The 53-man roster is set (for now), and we’re playing the waiting game for the Las Vegas Raiders’ season opener next Sunday against the Miami Dolphins. So, we’re previewing the 2026 campaign for this week’s mailbag. Let’s get to it!
Q: What week will Fernando Mendoza make his first start, and what will the Raiders’ record be?
A: I set the line at 6.5 games after Mendoza was drafted and before the schedule was released, and stuck to that for the majority of the summer. However, with the Los Angeles
Rams, Myles Garrett and now Aaron Donald awaiting in Week 7, I’m wavering on that and it’s time to adjust the line. Putting a rookie quarterback in front of that defensive line for his first start is a very bad idea. Like very bad, LOL!
So, I think a more realistic expectation would be Week 8 against the Jets. Maybe Klint Kubiak pushes it to Week 9 against the 49ers to avoid Mendoza’s first start having all of the baggage that comes with an East Coast trip. But both of those games are on the road anyway, and the midway point of the season seems like a good place for a rookie to have some time to adjust to the NFL and still get enough reps to build on moving into 2027 and beyond.
Record-wise, I see the Raiders being 2-5 with home wins against the Dolphins and Chiefs and losses to the Chargers, Saints, Patriots, Bills and Rams heading into the Jets matchup. That brings up another point (and I imagine this is what you’re getting at with the question) where if Las Vegas isn’t winning with Kirk Cousins at quarterback, it’s going to be hard to justify not making the change.
I’m all for being patient with Mendoza and not throwing him into the fire before he’s ready, but at some point, Kubiak has to see what the kid has and how he handles adversity. Plus, as a head coach, you’re going to lose the locker room if the team isn’t winning and you’re not making a quarterback change, especially if Mendoza is showing out in practice.
I know I’ve said this before, but I’m going to keep pounding this drum that the Raiders should follow the Patriots’ model with Drake Maye. In 2024, New England won its season opener and then dropped to 1-4 while it was clear Jacoby Brissett wasn’t getting the job done, paving the way for Maye to make his first start in Week 6.
Q: I keep having this argument. The Raiders are not going to make the NFL number one pick an Emergency QB. The optics are horrible if they do this. What is take your this?
A: This might come off as me being an egomanic, but I think I’m at least a part of the reason for this line of thinking. In a mailbag column at the beginning of August, someone asked me about the backup quarterback plan, and I threw out the idea of having Aidan O’Connell as the QB2 while Mendoza is the emergency QB. My full answer can be found via this link, and below is the gist of my logic.
If the reason for sitting Mendoza is so that he doesn’t get thrown into the fire before he’s ready and ruin his confidence, then it would make more sense for AOC to be the backup because he’d be the one to go in the game if Cousins gets injured rather than the rookie getting thrown into a chaotic situation. But if it’s the other way around, then Mendoza’s first regular-season appearance is coming off the bench cold and having to play in a game that he didn’t get to prepare for as the starter.
To be clear, I’m not saying this is going to happen or even what should happen. It’s just an option out there that makes sense (to me, at least) and could be part of the reason why O’Connell is on the roster.
You’re absolutely right that it’s a bad look if the No. 1 pick of the draft is third on the depth chart to begin his career, and I’m sure the big media outlets will run with that and call the Raiders stupid. Dan Orlovsky will probably be taking victory laps and be so excited that he celebrates with an unflavored, unseasoned chicken dinner!
My counter to that: Who the hell cares?
Kubiak and the rest of the organization need to be focused on the big picture, and if they think that having Mendoza be the emergency quarterback is best for his development, do it! The Raiders and Kubiak have to stay true to themselves and do what they think is best for the long-term plan. That’s what this season is all about.
Let people have their fun and get their laughs in now. Because if Mendoza ends up being a stud after beginning his career as the QB3, it’ll be our turn to do the laughing. I feel like this is my Dan Hurley moment, LOL!
Q: Is either Kirk Cousins, Aidan O’Connell or Maxx Crosby traded before the Nov. 8 trade deadline?
