a multi-year rebuild. Not necessary

[Hector]

I haven't seen enough to convince me Gruden is a great ground up guy...glad I'm not a Raider fan.

[Small Hands]

All of which proves diddly squat. You are all conjecture. All we know is that Gruden has destroyed this team this year. I doubt losing Mack will be worth the draft picks. He now needs to have everyone of these extra picks work out. If they bat the average of 50% work out then it's a disaster.

Sorry, but your response is nonsense. All of this is conjecture. Gruden has "destroyed" this team this year, meaning they will win 1 or 2 games instead of 5 or 6, but it is being done for a purpose. Is the purpose valid? I think the logic makes a hell of a lot of sense, particularly when they don't give a flying fig about their existing fan base. This gives them a chance to draft a franchise QB, let him sit behind Carr next season, they then dump Carr with only a $5 million cap hit, have the franchise guy ready to play in the new city and stadium, and they still have a bit of honeymoon to work with in the long term development of the team.

THey could easily have the top pick in the 2019 draft and the 2020 draft, acquired a franchise QB without moving up, have multiples of firsts and seconds for both of those drafts, have another top pick in 2021, and then significant financial flexibility because they did not stick big time contracts on players that will not be as effective in 2021 on. Of that team of 2021, they could have more than half of them being first or 2nd round picks from those three drafts.

Carr is their franchise QB. They aren't drafting a new QB IMO.

It might make sense to some on here but it doesn't to me. In the NFL with a few key cornerstone players a team can rebound in a year. Getting rid of most of the cornerstones puts you into a multi-year rebuild. Not necessary

What cornerstones did they get rid of outside of Mack? Cooper sucks. Stop acting like they gutted the team. They traded two players.

[mlhouse]

All of which proves diddly squat. You are all conjecture. All we know is that Gruden has destroyed this team this year. I doubt losing Mack will be worth the draft picks. He now needs to have everyone of these extra picks work out. If they bat the average of 50% work out then it's a disaster.

Sorry, but your response is nonsense. All of this is conjecture. Gruden has "destroyed" this team this year, meaning they will win 1 or 2 games instead of 5 or 6, but it is being done for a purpose. Is the purpose valid? I think the logic makes a hell of a lot of sense, particularly when they don't give a flying fig about their existing fan base. This gives them a chance to draft a franchise QB, let him sit behind Carr next season, they then dump Carr with only a $5 million cap hit, have the franchise guy ready to play in the new city and stadium, and they still have a bit of honeymoon to work with in the long term development of the team.

THey could easily have the top pick in the 2019 draft and the 2020 draft, acquired a franchise QB without moving up, have multiples of firsts and seconds for both of those drafts, have another top pick in 2021, and then significant financial flexibility because they did not stick big time contracts on players that will not be as effective in 2021 on. Of that team of 2021, they could have more than half of them being first or 2nd round picks from those three drafts.

Carr is their franchise QB. They aren't drafting a new QB IMO.

It might make sense to some on here but it doesn't to me. In the NFL with a few key cornerstone players a team can rebound in a year. Getting rid of most of the cornerstones puts you into a multi-year rebuild. Not necessary

No, I think Gruden deciding that Carr isn't the franchise QB is the reason why they decided to tank. Carr signed a very big contract the year before Gruden became coach so that was outside his decision. But the contract was hugely front loaded. Almost all of the guaranteed money cleared in 2017 and 2018. The cap hit declines from $32.5 million this year to $7.5 million next, and declines $2.5 million per season.

SO, you can see Gruden's plan and how it works around the financial situation of the franchise. YOu draft the QB in 2019 with the top pick. He plays behind Carr that season. Then in 2020 you cut Carr with the $5 million cap hit and in the new city and new stadium and new fans which they hope to use the Raider and Vegas mystique to create a national fan base, the new face of the franchise steps onto the stage.

Because they "tanked" they acquired assets galore to use to put good young players around this guy and on the field for the new franchise. ANd because they didn't spend money to win 3 more meaningless games to get their record to 5-11 or to appease the Oakland home fans, they will have cap room galore to find players at the positions they cannot draft. Right now, in 2020 with David Carr still on the books, the Raiders have $112 million in estimated cap room.

It would be different if they had a 10-6 team that was capable of competing for the playoffs and maybe even beyond. But they don't. THey have a 5 or 6 win team. So while tanking isn't exactly the same in the NFL as it is in the NBA, BECAUSE OF THE VALUE OF QUARTERBACKS IT IS BECOMING SUCH AND UNLIKE THE NBA YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LUCK TO GET THAT TOP PICK.

All of this makes sense to me.

[vikesbumeout]

Gruden preparing for his “Aces High” Vegas Show.

[mlhouse]

Gruden preparing for his “Aces High” Vegas Show.

What will he name his dancers?

[vikesbumeout]

Gruden preparing for his “Aces High” Vegas Show.

What will he name his dancers?

“R” Troupe!

http://ryackdesign.com/wp-content/uploa ... 85x433.jpg

[salamander]

Carr is their franchise QB. They aren't drafting a new QB IMO.

It might make sense to some on here but it doesn't to me. In the NFL with a few key cornerstone players a team can rebound in a year. Getting rid of most of the cornerstones puts you into a multi-year rebuild. Not necessary

What if Carr has a decent year next year and someone offers them two 1st rounders and two 2nd rounders?

[salamander]

I haven't seen enough to convince me Gruden is a great ground up guy...glad I'm not a Raider fan.

I am with you here. I don't know if Gruden can do it. (But I get what he's trying to do and kind of like it for where they are right now)

We'll just have to see if Gruden can build a team from scratch or not.

[mlhouse]

Carr is their franchise QB. They aren't drafting a new QB IMO.

It might make sense to some on here but it doesn't to me. In the NFL with a few key cornerstone players a team can rebound in a year. Getting rid of most of the cornerstones puts you into a multi-year rebuild. Not necessary

What if Carr has a decent year next year and someone offers them two 1st rounders and two 2nd rounders?

I doubt they could get that, but he could have trade value in 2020, even if it has much lower value.

Statistically Carr isn't having a terrible year. He has a 93.4 passer rating, 71.3% completion with 7.6 yards/attempt. That is the same completion percentage and a high yards/attempt than Kirk COusins. But, in the end, the Oakland offense just hasn't worked. While the Vikings have scored 20 or more points in every game but one (the debacle against Buffalo), Oakland has scored 20 or more points just 3 times. Twenty in a loss to Miami, 28 in a loss to Indy, and 45 in their only win against Cleveland. In the last 4 games, they have scored 40 points......

So, Carr might be worth a draft pick and a half to a team missing a franchise guy if he puts two healthy, back to back seasons.

[64DegreeWedge]

Carr is their franchise QB. They aren't drafting a new QB IMO.

It might make sense to some on here but it doesn't to me. In the NFL with a few key cornerstone players a team can rebound in a year. Getting rid of most of the cornerstones puts you into a multi-year rebuild. Not necessary

What if Carr has a decent year next year and someone offers them two 1st rounders and two 2nd rounders?

I doubt they could get that, but he could have trade value in 2020, even if it has much lower value.

Statistically Carr isn't having a terrible year. He has a 93.4 passer rating, 71.3% completion with 7.6 yards/attempt. That is the same completion percentage and a high yards/attempt than Kirk COusins. But, in the end, the Oakland offense just hasn't worked. While the Vikings have scored 20 or more points in every game but one (the debacle against Buffalo), Oakland has scored 20 or more points just 3 times. Twenty in a loss to Miami, 28 in a loss to Indy, and 45 in their only win against Cleveland. In the last 4 games, they have scored 40 points......

So, Carr might be worth a draft pick and a half to a team missing a franchise guy if he puts two healthy, back to back seasons.

