We’re at the beginning of the Las Vegas Raiders’ summer break before training camp, so we don’t have as many questions to dive into for this week’s mailbag. But we do have a handful of people who are curious about the Raiders’ roster, so let’s get to it!
Q: Are the Raiders going to get a true No. 1 receiver before training camp or stick with what they have?
A: It wouldn’t surprise me if John Spytek signed (or at least explored) adding a wide receiver over the next few weeks, but I lean toward Spytek and
Co. sticking with the guys they have. I get the sense that the goal for this year is to give guys like Tre Tucker, Jack Bech, Dont’e Thornton Jr., Malik Benson, etc., a chance to prove themselves rather than bringing in a veteran on a short-term contract.
With Tucker, he’s entering a contract year, so the front office might want to see what he does in a “No. 1 wide receiver” type of role (or something close to it) to help determine how big a priority it should be to re-sign him in the offseason. And the other guys named are just young and haven’t done anything in the league, yet.
Of course, Jalen Nailor factors into the equation, too. But Nailor is under contract for three years, and I’d be pretty surprised if the Raiders think he’s a legitimate No. 1 option. In other words, I think the organization knows what it has in the free-agent signing, so Nailor isn’t under the “let’s see what this guy’s got” umbrella.
Also, I’d find it hard to believe that any wide receiver who is good enough to be a No. 1 would be willing to play in Las Vegas this season. Most of the wideouts who are still available and fit into that category are older and likely ring chasing. As we know, the Raiders aren’t exactly Super Bowl favorites heading into the 2026 campaign.
Adding to that, there aren’t a ton of options left. Tyreek Hill, Stefon Diggs, Deebo Samuel and Keenan Allen are probably the top choices.
Hill has an injury concern after tearing up his knee last season, and his off-the-field issues would probably prompt Mark Davis to step in and nix any attempt at signing him. Samuel has a history with Klint Kubiak–Kubiak was the 49ers’ passing game coordinator in 2023–to make sense from a schematic standpoint. However, I wouldn’t consider Deebo a “No. 1 receiver” as much as a versatile weapon. Then there’s Allen, who has primarily been a slot guy and not nearly the athlete he used to be after turning 34 in April.
To me, Diggs would make the most sense from a fit standpoint. I’d just be surprised if he was willing to play for a team that’s rebuilding. But, if the 11-year veteran wants to catch passes from Fernando Mendoza and is willing to sign a multi-year contract, then go for it!
Q: Why have there been so many disparate reports on Jack Bech on different Raider sites? One guy says he’s gonna be great. The next one says he looked terrible with no separation in OTAs. The next guy said he’ll be our slot guy. The next one says he’s a bust. What gives?
A: I can’t speak to what other people are feeling/thinking, nor can I refute any reporting from practice since I’m not there. But if I had to guess, I’d assume the people who are down on Bech don’t think he’s a good enough athlete to create separation in the NFL, and his lack of production last season certainly doesn’t help matters.
For me, Bech’s long speed is definitely a concern because he isn’t someone who is going to be a vertical threat. But I think people hold that against him too much, and he’s a better athlete than people give him credit for. The TCU product is a classic “quicker than fast” type of guy, as he has pretty good lateral movement skills, earning a 9.51 Relative Athletic Score during the pre-draft process last year.
What’s telling is Bech did every timed drill except for the 40-yard dash (wonder why?, LOL), and earned good RAS for a 4.21-second shuttle time and 6.84-second 3-cone. That’s part of the reason why a few other people and I think he can be a good slot receiver; he has good change-of-direction skills to operate in the short-to-intermediate areas of the field.
Of course, the second-round pick has to prove it, and there’s a lot of pressure on him to produce this season after a quiet rookie campaign. That’s where the ambiguity lies with Bech; he was drafted relatively high and didn’t produce in year one.
