1. Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas.
I like the pick, but I don't love it. I want to love the first-round pick. I'm not enthusiastic about the fact that he doesn't always keep his legs moving -- RBs should always, always keep their legs moving. I don't get the impression that McFadden will run through much contact at the next level, which makes him a slightly faster Justin Fargas. A crowded backfield is even more crowded now, and I like the pick even less now that they didn't move Dominic Rhodes this weekend -- the asking price will necessarily be lower as a result.
Also, I wondered whether I was the only one who noticed this, but as Raidertopia points out, the chosen highlights for McFadden were of the negative variety, whereas most of the other picks had a bunch of positive highlights. Not to put a damper on the out-and-out bias, but I thought that the NFL Network's collection of Ryan Clady picks made him look utterly ridiculous (not surprisingly, this made me feel a bit better about Denver taking him), but point well made. I won't ever complain about Chris Long only having great, great highlights shown, but when 1, 2, 3 and 5 all have only their best moments shown, and 4 has some fairly ignominious ones in there, you have to wonder. All five had their fair share of boneheaded plays (this was perhaps most obvious in Jake Long's case, since Vernon Gholston's highlights at 6 were largely derived from those contests) -- with Chris Long maybe having the fewest bad raps against him -- but McFadden is the only one that had a more negative tone to his clips. Oh well.
Still, I really wish that this pick had been traded to drop and improve the OL.
4a. Tyvon Branch, CB, Connecticut.
Ugh. Are you serious? The Raiders sit on their hands for two rounds (or maybe not) and then finally trade up . . . to take a corner. I really need someone to explain to me Al's rationale for going CB multiple times every year. We get it: he loves corners. He's got a couple of good ones right now, though.
Now, Branch is one of the strongest corners around, even in comparison to the players in the game, and as I saw earlier today (don't recall where, thus no link -- sorry!), of the five players to match or exceed Branch's strength numbers at the combine, four are Pro-Bowlers, and the fifth is a solid starter. This gives me hope, despite the pick.
Rumor floating around the web right now is that he'll be a ST guy with an eye toward making him a safety. I find this prospect interesting -- it makes Schweigert totally redundant (thus dropping his already poor trade value even lower), and gives Huff some competition, and a little push from behind. If this turns out to be the case, then it's a great pick -- if he unseats Huff in the starting lineup, it's even better (though it indicates yet another first-round bust wearing silver and black).
4b. Arman Shields, WR, Richmond.
I know absolutely nothing about this guy save what I've read, so I'll just hope that he's as big and fast and talented as the reports indicate, that he learns and adjusts well to the pro game, and recovers fully from his injury. If so, fantastic.
6. Trevor Scott, DE, Buffalo.
As bizarre as this is going to be to read, I have to say it: I'm actually happier with this pick than with any other pick from the weekend. Does this mean I expect Scott to be better than McFadden, or to have a greater impact? No. It does mean, however, that I think it's a great pick for where and when it was -- and, oh yeah, actually targetted a position of need (crazy, that).
Kid played DE for two years and set his school's records in sacks and TFL. You've got to love the upside. He may need to get stronger through the legs, but that'll happen once he gets into camp.
I love this pick, I really do.
7. Chaz Schilens, WR, San Diego State?
Another guy I've never heard of, and ho hum, another WR taken. See also: Al's CB obsession. I understand that the Raiders' receiver corps is a work in progress, and that they need to upgrade. Fair enough. But is it a bad sign when the MSSM can't seem to agree on where he went to school? Was it Miami? Or did he actually go to San Diego State? (Note also that ESPN has no idea how tall the guy is -- nice.)
It'll be fun to watch a guy named Chaz, if only during the preseason.
Overall, I'd have to give this grade a good, solid C. Definitely just average, given what the Raiders needed, and the possibility that what they coveted may not work out as well as they hope. Still, it's not terrible, and there's potential for improvement at a few important positions.
Showing posts with label Draft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Draft. Show all posts
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Oakland Belatedly Takes a DL:
Trevor Scott, DE, Buffalo.
A bit undersized, but a converted tight end who was very productive once moved over to the other side to fill in after the school suffered a rash of inujuries -- kid played only two seasons on defense, but holds the school record for sacks.
Intriguing prospect, to say the least.
A bit undersized, but a converted tight end who was very productive once moved over to the other side to fill in after the school suffered a rash of inujuries -- kid played only two seasons on defense, but holds the school record for sacks.
Intriguing prospect, to say the least.
Need Help With This One:
The Raiders don't make a move into the second or third rounds via trade. Fair enough -- I can deal with this.
But they get to Round 4, where they pick fifth in the round, and promptly trade that pick plus one of their two sevens to Dallas . . .
in order to move up four places . . .
where they promptly draft . . .
A CORNERBACK?!
They already drafted a CB this year -- DeAngelo Hall, for whom they paid a 2 and a 5. Now they pick ANOTHER CB?!
I don't get it. I just don't. They need OL, DT, DE, S and SLB. What they've gotten is RB and CB -- both positions where they already have too many players and need to cut or trade the excess.
Apply the basic laws of supply and demand here -- the Raiders have too many CBs, thus driving the asking price down.
How does this make sense?
EDIT: The Raiders have traded Fabian Washington to Baltimore for a 4, which they used to take Richmond WR Arman Shields. It's an interesting pick, but the Raiders drafted Washington in the first round, and then traded him for a 4. Supply and demand.
But they get to Round 4, where they pick fifth in the round, and promptly trade that pick plus one of their two sevens to Dallas . . .
in order to move up four places . . .
where they promptly draft . . .
A CORNERBACK?!
They already drafted a CB this year -- DeAngelo Hall, for whom they paid a 2 and a 5. Now they pick ANOTHER CB?!
I don't get it. I just don't. They need OL, DT, DE, S and SLB. What they've gotten is RB and CB -- both positions where they already have too many players and need to cut or trade the excess.
