It's probably gonna take your first from next year to get up that high. You wiling to do that?

Sorry for the delay, I somehow missed the PM that was sent.

The Oakland Raiders select Jachai Polite, EDGE, Florida.

So with the Raiders three first round picks, they get:

1.4 Quinnen Williams, DT, Alabama
1.24 Byron Murphy, CB, Washington
1.27 Jachai Polite, EDGE, Florida

It doesn't fix the defense but sure helps.

No it won't.

A 1 and one of our 2s should absolutely get you into the late teens.

I think that's right where the 1st round caliber talent drops. Now obviously you gotta find a willing partner via someone that either A) disagrees with you or B) values quantity over quality (as quantity has a quality of its own).

But I don't see a way to stack that board where there's simply not a real blue chip kinda guy sitting there in the late teens. It may not be a blue chip 'generational star' kind of player, but that's not a '1st round player', that's a top 5 player.

1st round just means a guy that's capable of starting immediately with the ceiling of an occasional pro-bowler in his best seasons, IMO. By that calculus Bradbury qualified as my last real 1st round caliber player left and that's why I took him.

But if you want that caliber player at a more premium position, I think you can still get that in the late teens, especially if the WRs go a little earlier than they've gone in this draft.

It cost the Saints a 1 to go from 27 to 14. Don't think it would take next years Chiefs first to go from 29 to say, 17?

Our 2nds are both basically 3rds, i'm not sure.

The cost of each slot goes up drastically in the teens. Getting the 14 instead of say the 18 is MUCH more expensive than going from 27 to 29. That't the 'draft chart' equivalent of an extra 3rd round worth of value. Beyond that, next year's 1st has the theoretical value of this year's 2nd to begin with. Ours being a later second would be offset by the fact that we're getting a '3rd round pick' less in value returned even after accounting for the drop from 27 to 29.

It's 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other in terms of what the acquiring team gets. But if the acquiring team is looking for immediate depth, they're better served with the immediate 2nd.

And if they insist on next year's 1st I just keep calling the next guy until a deal comes together.

Protect the MVP.

You can protect him in round 2 or 3.

PFF breakdown on Reiter:
268 snaps, 74.2 overall, 81.0 pass blocking, 68.8 run blocking.

3 total pressures (1 sack, 1 hit, 1 hurry), 0 penalties.

I still wouldn’t take Bradbury unless he’s truly BPA. I’m all for protecting the MVP, just not at the expense of the defense

Expound.

Who's your guy then? And why is Bradbury + 2nd round WR obviously inferior to Brown + 2nd round C?

In the 2nd round you're probably looking at someone like Kelvin Harmon, Deebo Samuel, Emanuel Hall, Riley Ridley or maybe Parris Campbell (though I think his 40 keeps him out of there). I think Isabella is long gone by then, as are the aforementioned 4. At C I think you're looking at MAYBE Elgton Jenkins but more realistically Connor McGovern.

So why is, say, AJ Brown and Connor McGovern a clearly better duo than say Garrett Bradbury and Deebo Samuel?

I don't think it's readily apparent that it is? And if it isn't, shouldn't the larger amount of draft capital go to the position that's presently in worse shape?

In this draft, in this scenario, I think he truly is.

I haven’t gotten to OL yet in this draft. I just don’t want a first round center with so many holes on defense. You can get by with 2-5 round OL.

I’m just not a fan of first round OL in general. That’s the root of it for me.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DJ's left nut again.

But your answer was 1st round WR instead?

Well that doesn't make any sense...

Because it’ll have more of an impact especially if Hill is cut and Watkins goes down which is inevitable. So it does make sense given they have a competent center to begin with.