A: On the topic, I don’t think Cousins has much (if any) trade value at this stage in his career. Especially if he isn’t starting anymore, that likely means he wasn’t playing well in the first half of the season. Maybe an injury changes the situation, but we’ve already seen that the league doesn’t view the 38-year-old as a starting-caliber quarterback anymore due to the lack of interest in him during free agency. Plus, even if Cousins isn’t playing, he brings more value as Mendoza’s mentor than a sixth- or seventh-round pick would, in my opinion.
O’Connell, on the other hand, is younger and has starting experience to be more tradable (I think that’s a word) if a team has a quarterback injury. On top of that, he becomes expendable if Mendoza is starting or is even the backup. There’s a lot of moving parts in the situation, so predicting if AOC does get traded would just be a pure guess from me, to be honest. But I definitely think that’s on the table.
Now for the big one: Maxx Crosby.
My answer is tied to the previous question about the record. If the Raiders aren’t hitting the ground running, contending teams are going to be calling about Crosby heading into the trade deadline, especially if he’s playing well and there are no injury concerns about his knee. Whether or not another club is willing to meet the two first-round picks price tag remains to be seen, but I think Kubiak and John Spytek will have to be honest with themselves about the direction of the team.
Crosby is the best player on the roster, but he’s also a 29-year-old on a team that’s likely two years away from being a legitimate contender. If the Raiders are, say, 2-6 heading into the Week 9 trade deadline, the “two years away” statement is reinforced, and getting something like first- and second-round picks is the smarter long-term move than keeping a player who is probably nearing the end of his prime given his age.
I love Maxx. He’s my favorite player on the team and is probably on the Mt. Rushmore of Raiders during my lifetime (I was born in ‘93, for the record). But when I look at the long-term vision of the team, I think getting a couple of young and talented players with a pair of high draft picks is more valuable. Plus, that would allow Crosby to go chase a ring if it isn’t going to happen in Vegas.
All of that is a long-winded way of saying: yes, I can definitely see Maxx Crosby getting traded at the deadline.
Q: Why is Dylan Laube on the roster? What exactly has he done from the time he was drafted that compels this team to keep him yet again? Why not go with someone/anyone else that could surprise and have actual upside?
A: The Raiders started training camp with rookie Mike Washington Jr., Laube, Chris Collier and rookie UDFA Roman Hemby behind Ashton Jeanty, and Dare Ogunbowale didn’t even get a carry in the first preseason game because he was signed so late. In other words, there wasn’t much competition for the third running back spot.
Also, I thought Laube played pretty well in the preseason. He really stood out to me in the Texans game with five carries for 27 yards (5.4 ypc) and a touchdown to go along with two catches for 24 yards in the passing game. Offensively, I think the latter is where Laube can have a role on the team because he catches the ball well, and he forced five missed tackles on four catches last month, per Pro Football Focus. He also brings value on special teams as a returner option and has been a mainstay on the kickoff coverage team over the last two years.
The third-year pro is definitely entering the “now or never” stage of his career, but I would push back on the suggestion that he doesn’t have any upside. It might be a small role on the team, but he does offer some value on third downs and special teams. Why can’t he be the guy who surprises this year? It’s not like Laube’s gotten a ton of opportunities during the regular season so far in his career, and year three is often viewed as the make or break season for a young player anyway.
If Laube becomes an issue, Ogunbowale and Hemby are still on the practice squad to be the next running back up. Also, Collier is on injured reserve and can’t play this season anyway, so it’s not like the Raiders had to give up another back who was on the roster and can contribute this year in keeping Laube.
Q: What was so great about Cody Lindeberg’s preseason play to make the team? He was out of position a lot and missed tackles. I thought a couple of the other LBs played better, faster, more violent, like the one they brought back.
A: For what it’s worth, PFF had Lindenberg as the second-highest-graded Raiders linebacker who played at least 20 percent of the team’s defensive snaps during the preseason and had him with just two missed tackles. Cameron McGrone was the only backer who graded higher, and McGrone is on the practice squad with Segun Olubi.
