Raiderstation

Discuss…..

raidersince63 wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 9:44 am Instead of trading back and later trading up, why not just stay in the draft order we are at now?

Always an option but rarely do teams stand pat. A bit of movement is the norm and you see a ton of that on day three. If I am the Raiders, I stand pat in the first and the second and if a choice player falls, use the lower round stuff to move back into the third if possible to get that player. But that requires a trade partner and assumes a player is there that we are willing to move up to get.

The whole back and forth is ridiculous. It all depends who is on the board. One of your top 8 guys falls you try and move up. All top 12 on your board gone and its too early for the name currently at the top maybe you move down. A guy you like who is right there on your board at 14 you make the pick. It all depends on how things unfold.

Attyla wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 9:48 am Always an option but rarely do teams stand pat. A bit of movement is the norm and you see a ton of that on day three. If I am the Raiders, I stand pat in the first and the second and if a choice player falls, use the lower round stuff to move back into the third if possible to get that player. But that requires a trade partner and assumes a player is there that we are willing to move up to get.

Moving around in the 1st round is the rarity. I dont think anyone really cares about the later rounds.

Attyla wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 9:48 am Always an option but rarely do teams stand pat. A bit of movement is the norm and you see a ton of that on day three. If I am the Raiders, I stand pat in the first and the second and if a choice player falls, use the lower round stuff to move back into the third if possible to get that player. But that requires a trade partner and assumes a player is there that we are willing to move up to get.

That's fine, as long as trading back doesn't involve our first 3 picks. And since we have so many different needs to fill it would have to be a perfect player with the perfect trade partner for it to happen, but I think that is a long shot
We obviously don't know yet exactly who will still be available after our 2nd round pick but maybe if our deemed "BPA" is there we might try to move back up to the 2nd round in order to get that BPA...also a long shot.

All in all I'd rather keep every pick we already have and take as many shots as possible to help build the roster.

BoKnows81 wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 9:59 am Moving around in the 1st round is the rarity. I dont think anyone really cares about the later rounds.

It certainly is more rare to move around in the first, but once they went to the rookie cap it has increased a lot. I don't think nobody cares in the latter rounds, I think teams just know the value scale of picks per round so once the value goes down, you are more apt to see teams can be more free to move about.

raidersince63 wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 10:04 am That's fine, as long as trading back doesn't involve our first 3 picks. And since we have so many different needs to fill it would have to be a perfect player with the perfect trade partner for it to happen, but I think that is a long shot
We obviously don't know yet exactly who will still be available after our 2nd round pick but maybe if our deemed "BPA" is there we might try to move back up to the 2nd round in order to get that BPA...also a long shot.

Still a lot happening before the draft. It will affect things once we go into the draft and day 2 in particular. I don't see us moving any of our picks on day one and I honestly hope se stand pat with our second pick. I am less concerned with our third but I would not move on it unless we get another good offer.

BoKnows81 wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 9:02 am Trading back in my opinion is not a smart move in the 1st round. Its not always a good thing to have a shit ton of picks. I'd rather have quality over quantity. We have 2 PREMIUM picks now and are almost guaranteed an impact starter at 14. Make the pick there. Quite honestly, I'd rather entertain trading UP, potentially landing one of those top DE/LBs.

Trading up entered my mind as well if they see a dog they want that may likely be gone by 14. Icing on the cake would be leapfrogging in front of KC and grabbing a stud.

It’s not a good idea to trade down in first? Or the top 3 rounds…to get more blue chip draft picks? Since when?

Of course it all depends. If someone doesn’t offer up better or equal value, you tell them to f ck off & make a pick. That goes without saying.

But Raiders need pretty much the whole defensive starters replaced. Chinn is the only for sure solid starter at SS. Porter I love but may need more time to develop. Stokes if resigned is an ok starter. Butler, good rotation piece. You need everything else & depth.

There’s some good DTs that are projected to go in the teens/late round 1. So trading back would absolutely be great to do & get one. If you get good value, which would be next year’s first or, Maybe a 2 this year & next year 2. Just throwing examples out.

DT Banks, DT McDonald, DT McDonald, WR Denzel Boston, DE Mesidor…just to name a few that could be really good late first round picks. Then in possibly a way better draft next year, you have blue chip draft capital ammo.

I’d rather not go WR in the first. But it all depends. Board, players, FA…just throwing some stuff out there

LayneStaley wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 9:13 am Any chance Bain falls with the short arms within striking distance for Raiders to make a move? I don’t care if he’s built like a T-Rex, guy is a beast.