Apply the basic laws of supply and demand here -- the Raiders have too many CBs, thus driving the asking price down.
How does this make sense?
EDIT: The Raiders have traded Fabian Washington to Baltimore for a 4, which they used to take Richmond WR Arman Shields. It's an interesting pick, but the Raiders drafted Washington in the first round, and then traded him for a 4. Supply and demand.
Some Thoughts After Day One:
The first day of the draft is now in the books, and all attention is turning to Day Two. With Day One immediately in the rear-view mirror, however, it's time to offer a few observations:
- I'll get this out of the way first: I'm delighted that Long went anywhere but KC. That said, I'm a bit irritated that Dorsey fell to 5 -- I'm not sure that I look forward to playing against him twice this season, with the interior of the Raiders' OL still far from a finished product.
- In fact, let me get this gripe out of the way: KC seems to have acquitted itself quite well on Day One. They needed OL, DL and CB, among other positions, and have taken good, good players at each position. Interestingly, they tapped the local well twice in squccession, drafting from Charlottesville at 15 and Blacksburg at 35. It'd be interesting to overhear their first conversation as Chiefs, see whether the rivalry rears its head for more than a moment.
- I hate Albert going to KC at 15, and I promise I'll get off the KC thing now.
- I do enjoy the fact, however, that Virginia's elite collegiate players all seem to be moving to Missouri: of the four VA players taken on Day One, three went to MO, with the fourth, Duane Brown, headed to Houston.
- Pittsburgh got lucky. The rich got richer on that one, nailing both Mendenhall and Sweed. A nice pair of pickups for a team that needed only to improve to be more competitive in a strong AFC.
- Speaking of improving: can Jacksonville parlay their draft into a shot to genuinely challenge Indy for the South this season? It'll be fun to watch.
- Building off of Jacksonville, you have to like how Baltimore handled their draft board yesterday. Joe Flacco may or may not turn out to be the answer at QB that the franchise has sought since relocating to Baltimore in the mid-90s. The way the Ravens wound up with a potential long-term QB and extra draft picks to boot was a thing of beauty. What's so interesting about Baltimore is that they always draft so well, and they have a deep well of talent -- they just can't maximize it, and, for all of their success drafting all over the field, they've been miserable with trying to get QBs and WRs. If Flacco turns out to be anything like Baltimore hopes, that could cushion their transition as they have to rebuild their defense over the next few seasons.
- Is Darren McFadden THE ANSWER for the Raiders? Let's not pin that much on the guy just yet, shall we? Nevertheless, Jeremy Green and Bill Williamson think that he is. I love Jeremy Green's obvious love for the Raiders -- such a vital antidote to the otherwise toxic attitude toward Oakland displayed by virtually every other ESPN personality. Still, like I've said before, McFadden is an extremely versatile player, and I like what Kiffin said yesterday (video avaialbe at Raiders.com): "Hey, I learned something from coaching Reggie Bush at USC -- it's far too easy to think that a guy this talented can learn to do everything, and what I found out there, and what Sean [Payton] found out in New Orleans, is that you have to teach them carefully and not try to make them do too much too fast, because otherwise you run the risk of making them not particularly good at anything." (Paraphrased.)
Kiffin was necessarily patient with Russell last season, he says he'll be patient with McFadden this season, which to me translates into not opening up against Denver with McFadden in the slot. Who knows, though. All the Nation can hope for is that McFadden takes his rightful place among the division's backs, and is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath with LJ and LT.
- Now the question remains: can the Raiders get into the third round? We'll see in a few hours.
- A final thought: NFL.com has an interesting article up wherein the make the 'unusual' observation that five of the six players taken 1-6 feel like they should have been #1 and have a chip on their shoulders.
Really. I'm stunned.
What's interesting, though, is this exchange, reported in the article:
But Chris Long soared to the No. 2 spot in the draft not only because of his talent, Long said, but also because he has plenty of experience at handling situations when there is plenty to prove.
"I've dealt every day of my life with my dad's career, the comparisons to him, with people wanting me to live up to him," Long said of his father, Howie. Chris Long was asked by a member in his group how he felt about not getting No. 91, his dad's old Raiders number, since it was not available with the Rams?
"No," he answered, sternly. "I don't want to be number 91."
It was a clear statement from Long and it was an emphatic one.
Great and all, but I'm thoroughly confused, for just one reason:
Just plain sloppy writing?
- I'll get this out of the way first: I'm delighted that Long went anywhere but KC. That said, I'm a bit irritated that Dorsey fell to 5 -- I'm not sure that I look forward to playing against him twice this season, with the interior of the Raiders' OL still far from a finished product.
- In fact, let me get this gripe out of the way: KC seems to have acquitted itself quite well on Day One. They needed OL, DL and CB, among other positions, and have taken good, good players at each position. Interestingly, they tapped the local well twice in squccession, drafting from Charlottesville at 15 and Blacksburg at 35. It'd be interesting to overhear their first conversation as Chiefs, see whether the rivalry rears its head for more than a moment.
- I hate Albert going to KC at 15, and I promise I'll get off the KC thing now.
- I do enjoy the fact, however, that Virginia's elite collegiate players all seem to be moving to Missouri: of the four VA players taken on Day One, three went to MO, with the fourth, Duane Brown, headed to Houston.
- Pittsburgh got lucky. The rich got richer on that one, nailing both Mendenhall and Sweed. A nice pair of pickups for a team that needed only to improve to be more competitive in a strong AFC.
- Speaking of improving: can Jacksonville parlay their draft into a shot to genuinely challenge Indy for the South this season? It'll be fun to watch.