Q: How can the Raiders protect Laki Tasi if he goes back to the practice squad? If they can’t be sure they can, considering they’re working toward the future and not worrying about winning now, wouldn’t it be smarter to keep him on the 53, let him rotate at NT and learn, rather than have some other team like Philly or Denver grab him?
A: If Tasi gets cut at the end of training camp, he’s subject to waivers just like every other player who doesn’t make the 53-man roster. But if he clears waivers, meaning another team didn’t claim and add him to their 53-man roster, then the Raiders can protect Tasi with an IPP designation on the practice squad. That prevents him from getting poached, but the catch is that the Raiders also can’t elevate him to the 53-man roster if they protect him with the IPP designation.
Here’s the rule from the NFL’s website:
At the end of training camp, IPP players can either be signed to their assigned club’s 53-man roster or waived. Players who clear waivers may be signed to their assigned team’s practice squad using an IPP exemption that allows for an extra practice squad spot. IPP players signed to a practice squad using the exemption may not be signed to any team’s active roster that season; however, players signed to a practice squad without the exemption are treated in the same way as other practice squad players for roster purposes.
So, the only way for the Raiders to ensure, with 100 percent certainty, that Tasi will remain with the club is to keep him on the 53-man roster. But he has to earn that spot, and it wouldn’t make sense to just give it to him to keep him in the building.
If JJ Pegues, Brandon Cleveland, Gary Smith III or any other young player on the bubble is playing better than Tasi during training camp and the preseason, it doesn’t make sense to get rid of the guy who is showing more promise just to keep Tasi. The overall concern here is the Raiders retaining young talent, so the move is to keep the better player. If that means losing someone else to another team, then so be it.
At the end of the day, Spytek and Kubiak have to go with the players whom they think can help the team the most in the long run. If Tasi fits into that, put him on the roster. If someone else fits into the plan better, the coaching staff can’t prioritize another player just because he has a cooler story.
A: Everyone who reads this column regularly knows how I feel about Kayden McDonald, and that I would have taken him over Treydan Stukes. But only time will tell if that was the right decision or not, and I do like what Stukes brings to Las Vegas.
I’m not concerned about his knee at all. He was a baller last season at Arizona, the year after the injury. Also, I talked to Arizona’s strength coach about it, and he told me that Stukes was setting PRs in the weight room while rehabbing and came back stronger and faster than ever. Normally, I’d take that with a grain of salt, but the 2025 tape backs that up.
The 24-year-old’s age is a concern for me, though, especially because he turns 25 in September. In scouting, the older a prospect is, the lower their perceived ceiling is. Also, I expect a guy who is 24 to look really good against 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds. Having that much more experience and time in a college program is a significant advantage at that level. Sure, late bloomers exist, but sometimes the “bloom” can be more indicative of that experience advantage. Also, age is a big factor when it comes to a second contract, as the former Wildcat will be pretty close to 30 when his rookie contract expires.
That’s not to say that Stukes will be a bust by any means. However, I would consider his age to be a negative on his scouting report or a potential concern.
A: I 100 percent agree with you, it’s Rick Dennison, and there isn’t a close second. On top of what you said, the offensive line needs so much work after last season, and outside of Kolton Miller and Tyler Linderbaum, it’s filled with young players who have talent but need to be developed. I think the well-tenured coach will do wonders for the Raiders’ trenches.
After Dennison, I’ll go with offensive coordinator Andrew Janocko. Obviously, he’s going to have a big hand in developing Mendoza, and Janocko has extensive experience working with quarterbacks, serving as a QB coach in the league for the last five seasons. Granted, the only young passer he’s had to develop was Justin Fields with the Chicago Bears, and that didn’t work out. So, it’s not like Janocko has an extensive track record of bringing a first-round pick along, but Fields also isn’t exactly tearing it up after getting out from under the coach’s wing.
Regardless, I think Janocko is the clear pick as the second-most impactful assistant coach behind Dennison.
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.