I’m with you. I myself never moved off of Bain. I think he’s the second best prospect in this draft after Mendoza. I mean, short arms do matter but, there’s always exceptions. I think he’s one. He’s just so strong &, has good short area quickness. His strength/moves at times reminds me of Reggie White. Just bullies you sometimes.

I think his stock dropped a bit before the championship game, then went right back up &, don’t think it’s gonna drop. My guess, if he drops, it won’t be past 7.

MexicanHulk wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 10:32 am It’s not a good idea to trade down in first? Or the top 3 rounds…to get more blue chip draft picks? Since when?

Of course it all depends. If someone doesn’t offer up better or equal value, you tell them to f ck off. That goes without saying.

But Raiders need pretty much the whole defense as starters. Chinn is the only for sure solid starter at SS. Porter I love but may need more time to develop. Stokes if resigned is an ok starter. Butler, good rotation piece. You need everything else & depth.

There’s some good DTs that are projected to go in the teens/late round 1. So trading back would absolutely be great to do & get one. If you get good value, which would be next year’s first. Maybe a 2 this year & next year 2. Just throwing examples out.

DT Banks, DT McDonald, DT McDonald, WR Denzel Boston, DE Mesidor…just to name a few that could be really good late first round picks. Then in possibly a way better draft next year, you have blue chip draft capital ammo.

I’d rather not go WR in the first. But it all depends. Board, players, FA…just throwing some stuff out there

Again, while I prefer to take a guy at 14 which will be a day one starter, I see teams move around in the first all the time. It does require value for the pick. I am not entertaining the notion of moving down simply because we are going to get a starter at 14. That is the goal. If we move down, we reduce the chance of a starter. That is just what happens the deeper you go into a draft. That is not to say we can't get a blow our socks off trade offer, or equally possible we don't get a trade offer at all. I will maintain this draft is not a great one to move down in the first. The top end has a lot of nice pieces. But the same pieces in the lower half of the first are also player types you can get in the second. I want the nice pieces and then go after the complementary pieces in the second and third. But the nice piece is one you are almost certainly going to get at 14

I have no problems with trading down if the right value is there and the position you want most is not BPA. Personally I'm not a big fan of WR in the first in general, so I'd happily trade down if there's a WR there that other teams really want to trade up for and if there isn't a guy available who's a slam dunk for us.

It's sort of like the "should you trade Maxx" saga. It depends on value and circumstance. In the end, getting #14 this year and a first next year is a great result. Thusfar Spytek without Carroll seems like a win.

Attyla wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 10:39 am Again, while I prefer to take a guy at 14 which will be a day one starter, I see teams move around in the first all the time. It does require value for the pick. I am not entertaining the notion of moving down simply because we are going to get a starter at 14. That is the goal. If we move down, we reduce the chance of a starter. That is just what happens the deeper you go into a draft. That is not to say we can't get a blow our socks off trade offer, or equally possible we don't get a trade offer at all. I will maintain this draft is not a great one to move down in the first. The top end has a lot of nice pieces. But the same pieces in the lower half of the first are also player types you can get in the second. I want the nice pieces and then go after the complementary pieces in the second and third. But the nice piece is one you are almost certainly going to get at 14

Agree to extent &, disagree to an extent. Of course you normally think the lower you go the lower quality player. But in the first, even after a trade down, there’s players who are projected to absolutely be starters. That’s why I would still do it. I think this draft is pretty bad compared to others but, there’s definitely still quality prospects. & if the right situation presents itself, you take advantage.

This is where we are differing, you don’t like the quality of prospect second half of the first, & later period. Thinking there’s a huge drop after the top 10-15. I don’t really view the top 10-15 that great in the first place. So I actually like a few guys in the back half as much or nearly as much, especially after acquiring more blue chip picks (in next years draft or, this years if need be). Again, all depends, as we alluded to, on the compensation package &, who’s taken.

Xramfan wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 10:31 am Trading up entered my mind as well if they see a dog they want that may likely be gone by 14. Icing on the cake would be leapfrogging in front of KC and grabbing a stud.

looking at the draft value chart - cost would be our 3rd and the later 4th to move up to 8. Not a science but rough approximation.

IMO generally the PREMIUM positions you’d do it for would be edge, OT, or WR. If we’re going edge and can get Bailey I’m all for it

at pick 14 a team could move up to take ty simpson, this is a real possibility ...moving back to the lower 20's would net us a early 2nd rd pick this yr or 5th and 1st next yr giving us 3 1's next yr

mstrbass2000 wrote: Sat Mar 07, 2026 10:58 am at pick 14 a team could move up to take ty simpson, this is a real possibility ...moving back to the lower 20's would net us a early 2nd rd pick this yr or 5th and 1st next yr giving us 3 1's next yr

Hey Bass, no time no see.