- Building off of Jacksonville, you have to like how Baltimore handled their draft board yesterday. Joe Flacco may or may not turn out to be the answer at QB that the franchise has sought since relocating to Baltimore in the mid-90s. The way the Ravens wound up with a potential long-term QB and extra draft picks to boot was a thing of beauty. What's so interesting about Baltimore is that they always draft so well, and they have a deep well of talent -- they just can't maximize it, and, for all of their success drafting all over the field, they've been miserable with trying to get QBs and WRs. If Flacco turns out to be anything like Baltimore hopes, that could cushion their transition as they have to rebuild their defense over the next few seasons.
- Is Darren McFadden THE ANSWER for the Raiders? Let's not pin that much on the guy just yet, shall we? Nevertheless, Jeremy Green and Bill Williamson think that he is. I love Jeremy Green's obvious love for the Raiders -- such a vital antidote to the otherwise toxic attitude toward Oakland displayed by virtually every other ESPN personality. Still, like I've said before, McFadden is an extremely versatile player, and I like what Kiffin said yesterday (video avaialbe at Raiders.com): "Hey, I learned something from coaching Reggie Bush at USC -- it's far too easy to think that a guy this talented can learn to do everything, and what I found out there, and what Sean [Payton] found out in New Orleans, is that you have to teach them carefully and not try to make them do too much too fast, because otherwise you run the risk of making them not particularly good at anything." (Paraphrased.)
Kiffin was necessarily patient with Russell last season, he says he'll be patient with McFadden this season, which to me translates into not opening up against Denver with McFadden in the slot. Who knows, though. All the Nation can hope for is that McFadden takes his rightful place among the division's backs, and is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath with LJ and LT.
- Now the question remains: can the Raiders get into the third round? We'll see in a few hours.
- A final thought: NFL.com has an interesting article up wherein the make the 'unusual' observation that five of the six players taken 1-6 feel like they should have been #1 and have a chip on their shoulders.
Really. I'm stunned.
What's interesting, though, is this exchange, reported in the article:
But Chris Long soared to the No. 2 spot in the draft not only because of his talent, Long said, but also because he has plenty of experience at handling situations when there is plenty to prove.
"I've dealt every day of my life with my dad's career, the comparisons to him, with people wanting me to live up to him," Long said of his father, Howie. Chris Long was asked by a member in his group how he felt about not getting No. 91, his dad's old Raiders number, since it was not available with the Rams?
"No," he answered, sternly. "I don't want to be number 91."
It was a clear statement from Long and it was an emphatic one.
Great and all, but I'm thoroughly confused, for just one reason:
Just plain sloppy writing?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
KC Reels in Branden Albert:
This bothers me, for two reasons. First, KC already got Glenn Dorsey at 5, and now they made a good (if slightly expensive) trade with Detroit to get up and get Branden Albert at 15.
First, this bugs me because I have to watch a UVA guy, and a guy that I've said I think will wind up being the best LT taken in this draft, in KC red and gold.
Second, this bugs me because KC is drafting intelligently for once.
I miss the older, dumber KC.
First, this bugs me because I have to watch a UVA guy, and a guy that I've said I think will wind up being the best LT taken in this draft, in KC red and gold.
Second, this bugs me because KC is drafting intelligently for once.
I miss the older, dumber KC.
Welcome to Oakland, Darren McFadden:
I was at least right about this pick in the real mock, rather than the wishful mock -- me and 80% of the football-watching world.
Now it remains to be seen what happens with Rhodes and Jordan this weekend. Rhodes should get them a 2, which would be delightful.
Here's hoping that McFadden gets stronger through the legs and learns how to run through arm tackles. He's going to need to learn that skill, and immediately, in order to maximize his impact.
If he can take his "rightful place" among LT and LJ, even as the clear third in that triumverate, I'll wind up happy. If he gets laughed out of the conversation, well . . .
JaMarcus Russell has a genuine weapon in the backfield. Let's see how Kiffin and Knapp can utilize him this fall.
A Tale of Two Mocks:
I'm only going to mock out the first 10 picks, but I'll do it two different ways: assuming no trades, and what I'd actually like to see happen with the Raiders.
Top Ten Picks, No Trades:
1. Miami: Jake Long, OT, Michigan
2. St. Louis: Chris Long, DE, Virginia
3. Atlanta: Glenn Dorsey, DT, LSU
4. Oakland: Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Kansas City: Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State
6. NY Jets: Matt Ryan, QB, Boston College
7. New England: Keith Rivers, LB, USC
8. Baltimore: Ryan Clady, OT, Boise State
9. Cincinnati: Sedrick Ellis, DT, USC
10. New Orleans: Leodis McKelvin, CB, Troy
What I'd Like To See:
1. Miami: Jake Long, OT, Michigan
2. St. Louis: Chris Long, DE, Virginia
3. Atlanta: Glenn Dorsey, DT, LSU
4. NY Jets (from Oakland): Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Kansas City: Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State
6. Cincinnati (from Oakland): Sedrick Ellis, DT, USC
7. New England: Keith Rivers, LB, USC
8. Baltimore: Matt Ryan, QB, Boston College
9. Oakland: Branden Albert, OL, Virginia
10. New Orleans: Leodis McKelvin, CB, Troy
It's a goofy plan, what with the Raiders trading down twice, but they get the player that would probably have the biggest (immediate and lasting) impact on their future and fortunes, and they get him for cheaper, and haul in a few extra picks besides. It certainly won't pan out this way, and realistically, if there are two trades in the top 10, I think we can safely bet that it won't be the Raiders dropping twice, but it's nice to think about.
And, of course, "mock draft" may be quite the punny term for this little exercise, and if it is, feel free to tell me so!