This should tell you that these specific stats have a lot of noise and there are better ones to be using.

[IHATEGB]

You noobs who are saying that you wouldn't trade K Mack for 2 first round picks: are you nuts, they get 2 first round picks that they can pay on rookie contracts for 4-5 years, compared to paying Mack and completely give up on paying anybody else for years, along with not having the 2 first round picks.

The Mack trade was just as good for the Raiders as the Cooper trade.

[bubu dubu.]

You noobs who are saying that you wouldn't trade K Mack for 2 first round picks: are you nuts, they get 2 first round picks that they can pay on rookie contracts for 4-5 years, compared to paying Mack and completely give up on paying anybody else for years, along with not having the 2 first round picks.

The Mack trade was just as good for the Raiders as the Cooper trade.

Very unlikely that both first round picks end up near anywhere close to what Mack brings, even combined. Gotta spend cap somewhere, Mack would be a great option to spend cap money on. As we are seeing with the Vikings, signing one player to a huge contract does not make you unable to pay anybody else. Sure, one or two guys might be a casualty, but nothing to deter a team from getting the core signed.

[Oriole81]

You noobs who are saying that you wouldn't trade K Mack for 2 first round picks: are you nuts, they get 2 first round picks that they can pay on rookie contracts for 4-5 years, compared to paying Mack and completely give up on paying anybody else for years, along with not having the 2 first round picks.

The Mack trade was just as good for the Raiders as the Cooper trade.

Very unlikely that both first round picks end up near anywhere close to what Mack brings, even combined. Gotta spend cap somewhere, Mack would be a great option to spend cap money on. As we are seeing with the Vikings, signing one player to a huge contract does not make you unable to pay anybody else. Sure, one or two guys might be a casualty, but nothing to deter a team from getting the core signed.

yeah like where did this idea come from that you can't re-sign Mack while still maintaining cap flexibility. We currently have on the books big contracts for Cousins, Hunter, Griffen, Linval, Diggs, Kendricks, Rhodes, Smith, as well as mini big contracts for Rudolph, Rieff...and we're still talking about giving out potentially long term deals to 2 of Barr, Richardson, Waynes.

you're telling me they can't figure out a way to sign the premier defensive player in the league, even though they have zero expectation of needing to be successful. Heck, structure it so he has a $40M cap hit next year and then sign minimum guys all around to fill out the rest, it's not like you care if you compete, right?

[mlhouse]

What if Carr has a decent year next year and someone offers them two 1st rounders and two 2nd rounders?

I doubt they could get that, but he could have trade value in 2020, even if it has much lower value.

Statistically Carr isn't having a terrible year. He has a 93.4 passer rating, 71.3% completion with 7.6 yards/attempt. That is the same completion percentage and a high yards/attempt than Kirk COusins. But, in the end, the Oakland offense just hasn't worked. While the Vikings have scored 20 or more points in every game but one (the debacle against Buffalo), Oakland has scored 20 or more points just 3 times. Twenty in a loss to Miami, 28 in a loss to Indy, and 45 in their only win against Cleveland. In the last 4 games, they have scored 40 points......

So, Carr might be worth a draft pick and a half to a team missing a franchise guy if he puts two healthy, back to back seasons.

This should tell you that these specific stats have a lot of noise and there are better ones to be using.

Yeah, its pretty clear that this is what I was suggest. For example, using the word "statistically".

[mlhouse]

You noobs who are saying that you wouldn't trade K Mack for 2 first round picks: are you nuts, they get 2 first round picks that they can pay on rookie contracts for 4-5 years, compared to paying Mack and completely give up on paying anybody else for years, along with not having the 2 first round picks.

The Mack trade was just as good for the Raiders as the Cooper trade.

Very unlikely that both first round picks end up near anywhere close to what Mack brings, even combined. Gotta spend cap somewhere, Mack would be a great option to spend cap money on. As we are seeing with the Vikings, signing one player to a huge contract does not make you unable to pay anybody else. Sure, one or two guys might be a casualty, but nothing to deter a team from getting the core signed.

Again, when it isn't your money these are easy things to say and the Vikings and the Raiders are not in the same boat.

Go above and look at the Denver Broncos - Von Miller example which is almost the exact same situation. Since Von Miller signed his big extension, the Broncos went from Super Bowl winners to not making the playoffs (9-7) to a 5-11 record last season, and 3-6 so far this. Miller is having a great season (9 sacks). But 3-6. The Broncos probably had no choice in keeping Miller, but the Raiders are in completely different circumstances.

[Oriole81]

You noobs who are saying that you wouldn't trade K Mack for 2 first round picks: are you nuts, they get 2 first round picks that they can pay on rookie contracts for 4-5 years, compared to paying Mack and completely give up on paying anybody else for years, along with not having the 2 first round picks.

The Mack trade was just as good for the Raiders as the Cooper trade.

Very unlikely that both first round picks end up near anywhere close to what Mack brings, even combined. Gotta spend cap somewhere, Mack would be a great option to spend cap money on. As we are seeing with the Vikings, signing one player to a huge contract does not make you unable to pay anybody else. Sure, one or two guys might be a casualty, but nothing to deter a team from getting the core signed.

Again, when it isn't your money these are easy things to say and the Vikings and the Raiders are not in the same boat.

Go above and look at the Denver Broncos - Von Miller example which is almost the exact same situation. Since Von Miller signed his big extension, the Broncos went from Super Bowl winners to not making the playoffs (9-7) to a 5-11 record last season, and 3-6 so far this. Miller is having a great season (9 sacks). But 3-6. The Broncos probably had no choice in keeping Miller, but the Raiders are in completely different circumstances.

How much different is the Den example if Paxton Lynch becomes a franchise QB? That team is back in the playoffs real quick then, partly because they didn't throw in the towel and let fear dictate whether they re-sign Von Miller or not.

[salamander]

You noobs who are saying that you wouldn't trade K Mack for 2 first round picks: are you nuts, they get 2 first round picks that they can pay on rookie contracts for 4-5 years, compared to paying Mack and completely give up on paying anybody else for years, along with not having the 2 first round picks.

The Mack trade was just as good for the Raiders as the Cooper trade.

2 first round picks for any defensive player is win unless you're in win now mode. I take that if I'm in Gruden's position 100 out of 100 times.
They sold at the peak of Mack's value. Mack will never be this valuable in his career.

[mlhouse]

Very unlikely that both first round picks end up near anywhere close to what Mack brings, even combined. Gotta spend cap somewhere, Mack would be a great option to spend cap money on. As we are seeing with the Vikings, signing one player to a huge contract does not make you unable to pay anybody else. Sure, one or two guys might be a casualty, but nothing to deter a team from getting the core signed.

Again, when it isn't your money these are easy things to say and the Vikings and the Raiders are not in the same boat.

Go above and look at the Denver Broncos - Von Miller example which is almost the exact same situation. Since Von Miller signed his big extension, the Broncos went from Super Bowl winners to not making the playoffs (9-7) to a 5-11 record last season, and 3-6 so far this. Miller is having a great season (9 sacks). But 3-6. The Broncos probably had no choice in keeping Miller, but the Raiders are in completely different circumstances.

How much different is the Den example if Paxton Lynch becomes a franchise QB? That team is back in the playoffs real quick then, partly because they didn't throw in the towel and let fear dictate whether they re-sign Von Miller or not.

1. Paxton Lynch wasn't a franchise QB.

2. Paxton Lynch wasn't even drafted in "franchise QB" level. He was overdrafted as the 26th pick overall although it cost Denver a 3rd round pick to move up from #31 to take him. OF course, the next QB available in the draft was Christian Hackenberg taken 51st.

