Raiders writers revisit the 2025 draft with a “same-position” redraft, keeping Ashton Jeanty at the center

The Las Vegas Raiders’ 2025 draft class is still young, which is exactly why one new analysis-style redraft is drawing attention. Instead of simply picking “the best player available,” the exercise rebuilds the Raiders class using the same positional templates for each selection, then asks which parts of the roster might reasonably look different once a year of NFL development has passed.

The premise is simple but restrictive: the author argues that any redraft needs rules to avoid pretending trades or positional drift. Under that framework, the overall order is kept in place, and at each pick slot the redraft must select a player at the same position that the Raiders originally took. In other words, an edge rusher taken at a certain moment has to remain an edge rusher, a running back has to remain a running back, and so on. The goal, the author says, is to isolate the “what if” that comes from production, fit, and growth rather than from rewriting the whole board.

Within that constraint, running back Ashton Jeanty remains the focal point. The analysis calls Jeanty “a staple” of the Raiders offense and frames him as a central piece of the Klint Kubiak offensive system. It also acknowledges that, in hindsight, the pick does not neatly “solve” everything, pointing to an underwhelming rookie season as a reason some fans might challenge the value. Even so, under the redraft’s rules, Jeanty’s position lock keeps him in the picture.

The redraft also preserves other positions and names that the author lists as still in play from the original class, including Darien Porter and Charles Grant. Rather than treating those players as guaranteed building blocks, the exercise uses the same-position mandate to explore whether the Raiders would be better served by alternative prospects at the same spots, especially where players are still transitioning from developmental expectations into consistent NFL roles.

Jeanty’s being kept is more than just trivia inside a thought experiment. The Raiders’ offensive identity often turns on how reliably they can run the ball and how effectively play-action and short-area passing can be supported. If Jeanty is truly the centerpiece the author describes, the rest of the roster construction becomes a question of complementing skill sets around a core running threat rather than chasing a different archetype.

From a broader team-building standpoint, the appeal of this “same-position” redraft is that it reflects a real decision the Raiders will face as their class matures: whether a developmental selection should be given time, whether the organization’s coaching fit is unlocking its potential, or whether the positional group needs different traits. It is also a reminder that one season of production can be noisy for younger players, which the author explicitly notes when describing prospects who were selected with developmental upside.

For Raiders fans and evaluators, the next step is not to treat this as prophecy. It is to watch how these players stabilize their roles during training camp and the early part of the regular season, and how the coaching staff’s play calling continues to lean on the same offensive touch points the analysis highlights. If Jeanty’s role remains consistent in a Kubiak-led scheme, that would align with the redraft’s core assumption, while any shift could suggest the Raiders are preparing to rethink parts of the positional mix sooner than expected.