Top Ten Picks, No Trades:
1. Miami: Jake Long, OT, Michigan
2. St. Louis: Chris Long, DE, Virginia
3. Atlanta: Glenn Dorsey, DT, LSU
4. Oakland: Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Kansas City: Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State
6. NY Jets: Matt Ryan, QB, Boston College
7. New England: Keith Rivers, LB, USC
8. Baltimore: Ryan Clady, OT, Boise State
9. Cincinnati: Sedrick Ellis, DT, USC
10. New Orleans: Leodis McKelvin, CB, Troy
What I'd Like To See:
1. Miami: Jake Long, OT, Michigan
2. St. Louis: Chris Long, DE, Virginia
3. Atlanta: Glenn Dorsey, DT, LSU
4. NY Jets (from Oakland): Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Kansas City: Vernon Gholston, DE, Ohio State
6. Cincinnati (from Oakland): Sedrick Ellis, DT, USC
7. New England: Keith Rivers, LB, USC
8. Baltimore: Matt Ryan, QB, Boston College
9. Oakland: Branden Albert, OL, Virginia
10. New Orleans: Leodis McKelvin, CB, Troy
It's a goofy plan, what with the Raiders trading down twice, but they get the player that would probably have the biggest (immediate and lasting) impact on their future and fortunes, and they get him for cheaper, and haul in a few extra picks besides. It certainly won't pan out this way, and realistically, if there are two trades in the top 10, I think we can safely bet that it won't be the Raiders dropping twice, but it's nice to think about.
And, of course, "mock draft" may be quite the punny term for this little exercise, and if it is, feel free to tell me so!
Draft Day Thoughts: Oakland Raiders Trade Bait:
Thoughts are floating around the web fast and furious, what with the draft being mere hours away, and one of the things on the minds of many in Raider Nation is "who won't be a Raider by the end of the weekend?"
It's a good question, and one that could have implications for who comes into camp with the Raiders this summer, although, based on the potential bait, any trades will probably be more meaningful for the later rounds than for the earlier.
Let's dispense with the obvious suspects first:
- LaMont Jordan, RB: Trade value: Next to none, if that much.
Call me crazy, but I have a hard time seeing the Raiders move Jordan, for several reasons: he has a bad back, a worse attitude, and a salary that far exceeds his performance. The conventional wisdom is that the Raiders must get rid of Jordan one way or another eventually, which lowers his trade value below that already preset by his health and attitude concerns.
Best value: Anyone who thinks that Oakland can get more than a 5 for Jordan is kidding themselves, and even that would be a good trade. A 6 is more likely, if anything at al.
- Fabian Washington, CB. Trade value: Moderate.
Washington is a cover-two CB who was forced to try to play man, and he never adjusted well enough. He lost his job to a track star last season, and, for the clincher, he has off-field problems to attend to. This is the worst possible climate to try and move Washington, who though he projects to have some success in a cover-two scheme, and may even be a dependable starting corner in the right system, has problems that affect his trade value in every conceivable way: a large crop of CBs in the draft, his character and baggage questions, the fact that he is a 1 that didn't pan out, and, last but not least, competition from other CBs: the Raiders nabbed DeAngelo Hall for a 2 and a 5, and Lito Sheppard wants out of Philly.
Best value: For whom would you rather trade: Washington or Sheppard? The answer to that question tells you what the Raiders may get for Washington: a 3 is a best case for this deal, more if he's packaged with someone else.
- Andrew Walter, QB. Trade value: Adequate.
He has a great arm and good size. He's also slower of foot than Drew Bledsoe, and needs to be reconstructed mentally as well as in terms of a new playbook. He's a total project, and more than that, a broken project, with the beating he took in 2006 (which, to judge from his limited time in preseason and the regular season in 2007, he hasn't shaken off).
Best value: Walter was a 3, and certainly won't go for that much or more. He's a possibility with a 4, but a 5 is more realistic.
Now for the potential/situational trades:
- Derrick Burgess, DE
Burgess has been a great acquisition for the Raiders, one of a precious few genuinely good off-season acquisitions in recent years. The problem is that he's outplayed his contract, and he knows it. (Think the dead opposite of LaMont Jordan.) Worse, he's seen people that have had less impact on the Raiders' D get bigger contracts than he has, and, to top it all off, was promised a new contract by the since-fired Mike Lombardi.
If the Raiders take a DE, then Burgess may be on his way out. Even if they don't, he may be a draft-day trade; what would be his value packaged with Washington for a defense-poor team like, say, Cincinnati? (The possibility for a big trade between these two lingers, and I won't write it off yet -- not until Cincy drafts at 9).
- Dominic Rhodes, RB
Perhaps the Raiders' most tradable player, Rhodes is immediately on the block if the Raiders take McFadden at 4.
Naturally, this is far from an exhaustive list, but some of these players may not be wearing Silver and Black by the time Monday rolls around. I've deliberately left one player off the list, rather than jinx anything and watch him be traded. Suffice to say there's one player the Raiders have that would certainly fetch them a 1, and he's the one player they cannot afford to let go. Here's hoping they don't.
It's a good question, and one that could have implications for who comes into camp with the Raiders this summer, although, based on the potential bait, any trades will probably be more meaningful for the later rounds than for the earlier.
Let's dispense with the obvious suspects first:
- LaMont Jordan, RB: Trade value: Next to none, if that much.
Call me crazy, but I have a hard time seeing the Raiders move Jordan, for several reasons: he has a bad back, a worse attitude, and a salary that far exceeds his performance. The conventional wisdom is that the Raiders must get rid of Jordan one way or another eventually, which lowers his trade value below that already preset by his health and attitude concerns.
Best value: Anyone who thinks that Oakland can get more than a 5 for Jordan is kidding themselves, and even that would be a good trade. A 6 is more likely, if anything at al.
- Fabian Washington, CB. Trade value: Moderate.
Washington is a cover-two CB who was forced to try to play man, and he never adjusted well enough. He lost his job to a track star last season, and, for the clincher, he has off-field problems to attend to. This is the worst possible climate to try and move Washington, who though he projects to have some success in a cover-two scheme, and may even be a dependable starting corner in the right system, has problems that affect his trade value in every conceivable way: a large crop of CBs in the draft, his character and baggage questions, the fact that he is a 1 that didn't pan out, and, last but not least, competition from other CBs: the Raiders nabbed DeAngelo Hall for a 2 and a 5, and Lito Sheppard wants out of Philly.