3. My point about Denver isn't what they did at the time, but rather, if you could use hindsight to go back and make the decision incorporating some of the Raider specific factors. SO, to make the situaiton more apt, consider the Broncos coming off a 6-10 record and not a Super Bowl win, and also moving to a different location with 2 lame duck years in Oakland left? In that situation you don't think the Broncos fans would have wished to tank and have a chance to take Trubisky-Mahomes-Watson along with getting a ton of high draft picks to build around him?

4. One of your problems is you have not adapted to the value of quarterbacks in the modern NFL. They outweigh everything.

[Oriole81]

Again, when it isn't your money these are easy things to say and the Vikings and the Raiders are not in the same boat.

Go above and look at the Denver Broncos - Von Miller example which is almost the exact same situation. Since Von Miller signed his big extension, the Broncos went from Super Bowl winners to not making the playoffs (9-7) to a 5-11 record last season, and 3-6 so far this. Miller is having a great season (9 sacks). But 3-6. The Broncos probably had no choice in keeping Miller, but the Raiders are in completely different circumstances.

How much different is the Den example if Paxton Lynch becomes a franchise QB? That team is back in the playoffs real quick then, partly because they didn't throw in the towel and let fear dictate whether they re-sign Von Miller or not.

1. Paxton Lynch wasn't a franchise QB.

2. Paxton Lynch wasn't even drafted in "franchise QB" level. He was overdrafted as the 26th pick overall although it cost Denver a 3rd round pick to move up from #31 to take him. OF course, the next QB available in the draft was Christian Hackenberg taken 51st.

3. My point about Denver isn't what they did at the time, but rather, if you could use hindsight to go back and make the decision incorporating some of the Raider specific factors. SO, to make the situaiton more apt, consider the Broncos coming off a 6-10 record and not a Super Bowl win, and also moving to a different location with 2 lame duck years in Oakland left? In that situation you don't think the Broncos fans would have wished to tank and have a chance to take Trubisky-Mahomes-Watson along with getting a ton of high draft picks to build around him?

4. One of your problems is you have not adapted to the value of quarterbacks in the modern NFL. They outweigh everything.

Yes that is the range for franchise QBs, SB winners in Rodgers and Flacco both drafted in that range. Drew Brees first pick of 2nd rd. In the last 20 years in fact, Peyton & Eli are the only QBs drafted in the Top 10 to win a SB, so there's more SB winning QBs drafted in the 18-32 range than in the Top 10.
Big Ben drafted at #11 as well makes four outside of the Top 10.
Colin Kaepernick was drafted at 36 and led his team to a SB before he decided he didn't care about being a football player anymore.
Dalton, Carr and Bridgewater have all been to pro bowls and led their team to the playoffs. Most would take Dalton & Carr over Tannehill or Bortles, both Top 10 QBs.
Heck, even Tim Tebow has more playoff wins than Matthew Stafford and Jameis Winston (former #1 overall picks), and Tebow is now playing baseball.

The most popular young QBs in fact are Mahomes and Watson, drafted last year at 10 & 12 respectively as you mentioned. But Den was sitting at 20 last year, it wouldn't have been that hard for them to trade up from 20 to get either of those, while still keeping Von Miller; and a core of Von Miller/Mahomes and whatever else they'd give up is better than the tank equivalent that you're preaching but minus Miller, so no I don't agree that they needed to tank.
Based on where Lynch was drafted he could have been a catalyst equal to Flacco that keeps Den still a contender with their great D, or Den still was in trade up position for Mahomes/Watson last year be cause you don't need a top pick to land your franchise QB...while still keeping Von Miller.

I'm not the guy that's going to say you can find a QB anywhere, but it doesn't have to be in the Top 10, which means you don't have to tank for it like you're saying. If anything, you're overrating the position. You definitely need a QB and you're going to have to find it in the first/early early 2nd, but that alone doesn't even get you close to a championship.

Cleveland had a litany of picks from the Julio trade and not one of them (including multiple 1sts) even made it through their rookie contract. Cleveland tried it again with the Wentz/Watson trade downs and busted on their first two actual picks in Corey Coleman and Shon Coleman, and Jabrill Peppers as another 1st rd pick they got that isn't going to be anything special.
Heck, we had 7 1st rd picks over a 3 yr period recently and only 2 are still on the team. High picks in and of themselves don't equate to SB success.

We're contenders now though because of our success with mid to late round picks, which is where teams actually build true championship chances. Kendricks (2nd), Hunter (3rd), Everson (4th), Diggs (5th), Thielen (UDFA), Linval (2nd rd FA), Elflein (3rd), O'Neill (2nd), Rudolph (2nd) in addition to non elite 1st rd pick hits like Waynes, Rhodes and Smith.
Look at Seattle as well, literally built up from scratch without having any elite picks.
Matt Ryan didn't do anything for Atl as #3 overall pick until they made a 2 yr run of hitting on almost every pick, even though they didn't have any top line picks.
NO turned around their fortunes with an all time great draft last year from outside the Top 10.
NE, Pitt, Balt, all retool regularly without having top level picks.

There's no evidence to support tanking in the NFL. Good GMs are good GMs no matter where they pick, and if you think your GM needs that many high picks in order to grow their team, then your GM probably isn't the right guy to hit on all those picks anyways.
I'm not saying Gruden is or isn't the right guy, but the Kolton Miller selection certainly isn't lending to much confidence at this point in time.

[mlhouse]

How much different is the Den example if Paxton Lynch becomes a franchise QB? That team is back in the playoffs real quick then, partly because they didn't throw in the towel and let fear dictate whether they re-sign Von Miller or not.

1. Paxton Lynch wasn't a franchise QB.

2. Paxton Lynch wasn't even drafted in "franchise QB" level. He was overdrafted as the 26th pick overall although it cost Denver a 3rd round pick to move up from #31 to take him. OF course, the next QB available in the draft was Christian Hackenberg taken 51st.

3. My point about Denver isn't what they did at the time, but rather, if you could use hindsight to go back and make the decision incorporating some of the Raider specific factors. SO, to make the situaiton more apt, consider the Broncos coming off a 6-10 record and not a Super Bowl win, and also moving to a different location with 2 lame duck years in Oakland left? In that situation you don't think the Broncos fans would have wished to tank and have a chance to take Trubisky-Mahomes-Watson along with getting a ton of high draft picks to build around him?

4. One of your problems is you have not adapted to the value of quarterbacks in the modern NFL. They outweigh everything.

Yes that is the range for franchise QBs, SB winners in Rodgers and Flacco both drafted in that range. Drew Brees first pick of 2nd rd. In the last 20 years in fact, Peyton & Eli are the only QBs drafted in the Top 10 to win a SB, so there's more SB winning QBs drafted in the 18-32 range than in the Top 10.
Big Ben drafted at #11 as well makes four outside of the Top 10.
Colin Kaepernick was drafted at 36 and led his team to a SB before he decided he didn't care about being a football player anymore.
Dalton, Carr and Bridgewater have all been to pro bowls and led their team to the playoffs. Most would take Dalton & Carr over Tannehill or Bortles, both Top 10 QBs.
Heck, even Tim Tebow has more playoff wins than Matthew Stafford and Jameis Winston (former #1 overall picks), and Tebow is now playing baseball.

The most popular young QBs in fact are Mahomes and Watson, drafted last year at 10 & 12 respectively as you mentioned. But Den was sitting at 20 last year, it wouldn't have been that hard for them to trade up from 20 to get either of those, while still keeping Von Miller; and a core of Von Miller/Mahomes and whatever else they'd give up is better than the tank equivalent that you're preaching but minus Miller, so no I don't agree that they needed to tank.
Based on where Lynch was drafted he could have been a catalyst equal to Flacco that keeps Den still a contender with their great D, or Den still was in trade up position for Mahomes/Watson last year be cause you don't need a top pick to land your franchise QB...while still keeping Von Miller.

