Raiders 3-round 2026 NFL mock draft: Post NFL Combine edition — and more

The Las Vegas Raiders enjoyed a productive week at the NFL Combine. John Spytek and Klint Kubiak return from Indianapolis with better clarity regarding their approach in the 2026 NFL draft. With the combine now officially in our rearview mirror, we've conducted a brand-new three-round Raiders mock draft that addresses their needs.

Round 1 (No. 1 overall): Fernando Mendoza, QB, Indiana

The Raiders had a formal interview with Indiana quarterback Fernando Mendoza at the NFL Combine. It was essentially a checklist item as they prepare to select him with the No. 1 overall pick in the draft. Mendoza claimed the meeting went "great," and we have no reason to doubt the Raiders' infatuation with him.

Round 2 (No. 36 overall): Zion Young, EDGE, Missouri

Exiting the 2026 NFL draft with a starting-caliber EDGE is a must. Trade rumors continue to surround Maxx Crosby's name. Missouri's Zion Young is a well-developed pass rusher who threatens quarterbacks with a red-hot motor. Young is also a quality early-down run defender, allowing him to get on the field quickly.

Round 3 (No. 67 overall): Jacob Rodriguez, LB, Texas Tech

The Raiders desperately need a tackling machine in the middle of their defense at linebacker. Texas Tech's Jacob Rodriguez enjoyed back-to-back seasons with 120-plus tackles. Rodriguez was also excellent at the NFL Combine, leaping a 38.5 inch vertical and 10-foot-1 broad jump before running a 6.90 three-cone and 4.57 40. Those are outstanding testing results.

This article originally appeared on Raiders Wire: Raiders 3-round 2026 NFL mock draft: Post NFL Combine edition

Detroit is moving on from the veteran.

'Thank you, Golden State Warriors': Hawks legend echoes fans after huge trade originally appeared on The Sporting News. Add The Sporting News as a Preferred Source by clicking here.

Dominique Wilkins couldn't hold back.

Jonathan Kuminga had just thrown down a left-handed hammer slam dunk that surely made 'Nique proud, and he just had to let the whole basketball world, especially the Golden State Warriors, know about it.

Wilkins is the color commentator for Hawks broadcasts, and when Kuminga threw down his post, Wilkins went for it.

"Thank you, Golden State Warriors," Wilkins said.

It's the same thing Hawks fans were saying, and even have been chanting, lately.

Kuminga has played just three games with Atlanta. He already looks like a star after his trade from the Warriors.

Golden State never figured out how to use Kuminga.

Atlanta has simply let Kuminga be himself, and it's working wonderfully.

Dominique Wilkins qui trolle les Warriors pour le trade de Kuminga en play-by-play, c'est si doux ! pic.twitter.com/OR77TkdNbm

— Hawks Fans France 🇫🇷 (@ATLHawksFR) March 2, 2026

MORE: Rip Hamilton's son is committed to play D-I college basketball

Kuminga dropped 20 points on Sunday night, including that poster slam.

In his first game with Atlanta, he scored 27 points in just 24 minutes (9-12 FG, 3-4 3FG, 6-7 FT) while grabbing seven rebounds, dishing out four assists and snatching two steals.

In the second, Kuminga had 17 points, nine rebounds, three assists, a steal and a block.

Kuminga isn't just scoring. He's been empowered to play his game, which actually is more well-rounded than he displayed with Golden State.

The Warriors may end up regretting this one.

More NBA news:

• Knicks' unheralded forward sets all-time NBA record by not being shy
• Jonathan Kuminga looks right at home with the Hawks
• Neemias Queta makes Celtics history not done since Robert Parrish

It’s a long-standing feature of this article to point out previous iterations of this article. When I wrote my first one eight years ago (holy crap, I’m getting old), the Rockies were trending in the right direction, and the ownership got precious little credit for it. So I wrote a string of articles focused on countering the narrative that the Monforts (“Cheapfarts”) didn’t want to spend to win, preferring to turn Coors Field into the best bar in LoDo. I stand by those takes at the time. 

Since then, an altogether different narrative has emerged: The Monforts were the baseball equivalent of the golden retriever wearing a necktie sitting at a computer. Sure, they demonstrated a willingness to spend their money on the roster, but after a Super Bullpen, the Ian Desmond Experiment, and especially the Kris Bryant Experience, it cannot be said that they had any idea what they were doing. Had the failures only been with the top-level signings while everything further down the roster functioned, we might be able to find a way to extend ample credit. Unfortunately, the “draft and develop” identity of roster construction has consistently failed to identify and develop MLB-level talent. The Rockies were increasingly viewed as a team stuck in the past, unable or unwilling to change. This was not only a narrative I had evidence with which to counter, but I believe these previews played a part in reinforcing it. 

That was the main theme of last year’s article, even with looming labor unrest between players and owners after the expiration of the 2026 collective bargaining agreement. While I did and do support MLB making structural changes (I wrote an only half-joking article last October titled “Contract the Dodgers”), my point then was that those changes would have no bearing on the Rockies because the team’s struggles ran deeper. At their core, the Rockies were dinosaurs stuck in the La Brea Tar Pits, with (most of) the rest of the league having evolved with the changing conditions of the game. And the reason they were stuck in those pits was because of loyalty, inability, or a tragic mix of both. (Stop picturing Dinger in tar pits! He’s a national treasure, you monster!)

So what should it tell us when a team that could never change actually changes? Yes, they have made changes before, but this time seems different somehow. This time, something at the core seems to have changed. My colleagues will address the front office and coaching staffs in the coming days, and there is a lot of evidence of structural change in those areas beyond mere swapping of personnel. But the changes manifesting at those levels start at the top. After three 100+ loss seasons, including a puncher’s chance at the modern loss record, the Monforts seem to have finally understood that the thing to do when you hit rock bottom is stop digging—you’re more likely to find tar at the bottom of that pit than oil. 

Obviously it’s too soon to tell: the team could improve by 19 games and still lose 100 again. But for those of us still left who care about the Rockies (and if you’re reading this article after the last four seasons, that includes you—and I just have to ask, who hurt you?), we may need to consider the possibility of hope. Yes, I know: it’s the hope that kills you. But we’ve been as good as dead with regard to hope for a long time with this team. And the way this offseason played out indicates that there is certainly something different happening. It remains to be seen whether or not “different” translates into improvement, and even if it does it may be a long time before we actually see results. After all, in sports as in life, nothing is guaranteed; there are only ever a small number of things in your control.

We may as well allow ourselves a little glimmer that we could be looking at the beginning of something…not big maybe, but at least not terrible. We should allow ourselves to hope, not only for the sake of our interactions with a (previously?) moribund baseball franchise in a cow town at the foot of the Rocky Mountains, but for the sake of what it may signal about our own lives.

After all, if Rockies ownership can change, who’s to say you, me, we, or they can’t change, too?

Please keep in mind our Purple Row Community Guidelines when you’re commenting. Thanks!