Dec 8, 2013; East Rutherford, NJ, USA; Oakland Raiders general manager Reggie McKenzie and owner Mark Davis on the field before the game against the New York Jets at MetLife Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Robert Deutsch-USA TODAY Sports

The Oakland Raiders Should Not Trade Down From #5 Pick

Moving down for extra selections seems like the popular choice for the Oakland Raiders.  Here is why they should not do it.

Matt Schaub and Justin Tuck lead veteran-laden roster

Looking at the Raiders roster as it stand, is it better than it was when the offseason started?  The defense has a wealth of new faces such as Justin Tuck, LaMarr Woodley, Antonio Smith and Carlos Rogers.  Meanwhile Matt Schaub led a series of additions to the offense joined by James Jones, Maurice Jones-Drew, and Donald Penn.  On paper the team is better but for how long?  The thing to remember about teams built through free agency is they tend not to last very long.  That is why the team needs to have a productive 2014 NFL draft.  So few of their picks in recent years have panned out for one reason or another, continuing a streak of seasons without playoff football since 2002.

Khalil Mack and Greg Robinson offer elite potential

It is for those reasons that the Oakland Raiders front office must seriously reconsider moving down from the #5 overall pick.  GM Reggie McKenzie believes in the Green Bay-style of thinking where its building through the draft.  Naturally like any man in his position he feels having more picks can only be a good thing.  That is a nice theory but isn’t always the best course of action.  One thing to remember is it takes stars to win in the NFL.  Superstars.  Frankly the Raiders don’t have any.  Their first round pick from 2013, D.J. Hayden was largely a bust in his first year.  The same can be said for every first round pick dating back to 2004.  This team needs a difference-maker badly, and the chances of finding one by moving down decrease with each spot they fall past.  On the other hand if they were to stay at #5, true it would not net them the extra picks but it would give them a clear shot at elite level talents like Khalil Mack and Greg Robinson.  Those are the kinds of players teams get built around, kinds of players the Oakland Raiders don’t have.

Here’s hoping the men in charge can convince McKenzie of the same.

Dick's Sporting Goods presents "Hell Week":

Tags: Greg Robinson Justin Tuck Khalil Mack Matt Schaub Oakland Raiders

  • Grammar NotZee

    It’s possible neither Robinson or Mack or even Watkins is still available at #5. What would you do then? A higher draft slot gives you a shot at elite talent, but talent development is how superstars are made. Talent is all over this draft.

    • Erik Lambert

      Doesn’t matter. It happened the way I expected.

      • Grammar NotZee

        I’m so glad Mack was there. It was close though. After Jags took Bortles I knew Raiders would get value out of the pick between Mack or Watkins. Once Watkins was gone, it was a no brainer. Some good first round talent still available for day 2 too!

        • Erik Lambert

          No kidding. I don’t know what the 49ers were doing.

          • Grammar NotZee

            I thought they would WR for sure. They had the goods to move up for one. The one thing that confused the hell out of me was Cleveland moving from 9 to 8.

          • Erik Lambert

            They probably heard rumblings that somebody was about to jump up for Gilbert and weren’t going to let it happen. It was pure protection with the guy they wanted.

  • bigninaross

    This is exactly why they should trade down. The elite players and building blocks of a team are more likely found in the late first and beyond. The “experts” top five players in the draft are usually just the players with all the exposure. I believe you get better players and better value in the 2nd through 6th rounds.


    Is it just me or based on his article this guys thinking is all backwards? If you are the Rams than I can understand why you take Robinson because you have 9 or 10 other picks in this draft not to mention one at 13 or so, but for the Raiders if you are going to go tackle for example, there are 2 other studs that you can get by moving 5 spots down and picking up a 2nd or 3rd rounder. That is just one theory if you go tackle. The fact that it is also proven fact, that 50% of all 1st rounder’s do not pan out for teams, and the % is higher if you take into consideration that they do not resign,I would say the more picks you have the better the chances that you have a successful draft. Hey, just a thought man!

  • Oakwolf

    One little problem with your article – it’s very likely that both Robinson & Mack will be gone by #5 and I’d argue that Donald & Lewan offer the same elite potential at 10 – teens while giving the Raiders some more much needed 2nds, 3rds or 4ths.

    This 2nd round is one of the deepest I’ve seen in years. If Mack and Robinson are gone I do think we trade down. If we can’t I’ll be perfectly happy with any of the following:

    Watkins, Evans, Mathews, Donald or Lewan – all of which make a signifcant impact IMO.

    • Erik Lambert

      You were saying?

      • Oakwolf

        NO ONE had Bortles going @ #3.

        And although I didn’t state it in my last comment – I was fine with Mack too (I inadvertently left him off). I still can’t believe he fell to us!!!

        Let’s just celebrate the fact the RM didn’t pull an Al and got us a much needed impact player.