I'm not the guy that's going to say you can find a QB anywhere, but it doesn't have to be in the Top 10, which means you don't have to tank for it like you're saying. If anything, you're overrating the position. You definitely need a QB and you're going to have to find it in the first/early early 2nd, but that alone doesn't even get you close to a championship.

Cleveland had a litany of picks from the Julio trade and not one of them (including multiple 1sts) even made it through their rookie contract. Cleveland tried it again with the Wentz/Watson trade downs and busted on their first two actual picks in Corey Coleman and Shon Coleman, and Jabrill Peppers as another 1st rd pick they got that isn't going to be anything special.
Heck, we had 7 1st rd picks over a 3 yr period recently and only 2 are still on the team. High picks in and of themselves don't equate to SB success.

We're contenders now though because of our success with mid to late round picks, which is where teams actually build true championship chances. Kendricks (2nd), Hunter (3rd), Everson (4th), Diggs (5th), Thielen (UDFA), Linval (2nd rd FA), Elflein (3rd), O'Neill (2nd), Rudolph (2nd) in addition to non elite 1st rd pick hits like Waynes, Rhodes and Smith.
Look at Seattle as well, literally built up from scratch without having any elite picks.
Matt Ryan didn't do anything for Atl as #3 overall pick until they made a 2 yr run of hitting on almost every pick, even though they didn't have any top line picks.
NO turned around their fortunes with an all time great draft last year from outside the Top 10.
NE, Pitt, Balt, all retool regularly without having top level picks.

There's no evidence to support tanking in the NFL. Good GMs are good GMs no matter where they pick, and if you think your GM needs that many high picks in order to grow their team, then your GM probably isn't the right guy to hit on all those picks anyways.
I'm not saying Gruden is or isn't the right guy, but the Kolton Miller selection certainly isn't lending to much confidence at this point in time.

Paxton Lynch was not thought of as a franchise quarterback. He was way overdrafted. Everyone knows this.

There is a lot of evidence to support tanking in the NFL. QUarterbacks are worth way more today than even two years ago, and two years ago moving into position to draft a franchise QB was expensive. Tanking will give the Raiders a pick at the top of the draft to make that selection without being forced to trade away valuable other considerations to move up to get one.

To move from #8 to #2, the Eagles had to give up their 2016 first (8), third(77) and 4th (100) as well as their 2017 first and 2018 2nd.

So, by "tanking" a 5-10 team to a 1-15 team, Gruden not only has gained 3 first round picks in trades, amongst others, he preserves the asset value it would take to move from the 8-12 range in teh draft to the top of the draft. Just looking at the Wentz trade, tanking in the Raiders case and losing 3-5 meaningless games is worth at least 4 first round picks (3 they gained in trade and at least one they would have to trade to move up) as well as assortd other valuable picks.

So, instead of having to utilize their assets to make a trade for a franchise QB, all those vlauabel 3rd-5th round picks you mention, they retain those assets to build a young team around that franchise QB. Sure, all of their picks could be busts, but that is not how GRuden is looking at it.

[Oriole81]

1. Paxton Lynch wasn't a franchise QB.

2. Paxton Lynch wasn't even drafted in "franchise QB" level. He was overdrafted as the 26th pick overall although it cost Denver a 3rd round pick to move up from #31 to take him. OF course, the next QB available in the draft was Christian Hackenberg taken 51st.

3. My point about Denver isn't what they did at the time, but rather, if you could use hindsight to go back and make the decision incorporating some of the Raider specific factors. SO, to make the situaiton more apt, consider the Broncos coming off a 6-10 record and not a Super Bowl win, and also moving to a different location with 2 lame duck years in Oakland left? In that situation you don't think the Broncos fans would have wished to tank and have a chance to take Trubisky-Mahomes-Watson along with getting a ton of high draft picks to build around him?

4. One of your problems is you have not adapted to the value of quarterbacks in the modern NFL. They outweigh everything.

Yes that is the range for franchise QBs, SB winners in Rodgers and Flacco both drafted in that range. Drew Brees first pick of 2nd rd. In the last 20 years in fact, Peyton & Eli are the only QBs drafted in the Top 10 to win a SB, so there's more SB winning QBs drafted in the 18-32 range than in the Top 10.
Big Ben drafted at #11 as well makes four outside of the Top 10.
Colin Kaepernick was drafted at 36 and led his team to a SB before he decided he didn't care about being a football player anymore.
Dalton, Carr and Bridgewater have all been to pro bowls and led their team to the playoffs. Most would take Dalton & Carr over Tannehill or Bortles, both Top 10 QBs.
Heck, even Tim Tebow has more playoff wins than Matthew Stafford and Jameis Winston (former #1 overall picks), and Tebow is now playing baseball.

The most popular young QBs in fact are Mahomes and Watson, drafted last year at 10 & 12 respectively as you mentioned. But Den was sitting at 20 last year, it wouldn't have been that hard for them to trade up from 20 to get either of those, while still keeping Von Miller; and a core of Von Miller/Mahomes and whatever else they'd give up is better than the tank equivalent that you're preaching but minus Miller, so no I don't agree that they needed to tank.
Based on where Lynch was drafted he could have been a catalyst equal to Flacco that keeps Den still a contender with their great D, or Den still was in trade up position for Mahomes/Watson last year be cause you don't need a top pick to land your franchise QB...while still keeping Von Miller.

I'm not the guy that's going to say you can find a QB anywhere, but it doesn't have to be in the Top 10, which means you don't have to tank for it like you're saying. If anything, you're overrating the position. You definitely need a QB and you're going to have to find it in the first/early early 2nd, but that alone doesn't even get you close to a championship.

Cleveland had a litany of picks from the Julio trade and not one of them (including multiple 1sts) even made it through their rookie contract. Cleveland tried it again with the Wentz/Watson trade downs and busted on their first two actual picks in Corey Coleman and Shon Coleman, and Jabrill Peppers as another 1st rd pick they got that isn't going to be anything special.
Heck, we had 7 1st rd picks over a 3 yr period recently and only 2 are still on the team. High picks in and of themselves don't equate to SB success.

We're contenders now though because of our success with mid to late round picks, which is where teams actually build true championship chances. Kendricks (2nd), Hunter (3rd), Everson (4th), Diggs (5th), Thielen (UDFA), Linval (2nd rd FA), Elflein (3rd), O'Neill (2nd), Rudolph (2nd) in addition to non elite 1st rd pick hits like Waynes, Rhodes and Smith.
Look at Seattle as well, literally built up from scratch without having any elite picks.
Matt Ryan didn't do anything for Atl as #3 overall pick until they made a 2 yr run of hitting on almost every pick, even though they didn't have any top line picks.
NO turned around their fortunes with an all time great draft last year from outside the Top 10.
NE, Pitt, Balt, all retool regularly without having top level picks.

There's no evidence to support tanking in the NFL. Good GMs are good GMs no matter where they pick, and if you think your GM needs that many high picks in order to grow their team, then your GM probably isn't the right guy to hit on all those picks anyways.
I'm not saying Gruden is or isn't the right guy, but the Kolton Miller selection certainly isn't lending to much confidence at this point in time.

Paxton Lynch was not thought of as a franchise quarterback. He was way overdrafted. Everyone knows this.

There is a lot of evidence to support tanking in the NFL. QUarterbacks are worth way more today than even two years ago, and two years ago moving into position to draft a franchise QB was expensive. Tanking will give the Raiders a pick at the top of the draft to make that selection without being forced to trade away valuable other considerations to move up to get one.

To move from #8 to #2, the Eagles had to give up their 2016 first (8), third(77) and 4th (100) as well as their 2017 first and 2018 2nd.