Best value: For whom would you rather trade: Washington or Sheppard? The answer to that question tells you what the Raiders may get for Washington: a 3 is a best case for this deal, more if he's packaged with someone else.
- Andrew Walter, QB. Trade value: Adequate.
He has a great arm and good size. He's also slower of foot than Drew Bledsoe, and needs to be reconstructed mentally as well as in terms of a new playbook. He's a total project, and more than that, a broken project, with the beating he took in 2006 (which, to judge from his limited time in preseason and the regular season in 2007, he hasn't shaken off).
Best value: Walter was a 3, and certainly won't go for that much or more. He's a possibility with a 4, but a 5 is more realistic.
Now for the potential/situational trades:
- Derrick Burgess, DE
Burgess has been a great acquisition for the Raiders, one of a precious few genuinely good off-season acquisitions in recent years. The problem is that he's outplayed his contract, and he knows it. (Think the dead opposite of LaMont Jordan.) Worse, he's seen people that have had less impact on the Raiders' D get bigger contracts than he has, and, to top it all off, was promised a new contract by the since-fired Mike Lombardi.
If the Raiders take a DE, then Burgess may be on his way out. Even if they don't, he may be a draft-day trade; what would be his value packaged with Washington for a defense-poor team like, say, Cincinnati? (The possibility for a big trade between these two lingers, and I won't write it off yet -- not until Cincy drafts at 9).
- Dominic Rhodes, RB
Perhaps the Raiders' most tradable player, Rhodes is immediately on the block if the Raiders take McFadden at 4.
Naturally, this is far from an exhaustive list, but some of these players may not be wearing Silver and Black by the time Monday rolls around. I've deliberately left one player off the list, rather than jinx anything and watch him be traded. Suffice to say there's one player the Raiders have that would certainly fetch them a 1, and he's the one player they cannot afford to let go. Here's hoping they don't.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
KC Trades Jared Allen to Minnesota, and One Raider Fan Is Very Unhappy About It:
The Kansas City Chiefs have traded Jared Allen to the Minnesota Vikings.
From an Oakland fan's perspective, this is a dream come true: a division oppoent trading their best player not only out of the division, but out of the conference? That's fantastic! If nothing else, Broncos, Chargers and Raiders fans were of a mind about this one today, and all were pleased.
Then, when the dust settled, Raider fans realized that they had a lot less ground to be pleased than do Broncos or Chargers fans, for one reason: this impacts Oakland's draft prospects, and doesn't impact either SD or Denver's board.
Consider the following: Jake Long is the #1 pick. This fact alone has a negligible impact on Oakland, but it does mean that Chris Long is on the board at 2.
But here's the kicker:
What if St. Louis takes Glenn Dorsey?
Chris Long is still on the board at 3, waiting to fall into Atlanta's lap. The conventional wisdom is that Atlanta wants a QB, and will be going after Matt Ryan here.
Take the conventional wisdom as correct on this one. Chris Long is sitting at 3, waiting to be picked up, and Atlanta gets a call from Carl Peterson. "Want to trade down?" Carl asks. Atlanta looks behind them at #4 -- Oakland. Took a QB #1 overall last season, probably isn't going to take Ryan away from us. "Sure," says Atlanta.
All of a sudden, Chris Long could be wearing red and gold. If there's a replacement for Jared Allen in this draft, it's Chris Long.
Howie's kid playing his home games in Arrowhead. That may be the end of Al, but it's a terrible scenario for the Raiders.
There is a silver lining: if that trade happens, Baltimore may be calling Oakland in a hurry, trying to get up to 4 to get Ryan before he falls to 5.
But, again, here's the bad news behind the silver lining: Carl Peterson could be calling in-state right now, trying to turn some of his 13 picks into the #2 overall.
There's no upshot to that scenario. If KC goes up to 2 to take Chris Long, that doesn't even help the Raiders make a trade they couldn't before, and, again, you're looking at "LONG" written across a red jersey instead of a black one.
As my brother, a Pack fan, said to me this morning regarding the Allen trade, "I'm not pleased." That's my reaction, now that the dust has settled and the euphoria has worn off: for now, until Saturday, I am really unhappy about this trade.
From an Oakland fan's perspective, this is a dream come true: a division oppoent trading their best player not only out of the division, but out of the conference? That's fantastic! If nothing else, Broncos, Chargers and Raiders fans were of a mind about this one today, and all were pleased.
Then, when the dust settled, Raider fans realized that they had a lot less ground to be pleased than do Broncos or Chargers fans, for one reason: this impacts Oakland's draft prospects, and doesn't impact either SD or Denver's board.
Consider the following: Jake Long is the #1 pick. This fact alone has a negligible impact on Oakland, but it does mean that Chris Long is on the board at 2.
But here's the kicker:
What if St. Louis takes Glenn Dorsey?
Chris Long is still on the board at 3, waiting to fall into Atlanta's lap. The conventional wisdom is that Atlanta wants a QB, and will be going after Matt Ryan here.
Take the conventional wisdom as correct on this one. Chris Long is sitting at 3, waiting to be picked up, and Atlanta gets a call from Carl Peterson. "Want to trade down?" Carl asks. Atlanta looks behind them at #4 -- Oakland. Took a QB #1 overall last season, probably isn't going to take Ryan away from us. "Sure," says Atlanta.
All of a sudden, Chris Long could be wearing red and gold. If there's a replacement for Jared Allen in this draft, it's Chris Long.
Howie's kid playing his home games in Arrowhead. That may be the end of Al, but it's a terrible scenario for the Raiders.
There is a silver lining: if that trade happens, Baltimore may be calling Oakland in a hurry, trying to get up to 4 to get Ryan before he falls to 5.