Lindenberg definitely has to work on being more consistent with his run fits, so I agree that he was out of position too often. But from OTAs to training camp, he seemed to have the best offseason of the reserve linebackers and heads into the regular season as the LB3. Also, when it comes to backups during a rebuild, the coaching staff is going to favor young guys who have more potential to develop into starters/contributors down the line versus older veterans who are what they are at this point.
Q: I am wondering how you are feeling these days about our passing on Kayden McDonald and drafting Treydan Stukes instead? Initially, I was very disappointed, but Treydan really seems to have come on as of late, and with the division staffed the way that it is, DB probably ought to take priority over DT. So I’m feeling much better about things now. But, again, I would really appreciate knowing your thoughts.
A: If I’m calling the shots, I’d still go with McDonald over Stukes.
I don’t mean that to be a shot at Stukes, and I am very excited about what he brings to the defense. I just look at it as defensive tackle is still a need, and having McDonald would make me feel a lot more comfortable about the direction of that position moving forward and the run defense as a whole. In full disclosure, I’m a little biased here because I’m a former defensive lineman and love watching the trenches.
But free safety was a need too, and again, I like what Stukes brings to the table. Also, it certainly eases any pain that he seems to be trending toward starting Week 1.
To throw a curveball at you, I’m moving on from the McDonald-Stukes discussion and pivoting to the third round. I promise that I had this take before Keyron Crawford’s unfortunate injury, but getting a potential starting defensive tackle in Chris McClellan, Domonique Orange or Darrell Jackson Jr. would have been my priority over a fourth edge defender or backup offensive lineman (Trey Zuhn III).
Of course, time will tell if that was the right move or not, and Crawford and Zuhn could develop into starters down the line. However, McClellan, Orange and Jackson would have provided the best of both worlds: immediate production and long-term potential.
Q: Are you surprised the Raiders didn’t claim one of the Eagles’ defensive tackles? I know one is an International player, but he seemed to be worth taking a shot on. If they took him off their practice squad now, the Raiders would have to keep him on the roster for four games, right?
A: Not at all. Three of the defensive tackles that the Eagles released were undrafted (David Blay, Gabe Hall and Zion Wilson), and Uar Bernard is more of an idea than a legitimate football player right now. His potential is enormous, but the guy is still learning how to play the game and struggled in the preseason. That makes Bernard a practice squad player instead of someone you want on the 53-man roster.
To answer your question about the Raiders picking up Bernard, there’s some conflicting information on that. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Jeff Neiberg, the NFL’s website says that IPP players can’t be poached but that’s outdated, and they can be claimed by another team just like any other player now. Matt Haley from the Falcons’ team website also confirmed the change.
So, you’re correct that the Raiders would have to keep Bernard on the 53-man roster for a specified number of games/weeks, but it’s three instead of four.
Q: How much of a chance do you really think coaches give to some of the players on the 90? If a receiver like Shedrick Jackson only gets to play with the 2’s and the 3’s, is that really giving him a fair shot?
A: With 90 guys on the roster, not everyone is going to get a “fair” shot at making the team in terms of getting reps with the starters. That’s just the reality of professional football, as the NFL can stand for ‘Not Fair League’, and where the term “camp bodies” orginates from. Training camp is also the time to get the starters ready for the season, so it’s on the guys fighting for a roster spot to prove themselves against the backups and work their way up.
At the end of the day, the reps aren’t going to be split down the middle. The players who are going to be on the field on Sundays are going to get more opportunities than the ones who are fighting for a roster spot. This reminds me of a saying one of my coaches in college used to tell us at the beginning of our summer camp every year: “Don’t count your reps, make your reps count.”
Coaches will notice the backups who are standing out, even if it is a small sample size, and that leads to bigger opportunities.
That’ll do it for this week’s mailbag. Thank you all for submitting questions and, as your weekly reminder, if you’d like to have your questions answered in a future column, tweet them at me, @MHolder95, email them to SBPQuestions1@gmail.com or look for our weekly call for questions on the site. The latter will continue to publish on Thursdays.