So, by "tanking" a 5-10 team to a 1-15 team, Gruden not only has gained 3 first round picks in trades, amongst others, he preserves the asset value it would take to move from the 8-12 range in teh draft to the top of the draft. Just looking at the Wentz trade, tanking in the Raiders case and losing 3-5 meaningless games is worth at least 4 first round picks (3 they gained in trade and at least one they would have to trade to move up) as well as assortd other valuable picks.

So, instead of having to utilize their assets to make a trade for a franchise QB, all those vlauabe 3rd-5th round picks you mention, they retain those assets to build a young team around that franchise QB. Sure, all of their picks could be busts, but that is not how GRuden is looking at it.

I'm not trying to say Paxton Lynch was a can't miss prospect, he's just an example though of the type of QB in that range of the draft that can be groomed and compliment an already existing team to maintain competitiveness. Just like Joe Flacco, Kaepernick, Dalton, Carr have shown to do in that range. If he could have gotten to even that level, plus keeping Von Miller, Den never would have missed a beat.
But in that same vein, just as many top 10 QB prospects bust too, so there's no true "franchise tier" for QBs as you say. Complete busts in the Top 10 recently include Bortles, RG3, Locker, Gabbert, Tannehill, Bradford, Russell, Young, Leinart and Sanchez, as well as underperformers in Winston, Mariotta, Stafford, and even Luck.

QBs are important as you say, but there's no evidence to support that you need the top 1 or 2 picks to get your guy, and there's really no guarantee that even if you tank to get that #1 pick, that the guy you end up with will be the guy to turn your franchise around anyway.

My point was that you don't have to be in the Top 2 to get that franchise QB. That's why I pointed to Big Ben, Mahomes and Watson as guys that went in the 10-12 range. That range is much easier to fall into or more affordable to trade into than the Top 2, which you conveniently tried to gloss over in your post.
*Using last year's Den example, with them having no QB and sitting at #20. Den trading the smaller amount of assets it would take to move up to #10 to get Mahomes, while still keeping Von Miller, is a better team than had Den just tried to tank and trade Von Miller under the franchise tag and get their QB earlier in the draft. So stop throwing out the analytics of having such and such amount of picks and what that means you can do, because Von Miller is worth far more than those picks.

*I also use that 10-12 range because Oak was actually sitting at 10 this year and could have had Josh Rosen for free, or could have easily moved up for Josh Allen if they liked him better. If they didn't see Carr as their future, they had a gifted opportunity to grab their QB of the future now, which historically speaking has just as much as a chance as becoming the best QB in this draft than any of the ones taken before him. They didn't need to tank in order to secure their QB.

And let's say they don't happen to like Allen or Rosen, but what's so great about the QBs available over the next few years anyway? Why are they worth tanking over in the first place? It's certainly not worth moving Khalil Mack and purposely losing in order to luck into the #1 pick spot for Justin freakin Herbert when you could have a guarantee of Josh Rosen this year for free. It is far from a guarantee that Herbert or any QB in next year's draft is going to have a better career than Derek Carr even, so just keep Mack and Carr and continue drafting with your normal picks, and your team is better.
And I like Tua in 2 years, but plenty of people thought the same thing about Locker, Barkley, Leinart, Hackenberg, and Tahj Boyd 2 years before they came out, and we all know how badly those turned out. So don't tank now and move the best defensive player in the league so that you can land a top pick in the draft in 2 years when Tua is going to be available, because nobody knows what's going to happen with him either.

And you said that there's evidence of tanking in the NFL, but you never actually gave any either. I gave multiple examples of recent teams building up from scratch (MN, Sea, Atl, NO) without having access to multiple top picks, and you didn't give any even though you said there was evidence.
I'll do you a courtesy and give some examples of teams that traded away star players and actually hit on the picks...
-KC with Jared Allen converted the picks to pro bowlers Brandon Albert and Jamaal Charles...still didn't get them anywhere near a championship as their defense plateaued.
-MN with Harvin got Xavier Rhodes, still haven't gotten a championship and their offense took a big step back.

You're just wrong here.

[mlhouse]

Yes that is the range for franchise QBs, SB winners in Rodgers and Flacco both drafted in that range. Drew Brees first pick of 2nd rd. In the last 20 years in fact, Peyton & Eli are the only QBs drafted in the Top 10 to win a SB, so there's more SB winning QBs drafted in the 18-32 range than in the Top 10.
Big Ben drafted at #11 as well makes four outside of the Top 10.
Colin Kaepernick was drafted at 36 and led his team to a SB before he decided he didn't care about being a football player anymore.
Dalton, Carr and Bridgewater have all been to pro bowls and led their team to the playoffs. Most would take Dalton & Carr over Tannehill or Bortles, both Top 10 QBs.
Heck, even Tim Tebow has more playoff wins than Matthew Stafford and Jameis Winston (former #1 overall picks), and Tebow is now playing baseball.

The most popular young QBs in fact are Mahomes and Watson, drafted last year at 10 & 12 respectively as you mentioned. But Den was sitting at 20 last year, it wouldn't have been that hard for them to trade up from 20 to get either of those, while still keeping Von Miller; and a core of Von Miller/Mahomes and whatever else they'd give up is better than the tank equivalent that you're preaching but minus Miller, so no I don't agree that they needed to tank.
Based on where Lynch was drafted he could have been a catalyst equal to Flacco that keeps Den still a contender with their great D, or Den still was in trade up position for Mahomes/Watson last year be cause you don't need a top pick to land your franchise QB...while still keeping Von Miller.

I'm not the guy that's going to say you can find a QB anywhere, but it doesn't have to be in the Top 10, which means you don't have to tank for it like you're saying. If anything, you're overrating the position. You definitely need a QB and you're going to have to find it in the first/early early 2nd, but that alone doesn't even get you close to a championship.

Cleveland had a litany of picks from the Julio trade and not one of them (including multiple 1sts) even made it through their rookie contract. Cleveland tried it again with the Wentz/Watson trade downs and busted on their first two actual picks in Corey Coleman and Shon Coleman, and Jabrill Peppers as another 1st rd pick they got that isn't going to be anything special.
Heck, we had 7 1st rd picks over a 3 yr period recently and only 2 are still on the team. High picks in and of themselves don't equate to SB success.

We're contenders now though because of our success with mid to late round picks, which is where teams actually build true championship chances. Kendricks (2nd), Hunter (3rd), Everson (4th), Diggs (5th), Thielen (UDFA), Linval (2nd rd FA), Elflein (3rd), O'Neill (2nd), Rudolph (2nd) in addition to non elite 1st rd pick hits like Waynes, Rhodes and Smith.
Look at Seattle as well, literally built up from scratch without having any elite picks.
Matt Ryan didn't do anything for Atl as #3 overall pick until they made a 2 yr run of hitting on almost every pick, even though they didn't have any top line picks.
NO turned around their fortunes with an all time great draft last year from outside the Top 10.
NE, Pitt, Balt, all retool regularly without having top level picks.

There's no evidence to support tanking in the NFL. Good GMs are good GMs no matter where they pick, and if you think your GM needs that many high picks in order to grow their team, then your GM probably isn't the right guy to hit on all those picks anyways.
I'm not saying Gruden is or isn't the right guy, but the Kolton Miller selection certainly isn't lending to much confidence at this point in time.

Paxton Lynch was not thought of as a franchise quarterback. He was way overdrafted. Everyone knows this.

There is a lot of evidence to support tanking in the NFL. QUarterbacks are worth way more today than even two years ago, and two years ago moving into position to draft a franchise QB was expensive. Tanking will give the Raiders a pick at the top of the draft to make that selection without being forced to trade away valuable other considerations to move up to get one.