But, again, here's the bad news behind the silver lining: Carl Peterson could be calling in-state right now, trying to turn some of his 13 picks into the #2 overall.
There's no upshot to that scenario. If KC goes up to 2 to take Chris Long, that doesn't even help the Raiders make a trade they couldn't before, and, again, you're looking at "LONG" written across a red jersey instead of a black one.
As my brother, a Pack fan, said to me this morning regarding the Allen trade, "I'm not pleased." That's my reaction, now that the dust has settled and the euphoria has worn off: for now, until Saturday, I am really unhappy about this trade.
A Curious Note about Jake Long's Contract:
Long's reported contract terms are 5 years, $57.75 million, with $30 million guaranteed.
Last year's number one overall, JaMarcus Russell, signed a deal with $61 million over 6, with $32 of that guaranteed.
Compare them side-by-side at an annual payout based solely on the broad numbers:
Long: $11.55 mil./year, $6 mil./year guaranteed.
Russell: $10.2 mil./year, $5.4 mil./year guaranteed.
Last year, all you heard from that contract was how it was the richest ever for a rookie, how much commitment it was to an unproven player.
So far? I've heard nothing of the kind regarding Long's contract, which, while shorter, is richer than Russell's, even without the "quarterback premium."
At the risk of impugning the MSSM, has this anything to do with the players themselves (yes, I'm broaching the race question)? The positions? Or just the teams drafting them?
Last year's number one overall, JaMarcus Russell, signed a deal with $61 million over 6, with $32 of that guaranteed.
Compare them side-by-side at an annual payout based solely on the broad numbers:
Long: $11.55 mil./year, $6 mil./year guaranteed.
Russell: $10.2 mil./year, $5.4 mil./year guaranteed.
Last year, all you heard from that contract was how it was the richest ever for a rookie, how much commitment it was to an unproven player.
So far? I've heard nothing of the kind regarding Long's contract, which, while shorter, is richer than Russell's, even without the "quarterback premium."
At the risk of impugning the MSSM, has this anything to do with the players themselves (yes, I'm broaching the race question)? The positions? Or just the teams drafting them?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Jake Long is a Dolphin:
ESPN is reporting that Jake Long has signed and will go first to the Miami Dolphins on Saturday.
This impacts my plans for the weekend two ways. First, it means that the Raiders should be picking just after 9:30 local, rather than at 9:40, barring any trades. This is the minimal impact.
The greater impact is that I had planned to do a first-round mock for the first time ever, with "mock" being the operative word, since it would probably have been ridiculously off. I actually intended to do two different Long drafts, one predicated on Jake going 1, one on Chris. Now I can just toss the Christ-first draft idea and work from Jake on down.
Congratulations to Jake Long, who got paid, and to the Dolphins, who can now look toward the remainder of the weekend. Saint Louis, you're on the clock -- and I rather expect this to be a Long couple of first picks, if you will pardon (or mock) the bad pun.
This impacts my plans for the weekend two ways. First, it means that the Raiders should be picking just after 9:30 local, rather than at 9:40, barring any trades. This is the minimal impact.
The greater impact is that I had planned to do a first-round mock for the first time ever, with "mock" being the operative word, since it would probably have been ridiculously off. I actually intended to do two different Long drafts, one predicated on Jake going 1, one on Chris. Now I can just toss the Christ-first draft idea and work from Jake on down.
Congratulations to Jake Long, who got paid, and to the Dolphins, who can now look toward the remainder of the weekend. Saint Louis, you're on the clock -- and I rather expect this to be a Long couple of first picks, if you will pardon (or mock) the bad pun.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Oakland Raiders 2008 Draft Wish List: Round One:
I'll go ahead and get the obvious post out of the way first -- one fan's wish list for the first pick, in order of preference:
1. Chris Long, DE, Virginia
2. Trade down
3. Branden Albert, OL, Virginia*
4. Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Sedrick Ellis, DL, USC
Chris Long to the Raiders is a no-brainer for me, for all sorts of reasons. I've been worried for a while about him having to play out of his dad's shadow, but it looks like he has the skills and work ethic to make that happen (and good for him on both counts).
It's even worse a proposition to have him try to play out of Howie's shadow in Oakland, of all places; bear in mind, when Howie finally retired, he was the last of the Oakland Raiders -- precisely to the moment when the franchise moved back to Oakland from LA (as an aside, I have no idea who the last LA Raider was -- Tim Brown?).
Still, the upside outweighs the risks, and the word on Long is that he looks versatile enough to move inside or play OLB as well as end. Some people say he projects more as a 4-3 end than a 3-4 end, or as a hybrid DE/DT for hybrid defenses, but despite the uncertainty of projection, this is all music to my ears. The Raiders tipped their hand a bit last season, and did the expected thing: started to rotate back to a 3-4 base defense. Remember, when Rob Ryan got to Oakland, he tried -- with very limited success -- to implement a 3-4, with the wrong personnel (Sapp simply was not a 3-4 NT), and it should have been clear to everyone that he'd want to start working back there once he had the right personnel -- or, at least, no longer had the wrong personnel. Exit Sapp, enter 3-4, which the Raiders still can't run adequately (who would be the NT, again?), but Long as a situational stand-up rusher in a 3-4? Good news. Moving inside, rotating with Kelly and Warren from the 4-3? Awesome. Opposite Burgess in the 4-3 base? Even better.
I love Long at 4 -- IF he drops that far; personally, I have a hard time seeing him hit past St. Louis at 2.
Failing C. Long, the Raiders best bet, in my mind, is to trade down, get out of the 4 slot, and get some more first-day picks. Dallas is the pie-in-the-sky pipe dream pick, but the Raiders could get enough interest from, say, the Jets or the Bungles, maybe even the Ravens or Lions, at this slot, and can pick up players and picks. As ridiculous as it sounds -- and as certain not to happen as it is, Ocho Cinco and the 9 to the Raiders for the 4 and maybe a 5th? shrug Stranger things have happened, and likely will again, and for the record, I don't especially welcome TWO pain-in-the-ass receivers on the same team, as talented a pair as they would be together.
