Re-drafting the Raiders’ 2022 class, same-position version highlights the team-building question marks

Las Vegas Raiders fans have spent years debating what the 2022 draft class was supposed to fix. In a widely circulated re-draft exercise, Yahoo Sports built a “same-position” alternate version of the Raiders’ 2022 selections, keeping each pick’s position group the same while testing whether a different player choice at each spot would have improved the roster outcome. The premise is simple, but the conclusions are not. The idea does not claim the Raiders made “wrong” decisions in the moment, but it underscores why that draft still feels like an unresolved chapter in the Davante Adams era and in the longer search for a sustainable roster identity.

The biggest context point in the re-draft comes from the way Las Vegas treated its most valuable offensive asset in the middle of its roster reset. Yahoo Sports notes that the Raiders “shipped off their first and second round selections” for Davante Adams, and then later moved him as well, an outcome that frames the 2022 class as a period of competing timelines. In other words, the re-draft is not just about who was available in the draft, it is about what the Raiders were trying to build while their personnel priorities were shifting.

From there, the exercise drills into specific draft slot decisions. One example Yahoo Sports highlights is a third-round selection: “Round 3, 90th Overall: IOL Dylan Parham (original pick).” In the alternate build, the re-draft author emphasizes the internal debate at that selection, weighing Parham against other players who also fit the same interior offensive line category and noting that Parham’s pro career had been strong relative to the alternatives considered in the exercise. The effect is to show how, even when the position group is fixed, small differences in player evaluation at mid-round spots can change how quickly a team stabilizes its lines.

That question becomes sharper when you look at the re-draft author’s broader framing about 2022. Yahoo Sports describes the class as falling short of what it could have been, and it connects that disappointment to a wider pattern, implying that the Raiders’ draft process in the post-championship window did not consistently translate into the kind of immediate, high-impact production teams typically need. Even with one pick getting singled out as a strong fit, the exercise argues the overall haul still leaves room for regret when viewed through a “what if we maximized the same positions” lens.

There is also an organizational layer to why a same-position exercise lands with Raiders supporters. The re-draft points back to the “new” front-office and coaching era, referencing general manager Dave Ziegler and head coach Josh McDaniels. In that context, a draft class is not just a collection of prospects, it is a statement about what the staff believes it needs to execute its plan. When a team’s draft outcomes do not match expectations, it tends to amplify scrutiny of subsequent decisions: how quickly the roster coheres, whether the developmental pipeline delivers, and how much draft capital ends up being redirected.

For now, this remains an opinionated exercise rather than a factual review of player performance, so it should not be read as proof that any single pick was a mistake. But the same-position format matters. It controls for the easiest “outs” in these debates. If you redo the 2022 board while forcing the Raiders to choose the same position types at each selection, the draft still looks like it could have been built more effectively, which is exactly why the topic keeps resurfacing in NFL offseason conversation. The next wave of evaluation will come from what the Raiders do with future draft classes and how their front office balances roster-building for the near term against long-term identity.

If you want to follow the underlying debate in a grounded way, watch how Las Vegas approaches future interior line needs and how quickly prospects can become starters in real game plans. In the NFL, the fastest way to turn “could have been better” into “it worked out” is consistent offensive line development, because everything downstream depends on it. This re-draft is essentially a reminder that you can change the names on the board, but you cannot avoid the fundamental question: did the roster construction give the team the best possible shot at turning talent into a durable core? (As with any re-draft, it is a thought experiment, not a conclusion.)