To move from #8 to #2, the Eagles had to give up their 2016 first (8), third(77) and 4th (100) as well as their 2017 first and 2018 2nd.

So, by "tanking" a 5-10 team to a 1-15 team, Gruden not only has gained 3 first round picks in trades, amongst others, he preserves the asset value it would take to move from the 8-12 range in teh draft to the top of the draft. Just looking at the Wentz trade, tanking in the Raiders case and losing 3-5 meaningless games is worth at least 4 first round picks (3 they gained in trade and at least one they would have to trade to move up) as well as assortd other valuable picks.

So, instead of having to utilize their assets to make a trade for a franchise QB, all those vlauabe 3rd-5th round picks you mention, they retain those assets to build a young team around that franchise QB. Sure, all of their picks could be busts, but that is not how GRuden is looking at it.

I'm not trying to say Paxton Lynch was a can't miss prospect, he's just an example though of the type of QB in that range of the draft that can be groomed and compliment an already existing team to maintain competitiveness. Just like Joe Flacco, Kaepernick, Dalton, Carr have shown to do in that range. If he could have gotten to even that level, plus keeping Von Miller, Den never would have missed a beat.
But in that same vein, just as many top 10 QB prospects bust too, so there's no true "franchise tier" for QBs as you say. Complete busts in the Top 10 recently include Bortles, RG3, Locker, Gabbert, Tannehill, Bradford, Russell, Young, Leinart and Sanchez, as well as underperformers in Winston, Mariotta, Stafford, and even Luck.

QBs are important as you say, but there's no evidence to support that you need the top 1 or 2 picks to get your guy, and there's really no guarantee that even if you tank to get that #1 pick, that the guy you end up with will be the guy to turn your franchise around anyway.

My point was that you don't have to be in the Top 2 to get that franchise QB. That's why I pointed to Big Ben, Mahomes and Watson as guys that went in the 10-12 range. That range is much easier to fall into or more affordable to trade into than the Top 2, which you conveniently tried to gloss over in your post.
*Using last year's Den example, with them having no QB and sitting at #20. Den trading the smaller amount of assets it would take to move up to #10 to get Mahomes, while still keeping Von Miller, is a better team than had Den just tried to tank and trade Von Miller under the franchise tag and get their QB earlier in the draft. So stop throwing out the analytics of having such and such amount of picks and what that means you can do, because Von Miller is worth far more than those picks.

*I also use that 10-12 range because Oak was actually sitting at 10 this year and could have had Josh Rosen for free, or could have easily moved up for Josh Allen if they liked him better. If they didn't see Carr as their future, they had a gifted opportunity to grab their QB of the future now, which historically speaking has just as much as a chance as becoming the best QB in this draft than any of the ones taken before him. They didn't need to tank in order to secure their QB.

And let's say they don't happen to like Allen or Rosen, but what's so great about the QBs available over the next few years anyway? Why are they worth tanking over in the first place? It's certainly not worth moving Khalil Mack and purposely losing in order to luck into the #1 pick spot for Justin freakin Herbert when you could have a guarantee of Josh Rosen this year for free. It is far from a guarantee that Herbert or any QB in next year's draft is going to have a better career than Derek Carr even, so just keep Mack and Carr and continue drafting with your normal picks, and your team is better.
And I like Tua in 2 years, but plenty of people thought the same thing about Locker, Barkley, Leinart, Hackenberg, and Tahj Boyd 2 years before they came out, and we all know how badly those turned out. So don't tank now and move the best defensive player in the league so that you can land a top pick in the draft in 2 years when Tua is going to be available, because nobody knows what's going to happen with him either.

And you said that there's evidence of tanking in the NFL, but you never actually gave any either. I gave multiple examples of recent teams building up from scratch (MN, Sea, Atl, NO) without having access to multiple top picks, and you didn't give any even though you said there was evidence.
I'll do you a courtesy and give some examples of teams that traded away star players and actually hit on the picks...
-KC with Jared Allen converted the picks to pro bowlers Brandon Albert and Jamaal Charles...still didn't get them anywhere near a championship as their defense plateaued.
-MN with Harvin got Xavier Rhodes, still haven't gotten a championship and their offense took a big step back.

You're just wrong here.

NOt even close to being wrong. One of your biggest issues is that you are completely ignoring the trend that is going to happen. QBs like Watson and Mahomes aren't going to sit there anymore to be grabbed at #10.

And, in addition to not being able to understand drafting QBs going forward, you don't understand the modern NFL. IT IS WORTH MOVING MACK AND TANKING. One reason about this is you completley ignore the facts about the Oakland team. THey aren't tanking from a 10 win team, they are a 5 win team at max that is tanking. The games they are losing are meaningless and they realize they don't have to worry about the value of their current gate because, well, in 2 years they are gone.

So, tanking makes a hell of a lot of sense. They can draft the top QB in the draft, let him play behind Carr for a year, let him develop under Gruden whom they have to consider is still a good developer of QBs, and then make him the face of the new franchise. From 2019 through 2020 they will have 4 additional first round picks to find players to build around this new QB, including the Raiders own 2020 which projects to be a very high pick i the draft. Add in their own draft picks, they will have a ton of good young players on the roster with some "honeymoon" time before the new fans to work out the development.

THey also will have significant financial resources to add in veteran free agents once the team identifies those needs because they will not have locked into big contracts for Mack, Cooper, Bruce Irvin, and many of the other veteran players that have been jettisoned.

While oyu can talk about MN, SEA, ATL, NO, that isn't the Raiders' model. It is the Rams. That blueprint is what they are looking at. Mediocre team with significant losing records despite having Aaron Donald and several other players. While the Rams never "tanked", they instead made a major move up to the top of the 2016 NFL draft (they gave up 2016 first, 2 2016 2nds, 2016 3rd, 2017 first and 2017 3rd) to get Goff. The relocation to LA makes the story even more similar. The Rams had more lead time, drafting players like Donald, Gurley, and others, but the Raiders look to kickstart that with the picks they acquired.

WIll it work? WHo knows. A lot of it, as you stated, depends on the supporting moves they make. Can they find good players in the 3rd and 4th that can contribute. WIll they make good selections with their premium picks. But most importantly, will they hit on the franchise QB they select.

[Tuck ya in]

This situation reminds me of:

MLB: Houston Astros
NBA: 76ers
NHL: ........

It will hurt now, and be great later

[Oriole81]

Paxton Lynch was not thought of as a franchise quarterback. He was way overdrafted. Everyone knows this.

There is a lot of evidence to support tanking in the NFL. QUarterbacks are worth way more today than even two years ago, and two years ago moving into position to draft a franchise QB was expensive. Tanking will give the Raiders a pick at the top of the draft to make that selection without being forced to trade away valuable other considerations to move up to get one.

To move from #8 to #2, the Eagles had to give up their 2016 first (8), third(77) and 4th (100) as well as their 2017 first and 2018 2nd.

So, by "tanking" a 5-10 team to a 1-15 team, Gruden not only has gained 3 first round picks in trades, amongst others, he preserves the asset value it would take to move from the 8-12 range in teh draft to the top of the draft. Just looking at the Wentz trade, tanking in the Raiders case and losing 3-5 meaningless games is worth at least 4 first round picks (3 they gained in trade and at least one they would have to trade to move up) as well as assortd other valuable picks.

So, instead of having to utilize their assets to make a trade for a franchise QB, all those vlauabe 3rd-5th round picks you mention, they retain those assets to build a young team around that franchise QB. Sure, all of their picks could be busts, but that is not how GRuden is looking at it.

