Is it fair to say we lost the Switzer/Ward trade?

[Idgit]

Replying to the sentiment of more than one reply above...

All we KNOW is that THIS deal ended up with us cutting the guy we dealt for, and the other team at least having a future asset still yet.

To assume that we only had two options... keeping Switzer or trading him for Ward... may or may not be accurate.

Now... to be totally fair, yes, it might be better to say that until the Raiders make a pick with that 5th rounder they got from PIT, we still haven't necessarily lost the trade. So, given further thought, okay, I spoke too soon.

The important question is whether we gained anything in the trade or not, and not necessarily whether the Raiders gained more. If we cut Jihad and would have cut Switzer, we didn’t lose anything.

FWIW, the Raiders got a 5th for Switzer and a 6th.

 

[_sturt_]

Fair to say that your thread is turrible

Just acknowledged that I was wrong, but not for the reason some seem to be fixated on.

Again, again, again... there is NO telling that we ONLY had the TWO options... rather, it is entirely plausible that we might have dealt Switzer to someone else for some other asset that may have stuck.

 

[Stash]

I'm going to throw this into the mix:

The door isn't closed on Jihad Ward with this team.

Take a look at Deonte Thompson. He was cut and will now be brought back once WR Noah Brown goes to IR.

The same possibility exists that if and when the team moves DT Datone Jones to IR as well, that they bring Jihad Ward back.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Almost EVERYONE here questioned why we drafted Switzer. Seemed like a wasted pick, and it was.

He was supposed to be a Dunbar/Beasley chimera. Apparently not.

 

[CATCH17]

Just another guy who dominates without the pass.

 

[kumizi]

Jihad Ward was and is garbage.

But there's a 90% chance so is Switzer.

 

[glimmerman]

Ward flashed and it looked like we got the better end of the deal. Now we both lost.

Guess switzer wasn’t that great.

 

[Kaiser]

I'm starting another thread exactly like this one - only it will be called "Two ugly girls are adjusting their makeup in bar with ten minutes until closing time".

 

[exciter]

And the 6th rounder we gave up for Austin became G Jamil Demby, who evidently has made their 53-man... so, chalk up an Incomplete on that one.

Once they picked up Austin, Switzer became expendable. When the raiders offered the trade, there was no incentive not to take a flyer on Ward since Switzer wasn't making the team. At worst the trade couldn't come out less than neutral!

 

[_sturt_]

Once they picked up Austin, Switzer became expendable. When the raiders offered the trade, there was no incentive not to take a flyer on Ward since Switzer wasn't making the team. At worst the trade couldn't come out less than neutral!

Not true.

If the Raiders' 5th rounder turns out to be a keeper for them, they will win the trade.

To say Switzer wasn't going to make the team anyway is likely correct. What is incorrect is to say the ONLY trade on the table that could have been made was the one for Ward.

We possibly have lost this trade, and at best can come out neutral, again depending on the Raiders' future pick. That's all we know.

And then, it's plausible, if not very plausible, that we might have found another trade sometime during or after the draft that would have been one that would have scored us a 53-man quality player.

Hmmm... come to think of it... "very, very plausible"... like, say, maybe one with the Steelers.

 

[keysersoze]

That's sarcasm, right?

Surely.

I haven't had very many things I've said here become ground zero for very many attacks on this board, but I was among those pleading for folks to tap the brakes on how good Switzer would be... and to very little avail at that time.

Yea. To many here he was our best receiver next to Beasley. Hahahahaha. The same fans who always say “wait and see” were quick to anoint Switzer. According to them he had all the tools to become great. So what’s the excuse now? Inquiring minds wanna know. Lol

 

[TheGoat73]

He was supposed to be a Dunbar/Beasley chimera. Apparently not.

Lol you said chimera. Where you hide your DND dice bro?

 

[LocimusPrime]

To answer the OP- yes of course we lost. It’s simple math, we have nothing to show for the trade, the Raiders have a draft pick.

 

[TheGoat73]

That's sarcasm, right?

Surely.

I haven't had very many things I've said here become ground zero for very many attacks on this board, but I was among those pleading for folks to tap the brakes on how good Switzer would be... and to very little avail at that time.

The way I remember it, we drafted Switzer and people were like “why did we just draft a Beasley clone? We don’t need another slot specialist”

 

[DasSchnitzel]

I don't think you can apply a win/loss methodology to trades like these. We're talking about bottom of the roster type players that neither team had ongoing plans for. We let a guy go so that Oakland could give then a whirl, and in exchange we got a guy that Oakland had no need for to give him a whirl. Maybe one team gets lucky, maybe both, maybe neither.

I'm critical of the front office but this time I don't feel they made a good or bad move. They just made a move. Hindsight is 20/20 kinda thing, ya dig?

 

[kskboys]

I guess.

There's small losses/victories, there's big losses/victories, there's medium losses/victories. And then there's losses/victories that matter so little they're not worth talking about. Yeah, the last one there.

 

[_sturt_]

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/cowboys-select-wr-ryan-switzer-4th-round-133rd-overall.377327/

 

[_sturt_]

I'm critical of the front office but this time I don't feel they made a good or bad move. They just made a move. Hindsight is 20/20 kinda thing, ya dig?

I'm rarely critical of the front office.

I do feel it's a good move if you exchange one player who probably would not have made the 53 for someone who would have. And it's good to just be objective enough to say so.

20/20, yes, we quite possibly lost this one, but the jury is still out until the Raiders make their future pick.

Is it a big deal? Probably not.

But that doesn't mean it's not worth acknowledging we may have done better. We, at least, may have ended up with the Steelers' pick (that the Raiders received) ourselves.

 

[AbeBeta]

Just acknowledged that I was wrong, but not for the reason some seem to be fixated on.

Again, again, again... there is NO telling that we ONLY had the TWO options... rather, it is entirely plausible that we might have dealt Switzer to someone else for some other asset that may have stuck.

Brilliant.

We might drafted some other player too.

Your argument is this " we might have done something else!"

Damn. Good stuff

 

[_sturt_]

"Brilliant," maybe, but only in the context that some make it clear they only see the two options... when in fact, we know that there was at least one other, thank you Pittsburgh... and so it's not hard to imagine there would have been still others as well. This one with Ward, though, objectively, didn't work out in our favor.