There are numerous trade possibilities open to the Raiders, theoretically, at least, though they may be hampered by the one thing that probably will not happen: the Jets trading up from 6 to 4 to go after McFadden. For that to really be a possibility, that would really have to mean that the Jets think that KC is going after McFadden, or that the Raiders want him badly, but not badly enough to stick to him. If KC goes after OL, as they should, and the Raiders look elsewhere, as they probably should, then the Jets can sit tight and wait. The Raiders could always draft McFadden and try to provoke a trade that way, which isn't a bad idea if Long is off the board -- worst-case scenario there is you get a player virtually everyone covets and who would a) provide Kiffin and Knapp with a lot of options on offense and on ST, and b) would put butts in the seats, which is almost as important at this point.
Branden Albert I had to asterisk like a Barry Bonds stat line, because no one has him going to Oakland at 4. The Raiders need line, though, and no one disputes that. Cornell Green vs. Paul McQuistain at RT is an interesting battle, but it's a sign of the dearth of talent along the line that a career backup and a not-yet-been player are fighting over the starting position. On the left side, it's Kwame Harris.
... seriously?
Albert is immediately competitive at either position, and this is the guy who will wind up being the best OL in this draft -- put me down on that right now. He's smart, he's strong, he's quick, has great feet, is very mobile, and is mean as hell in the trenches -- is there anything else you could ask for in an OL? Taking him at 4 does any number of things: it protects Russell's back better than Harris could OR it gets Gallery over to RG, thus upgrading both G positions OR gets rid of Gallery entirely (or, just as good, forces him to restructure his wildly exorbitant contract to a more reasonable level based on his performance to date -- it's not as if he has ANY leverage right now). Find me a Raider fan that wouldn't welcome an upgrade over Harris, Green, Cooper and/or Gallery -- Albert provides plausible scenarios for improvement at EVERY SINGLE LINE POSITION SAVE CENTER. If that's not a million-dollar pick for a franchise that's bleeding profusely along the offensive line, I don't know what is. In fact, I like Albert enough at this pick to almost bump him over "trade down," but the possibility to improve the OL with a later pick AND get more talent later is just slightly more attractive.
Still, leaving Albert on the board probably puts him in KC, which is just a terrible scenario.
More pixels have been dedicated to the "McFadden to the Raiders" scenario than any other that I have seen and, frankly, I have nothing to add. I like the pick, if it comes to that, because of all of the options that would open up. Just one example: for the first time in quite a while, the Raiders could legitimately run a 4-WR set: Walker-McFadden-Curry-Higgins/Carter. (Edit: Thanks to Patrick at Thoughts from the Dark Side for reminding me that Carter will be in Silver and Black this season.) Throw Miller out there on an underneath, and the Raiders actually have a chance to, say it with me, spread the field.
Why is this important? Look at good teams vs. bad teams, and pay attention to your perspective on the size of the field. Good teams make the field look big. Great teams make it look huge (think about how big the field looks when the Patriots or Colts have the ball on offense).
Bad teams, by contrast, play in a teeny little box. The Raiders are trying to fight out of that box, but they simply do not have the weapons to make the field any bigger; thus, they have to play "small" and can be defended "small." They're losing the ability to contest the whole field for lack of personnel. McFadden helps correct this.
Lastly, Sedrick Ellis. The Raiders need more DL help, and if Long and Dorsey are gone by 4, he's the guy. He's also trade bait that someone like Cincinnati would covet.
Any way it goes, it'll be interesting, and there will be cause to complain and to praise -- unless Al goes crazy and takes a DB first, in which case there will only be cause to complain.
1. Chris Long, DE, Virginia
2. Trade down
3. Branden Albert, OL, Virginia*
4. Darren McFadden, RB, Arkansas
5. Sedrick Ellis, DL, USC
Chris Long to the Raiders is a no-brainer for me, for all sorts of reasons. I've been worried for a while about him having to play out of his dad's shadow, but it looks like he has the skills and work ethic to make that happen (and good for him on both counts).
It's even worse a proposition to have him try to play out of Howie's shadow in Oakland, of all places; bear in mind, when Howie finally retired, he was the last of the Oakland Raiders -- precisely to the moment when the franchise moved back to Oakland from LA (as an aside, I have no idea who the last LA Raider was -- Tim Brown?).
Still, the upside outweighs the risks, and the word on Long is that he looks versatile enough to move inside or play OLB as well as end. Some people say he projects more as a 4-3 end than a 3-4 end, or as a hybrid DE/DT for hybrid defenses, but despite the uncertainty of projection, this is all music to my ears. The Raiders tipped their hand a bit last season, and did the expected thing: started to rotate back to a 3-4 base defense. Remember, when Rob Ryan got to Oakland, he tried -- with very limited success -- to implement a 3-4, with the wrong personnel (Sapp simply was not a 3-4 NT), and it should have been clear to everyone that he'd want to start working back there once he had the right personnel -- or, at least, no longer had the wrong personnel. Exit Sapp, enter 3-4, which the Raiders still can't run adequately (who would be the NT, again?), but Long as a situational stand-up rusher in a 3-4? Good news. Moving inside, rotating with Kelly and Warren from the 4-3? Awesome. Opposite Burgess in the 4-3 base? Even better.
I love Long at 4 -- IF he drops that far; personally, I have a hard time seeing him hit past St. Louis at 2.