I'm not trying to say Paxton Lynch was a can't miss prospect, he's just an example though of the type of QB in that range of the draft that can be groomed and compliment an already existing team to maintain competitiveness. Just like Joe Flacco, Kaepernick, Dalton, Carr have shown to do in that range. If he could have gotten to even that level, plus keeping Von Miller, Den never would have missed a beat.
But in that same vein, just as many top 10 QB prospects bust too, so there's no true "franchise tier" for QBs as you say. Complete busts in the Top 10 recently include Bortles, RG3, Locker, Gabbert, Tannehill, Bradford, Russell, Young, Leinart and Sanchez, as well as underperformers in Winston, Mariotta, Stafford, and even Luck.

QBs are important as you say, but there's no evidence to support that you need the top 1 or 2 picks to get your guy, and there's really no guarantee that even if you tank to get that #1 pick, that the guy you end up with will be the guy to turn your franchise around anyway.

My point was that you don't have to be in the Top 2 to get that franchise QB. That's why I pointed to Big Ben, Mahomes and Watson as guys that went in the 10-12 range. That range is much easier to fall into or more affordable to trade into than the Top 2, which you conveniently tried to gloss over in your post.
*Using last year's Den example, with them having no QB and sitting at #20. Den trading the smaller amount of assets it would take to move up to #10 to get Mahomes, while still keeping Von Miller, is a better team than had Den just tried to tank and trade Von Miller under the franchise tag and get their QB earlier in the draft. So stop throwing out the analytics of having such and such amount of picks and what that means you can do, because Von Miller is worth far more than those picks.

*I also use that 10-12 range because Oak was actually sitting at 10 this year and could have had Josh Rosen for free, or could have easily moved up for Josh Allen if they liked him better. If they didn't see Carr as their future, they had a gifted opportunity to grab their QB of the future now, which historically speaking has just as much as a chance as becoming the best QB in this draft than any of the ones taken before him. They didn't need to tank in order to secure their QB.

And let's say they don't happen to like Allen or Rosen, but what's so great about the QBs available over the next few years anyway? Why are they worth tanking over in the first place? It's certainly not worth moving Khalil Mack and purposely losing in order to luck into the #1 pick spot for Justin freakin Herbert when you could have a guarantee of Josh Rosen this year for free. It is far from a guarantee that Herbert or any QB in next year's draft is going to have a better career than Derek Carr even, so just keep Mack and Carr and continue drafting with your normal picks, and your team is better.
And I like Tua in 2 years, but plenty of people thought the same thing about Locker, Barkley, Leinart, Hackenberg, and Tahj Boyd 2 years before they came out, and we all know how badly those turned out. So don't tank now and move the best defensive player in the league so that you can land a top pick in the draft in 2 years when Tua is going to be available, because nobody knows what's going to happen with him either.

And you said that there's evidence of tanking in the NFL, but you never actually gave any either. I gave multiple examples of recent teams building up from scratch (MN, Sea, Atl, NO) without having access to multiple top picks, and you didn't give any even though you said there was evidence.
I'll do you a courtesy and give some examples of teams that traded away star players and actually hit on the picks...
-KC with Jared Allen converted the picks to pro bowlers Brandon Albert and Jamaal Charles...still didn't get them anywhere near a championship as their defense plateaued.
-MN with Harvin got Xavier Rhodes, still haven't gotten a championship and their offense took a big step back.

You're just wrong here.

NOt even close to being wrong. One of your biggest issues is that you are completely ignoring the trend that is going to happen. QBs like Watson and Mahomes aren't going to sit there anymore to be grabbed at #10.

And, in addition to not being able to understand drafting QBs going forward, you don't understand the modern NFL. IT IS WORTH MOVING MACK AND TANKING. One reason about this is you completley ignore the facts about the Oakland team. THey aren't tanking from a 10 win team, they are a 5 win team at max that is tanking. The games they are losing are meaningless and they realize they don't have to worry about the value of their current gate because, well, in 2 years they are gone.

So, tanking makes a hell of a lot of sense. They can draft the top QB in the draft, let him play behind Carr for a year, let him develop under Gruden whom they have to consider is still a good developer of QBs, and then make him the face of the new franchise. From 2019 through 2020 they will have 4 additional first round picks to find players to build around this new QB, including the Raiders own 2020 which projects to be a very high pick i the draft. Add in their own draft picks, they will have a ton of good young players on the roster with some "honeymoon" time before the new fans to work out the development.

THey also will have significant financial resources to add in veteran free agents once the team identifies those needs because they will not have locked into big contracts for Mack, Cooper, Bruce Irvin, and many of the other veteran players that have been jettisoned.

While oyu can talk about MN, SEA, ATL, NO, that isn't the Raiders' model. It is the Rams. That blueprint is what they are looking at. Mediocre team with significant losing records despite having Aaron Donald and several other players. While the Rams never "tanked", they instead made a major move up to the top of the 2016 NFL draft (they gave up 2016 first, 2 2016 2nds, 2016 3rd, 2017 first and 2017 3rd) to get Goff. The relocation to LA makes the story even more similar. The Rams had more lead time, drafting players like Donald, Gurley, and others, but the Raiders look to kickstart that with the picks they acquired.

WIll it work? WHo knows. A lot of it, as you stated, depends on the supporting moves they make. Can they find good players in the 3rd and 4th that can contribute. WIll they make good selections with their premium picks. But most importantly, will they hit on the franchise QB they select.

"They aren't tanking from a 10 win team, they are a 5 win team at max that is tanking." Oak was 12-4 in 2016, so not sure where you get this statement from.

"In addition to not being able to understand drafting QBs going forward, you don't understand the modern NFL" I'm actually the one that brought up Mahomes and Watson as picks at 10, as well as Allen and Rosen being available at #s 7 and 10 this year. You can't get more modern than that, and I'm the one that brought up how Herbert isn't some can't miss prospect worth tanking over in 2019 anyway. You just keep saying this is "the modern NFL" or "others don't understand QBs" yet you don't provide enough data to actually back that up.

"The Rams model:" The Rams in the RG3 draft moved down again from 6 to 14 and lost out on the chance to draft any of Luke Kuechly, Fletcher Cox, Dontari Poe or Stephon Gilmore, only to land on solid, but unspectacular Michael Brockers.
They missed hard on 2nd rd picks that same year Brian Quick and Isaiagh Pead and even though they hit on Janoris Jenkins in Rd 2, they couldn't afford to keep him.
In 2013 they used some of their add'l draft capital to move up for Tavon Austin, complete bust. They got Alec Ogletree late in the first who was just good enough to get a 2nd contract, but not good enough for the team to want him to stick around through it.
The next year then they blow the 2nd overall pick, the final piece de resistance from RG3, on Greg Robinson.

The example you yourself provided of a model that they're emulating, doesn't support your argument at all. If they didn't get bailed out on the fact that Gurley and Donald became potentially the best offensive and defensive players in the league, then the Rams haul of picks goes down as a Greek tragedy. Why should Oakland be inspired by that, when they could have just kept Khalil Mack anyway?

[mlhouse]

I'm not trying to say Paxton Lynch was a can't miss prospect, he's just an example though of the type of QB in that range of the draft that can be groomed and compliment an already existing team to maintain competitiveness. Just like Joe Flacco, Kaepernick, Dalton, Carr have shown to do in that range. If he could have gotten to even that level, plus keeping Von Miller, Den never would have missed a beat.
But in that same vein, just as many top 10 QB prospects bust too, so there's no true "franchise tier" for QBs as you say. Complete busts in the Top 10 recently include Bortles, RG3, Locker, Gabbert, Tannehill, Bradford, Russell, Young, Leinart and Sanchez, as well as underperformers in Winston, Mariotta, Stafford, and even Luck.

QBs are important as you say, but there's no evidence to support that you need the top 1 or 2 picks to get your guy, and there's really no guarantee that even if you tank to get that #1 pick, that the guy you end up with will be the guy to turn your franchise around anyway.

My point was that you don't have to be in the Top 2 to get that franchise QB. That's why I pointed to Big Ben, Mahomes and Watson as guys that went in the 10-12 range. That range is much easier to fall into or more affordable to trade into than the Top 2, which you conveniently tried to gloss over in your post.
*Using last year's Den example, with them having no QB and sitting at #20. Den trading the smaller amount of assets it would take to move up to #10 to get Mahomes, while still keeping Von Miller, is a better team than had Den just tried to tank and trade Von Miller under the franchise tag and get their QB earlier in the draft. So stop throwing out the analytics of having such and such amount of picks and what that means you can do, because Von Miller is worth far more than those picks.

*I also use that 10-12 range because Oak was actually sitting at 10 this year and could have had Josh Rosen for free, or could have easily moved up for Josh Allen if they liked him better. If they didn't see Carr as their future, they had a gifted opportunity to grab their QB of the future now, which historically speaking has just as much as a chance as becoming the best QB in this draft than any of the ones taken before him. They didn't need to tank in order to secure their QB.

And let's say they don't happen to like Allen or Rosen, but what's so great about the QBs available over the next few years anyway? Why are they worth tanking over in the first place? It's certainly not worth moving Khalil Mack and purposely losing in order to luck into the #1 pick spot for Justin freakin Herbert when you could have a guarantee of Josh Rosen this year for free. It is far from a guarantee that Herbert or any QB in next year's draft is going to have a better career than Derek Carr even, so just keep Mack and Carr and continue drafting with your normal picks, and your team is better.
And I like Tua in 2 years, but plenty of people thought the same thing about Locker, Barkley, Leinart, Hackenberg, and Tahj Boyd 2 years before they came out, and we all know how badly those turned out. So don't tank now and move the best defensive player in the league so that you can land a top pick in the draft in 2 years when Tua is going to be available, because nobody knows what's going to happen with him either.

And you said that there's evidence of tanking in the NFL, but you never actually gave any either. I gave multiple examples of recent teams building up from scratch (MN, Sea, Atl, NO) without having access to multiple top picks, and you didn't give any even though you said there was evidence.
I'll do you a courtesy and give some examples of teams that traded away star players and actually hit on the picks...
-KC with Jared Allen converted the picks to pro bowlers Brandon Albert and Jamaal Charles...still didn't get them anywhere near a championship as their defense plateaued.
-MN with Harvin got Xavier Rhodes, still haven't gotten a championship and their offense took a big step back.

You're just wrong here.

NOt even close to being wrong. One of your biggest issues is that you are completely ignoring the trend that is going to happen. QBs like Watson and Mahomes aren't going to sit there anymore to be grabbed at #10.

And, in addition to not being able to understand drafting QBs going forward, you don't understand the modern NFL. IT IS WORTH MOVING MACK AND TANKING. One reason about this is you completley ignore the facts about the Oakland team. THey aren't tanking from a 10 win team, they are a 5 win team at max that is tanking. The games they are losing are meaningless and they realize they don't have to worry about the value of their current gate because, well, in 2 years they are gone.

So, tanking makes a hell of a lot of sense. They can draft the top QB in the draft, let him play behind Carr for a year, let him develop under Gruden whom they have to consider is still a good developer of QBs, and then make him the face of the new franchise. From 2019 through 2020 they will have 4 additional first round picks to find players to build around this new QB, including the Raiders own 2020 which projects to be a very high pick i the draft. Add in their own draft picks, they will have a ton of good young players on the roster with some "honeymoon" time before the new fans to work out the development.

THey also will have significant financial resources to add in veteran free agents once the team identifies those needs because they will not have locked into big contracts for Mack, Cooper, Bruce Irvin, and many of the other veteran players that have been jettisoned.

While oyu can talk about MN, SEA, ATL, NO, that isn't the Raiders' model. It is the Rams. That blueprint is what they are looking at. Mediocre team with significant losing records despite having Aaron Donald and several other players. While the Rams never "tanked", they instead made a major move up to the top of the 2016 NFL draft (they gave up 2016 first, 2 2016 2nds, 2016 3rd, 2017 first and 2017 3rd) to get Goff. The relocation to LA makes the story even more similar. The Rams had more lead time, drafting players like Donald, Gurley, and others, but the Raiders look to kickstart that with the picks they acquired.

WIll it work? WHo knows. A lot of it, as you stated, depends on the supporting moves they make. Can they find good players in the 3rd and 4th that can contribute. WIll they make good selections with their premium picks. But most importantly, will they hit on the franchise QB they select.

"They aren't tanking from a 10 win team, they are a 5 win team at max that is tanking." Oak was 12-4 in 2016, so not sure where you get this statement from.

"In addition to not being able to understand drafting QBs going forward, you don't understand the modern NFL" I'm actually the one that brought up Mahomes and Watson as picks at 10, as well as Allen and Rosen being available at #s 7 and 10 this year. You can't get more modern than that, and I'm the one that brought up how Herbert isn't some can't miss prospect worth tanking over in 2019 anyway. You just keep saying this is "the modern NFL" or "others don't understand QBs" yet you don't provide enough data to actually back that up.

"The Rams model:" The Rams in the RG3 draft moved down again from 6 to 14 and lost out on the chance to draft any of Luke Kuechly, Fletcher Cox, Dontari Poe or Stephon Gilmore, only to land on solid, but unspectacular Michael Brockers.
They missed hard on 2nd rd picks that same year Brian Quick and Isaiagh Pead and even though they hit on Janoris Jenkins in Rd 2, they couldn't afford to keep him.
In 2013 they used some of their add'l draft capital to move up for Tavon Austin, complete bust. They got Alec Ogletree late in the first who was just good enough to get a 2nd contract, but not good enough for the team to want him to stick around through it.
The next year then they blow the 2nd overall pick, the final piece de resistance from RG3, on Greg Robinson.

The example you yourself provided of a model that they're emulating, doesn't support your argument at all. If they didn't get bailed out on the fact that Gurley and Donald became potentially the best offensive and defensive players in the league, then the Rams haul of picks goes down as a Greek tragedy. Why should Oakland be inspired by that, when they could have just kept Khalil Mack anyway?

1. YOu realize that this is 2018, right? The 2016 record is immaterial. The team was 6-10 last season. That is the baseline. Gruden might have originally thought that they were closer to the 2016 team when he agreed to take the team over, but it is VERY clear he realized they are a 6-10 team at best so he began the rebuild early.

2. "You brought up" like that is unknown? The point is that guys like that arent going ot be available at #10 anymore. NO team is going to risk losing the next Mahomes or Watson.

3. It was brought up in the case of Lynch being the 26th overall..... again not franchise material. It is an overdraft on a guy that is hoped can be an average NFL starter with lots of developmental lead time.

4. What Rams haul of picks? THEY TRADED AWAY A HAUL OF PICKS TO TAKE GOFF. But this created a dominant team. IF Case Keenum/Nick FOles is their QB, they aren't.

5. In the 2015 season the Rams won 3 out of their last 4 games to go 7-9. So to get to the top spot in the draft they had to trade away significant trade value, including their first round pick in 2017 which was the 5th overall pick in the draft because in Goff's rookie season they went 4-12. While that 2015 Rams team had very little tradeable talent, in retrospect wouldn't you agree they would have been WAYYYYYYYYY better off to trade whatever they did have (maybe Chris Long, Rodger Saffold, and even Robert Quinn) and tank the season to get Jared Goff outright ? That was their last year in St. Louis. It was Jeff Fischer's last full season coaching as he was fired duirng the inept, 4-12 2016 season.

If you say yes, that going 7-9 in their lame duck season in St. Louis was worth giving up the draft picks to move up to #1 you are insane.