Failing C. Long, the Raiders best bet, in my mind, is to trade down, get out of the 4 slot, and get some more first-day picks. Dallas is the pie-in-the-sky pipe dream pick, but the Raiders could get enough interest from, say, the Jets or the Bungles, maybe even the Ravens or Lions, at this slot, and can pick up players and picks. As ridiculous as it sounds -- and as certain not to happen as it is, Ocho Cinco and the 9 to the Raiders for the 4 and maybe a 5th? shrug Stranger things have happened, and likely will again, and for the record, I don't especially welcome TWO pain-in-the-ass receivers on the same team, as talented a pair as they would be together.
There are numerous trade possibilities open to the Raiders, theoretically, at least, though they may be hampered by the one thing that probably will not happen: the Jets trading up from 6 to 4 to go after McFadden. For that to really be a possibility, that would really have to mean that the Jets think that KC is going after McFadden, or that the Raiders want him badly, but not badly enough to stick to him. If KC goes after OL, as they should, and the Raiders look elsewhere, as they probably should, then the Jets can sit tight and wait. The Raiders could always draft McFadden and try to provoke a trade that way, which isn't a bad idea if Long is off the board -- worst-case scenario there is you get a player virtually everyone covets and who would a) provide Kiffin and Knapp with a lot of options on offense and on ST, and b) would put butts in the seats, which is almost as important at this point.
Branden Albert I had to asterisk like a Barry Bonds stat line, because no one has him going to Oakland at 4. The Raiders need line, though, and no one disputes that. Cornell Green vs. Paul McQuistain at RT is an interesting battle, but it's a sign of the dearth of talent along the line that a career backup and a not-yet-been player are fighting over the starting position. On the left side, it's Kwame Harris.
... seriously?
Albert is immediately competitive at either position, and this is the guy who will wind up being the best OL in this draft -- put me down on that right now. He's smart, he's strong, he's quick, has great feet, is very mobile, and is mean as hell in the trenches -- is there anything else you could ask for in an OL? Taking him at 4 does any number of things: it protects Russell's back better than Harris could OR it gets Gallery over to RG, thus upgrading both G positions OR gets rid of Gallery entirely (or, just as good, forces him to restructure his wildly exorbitant contract to a more reasonable level based on his performance to date -- it's not as if he has ANY leverage right now). Find me a Raider fan that wouldn't welcome an upgrade over Harris, Green, Cooper and/or Gallery -- Albert provides plausible scenarios for improvement at EVERY SINGLE LINE POSITION SAVE CENTER. If that's not a million-dollar pick for a franchise that's bleeding profusely along the offensive line, I don't know what is. In fact, I like Albert enough at this pick to almost bump him over "trade down," but the possibility to improve the OL with a later pick AND get more talent later is just slightly more attractive.
Still, leaving Albert on the board probably puts him in KC, which is just a terrible scenario.
More pixels have been dedicated to the "McFadden to the Raiders" scenario than any other that I have seen and, frankly, I have nothing to add. I like the pick, if it comes to that, because of all of the options that would open up. Just one example: for the first time in quite a while, the Raiders could legitimately run a 4-WR set: Walker-McFadden-Curry-Higgins/Carter. (Edit: Thanks to Patrick at Thoughts from the Dark Side for reminding me that Carter will be in Silver and Black this season.) Throw Miller out there on an underneath, and the Raiders actually have a chance to, say it with me, spread the field.
Why is this important? Look at good teams vs. bad teams, and pay attention to your perspective on the size of the field. Good teams make the field look big. Great teams make it look huge (think about how big the field looks when the Patriots or Colts have the ball on offense).
Bad teams, by contrast, play in a teeny little box. The Raiders are trying to fight out of that box, but they simply do not have the weapons to make the field any bigger; thus, they have to play "small" and can be defended "small." They're losing the ability to contest the whole field for lack of personnel. McFadden helps correct this.
Lastly, Sedrick Ellis. The Raiders need more DL help, and if Long and Dorsey are gone by 4, he's the guy. He's also trade bait that someone like Cincinnati would covet.
Any way it goes, it'll be interesting, and there will be cause to complain and to praise -- unless Al goes crazy and takes a DB first, in which case there will only be cause to complain.
DRAFT WEEK!!
I'd have been a lot more active about this week heading into the draft than I have been, saved the nuisance of no broadband at home. If nothing else, I've learned that the blog has evolved with the increse in connectivity speed, and is essentially useless at dial-up speeds.
In any event, I'm going to try to have draft-themed posts running throughout the week. I've taken care of the logistical priorities, i.e., getting a line on a 6 of IBC Cream Soda and a 2L of Mt. Dew for Draft Weekend, I'm ready to fire up my very own Ant's Draft Day Nacho Platter, and I'm ready to stay up far, far too late into the early hours of the morning on Saturday and Sunday watching as much coverage as I can.
By the end of the weekend, I'll have a bellyache, feel somewhat loagy from more damn soda than I drink in eight months, be very irritable from too much tv, and, for good measure, be wicked tired and off-rhythm because the NFL, in all its foresightedness, has decided to move the draft to later in the day, so rather than kicking off at 6 pm my time, it'll be 9.
On the plus side, barring a trade (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TRADE DOWN!!!), the Raiders will be picking before 9:40 local. Gotta love the new ten-minute first round.
In any event, I'm going to try to have draft-themed posts running throughout the week. I've taken care of the logistical priorities, i.e., getting a line on a 6 of IBC Cream Soda and a 2L of Mt. Dew for Draft Weekend, I'm ready to fire up my very own Ant's Draft Day Nacho Platter, and I'm ready to stay up far, far too late into the early hours of the morning on Saturday and Sunday watching as much coverage as I can.
By the end of the weekend, I'll have a bellyache, feel somewhat loagy from more damn soda than I drink in eight months, be very irritable from too much tv, and, for good measure, be wicked tired and off-rhythm because the NFL, in all its foresightedness, has decided to move the draft to later in the day, so rather than kicking off at 6 pm my time, it'll be 9.
On the plus side, barring a trade (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TRADE DOWN!!!), the Raiders will be picking before 9:40 local. Gotta love the new ten-minute first round.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
