Shawne Merriman to Forego Surgery, Play Hurt:

And the "Dumbass of the Year Award Goes To . . ."

I can't even fathom the thought process that goes into this. It's a contract year, sure, but everyone knows what he can do when he's healthy and *cough* supplemented. Does he do the reasonable thing, take the year out, get paid a fantastic amount of money next season, and come back with a vengeance?

Nope. Instead, he does the insane thing and decide to play on a severely damaged knee.

One good shot to the knee, and it could be not just "bye-bye 2008," it could be "Lights Out" for Merriman's career.

Incidentally, the Chargers play the Broncos week 2, and the Raiders week 4. Two cut-blocking teams in the first month of the season. Anyone want to bet Merriman gets hurt in one of those two games?

RIP Gene Upshaw

I won't eulogize the man, since Patrick and Rob over at Thoughts from the Dark Side already did so, and well, but there is one thing that I want to point out:

The NFL's labor picture just became considerably cloudier and more inscrutable.

Rest well, Gene -- you were one of the true greats.

Liveblogging Raiders at Titans:

This should be fun -- the first time I've done this:

- It's a bad sign to see a penalty on the opening kickoff return.

- First Raiders drive was adequate, but they're showing a bit more openness from within the playbook, and they're calling some quick rhythm passes to get Russell warmed up and mentally in the game. I love the first-down quick-hitch to Curry.

- I'd like to see both Fargas and McFadden play very little tonight; give Bush, Rankin and Echemandu the reps. Tennessee has a great run D, so why take the chance that either of your top two guys get hurt.

- Three blitzes on the first three defensive plays? Rob Ryan might be taking the training wheels off. Stanford Routt needs to work on his blitzing skills, since he was absolutely absorbed by a blocker, but Howard could be dangerous if they can hold the line enough to spring him to blitz more often.

- Good open-field tackle from Huff. A year ago, that play becomes a first down.

- Ok, so the quick-hitch didn't work a second time through. Poor drive, and the failure to take advantage of the first and five is somewhat discouraging.

- Haha, Chris Carr lost yardage on the return. Take that, you trash-talking loser!

- I love that play from Gibril Wilson. He gambled to get the tip, missed, but still recovered well enough to make the tackle. Great play out on the edge.

- Two special teams penalties in the first quarter. Good god . . .

- It'd be easy to overlook how good that one-yard run on first down just was. Good run, D-Mac, even if only netted one yard. Got the rest on second down, though.

- Great, great job on the checkdown, Russell. Smart decision to hit the back and see what can be salvaged. Great coverage back there, Titans, and great tackle, Finnegan.

- Still some problems with the Raiders run D -- there's a 20-yard run, and Morrison was ot of position to make the stop. That's the weakness of the Law Firm's collective games, and it clearly still needs work.

- Potentially lost in another poorly defended run play is Tommy Kelly getting well into the backfield. He looks exceptional thus far this preseason.

- TOUCHDOWN RAIDERS!

• The highlight of this drive is the pass protection: the line did an exceptional job on this drive of keeping a very good defensive line off of Russell. Highlight: McFadden in blitz pickup. That's a weak point in his game, but Rathman is obviously teaching him well, and McFadden is obviously learning well.


• Love seeing Zach Miller get involved in the offense like that. A couple of excellent catches, including a brilliant catch on the TD reception (on an equally brilliant throw from Russell).


• Russell displayed good presence of mind, rolling out when he needed to, and switching the ball from right to left when Haynesworth got close. Good play, and good touch on his passes.

- Another penalty? Damn it . . .

- Yet ANOTHER penalty -- Gallery holds, and a 3rd-and-2 becoes 2nd-and-15. Oh, and look, another penalty on the offense on 3rd-and-15. The Raiders have gone 7 flags for 50 yards thus far -- six minutes into the second quarter. That would be 21 for 150 projected over the game. It should sound outlandish, but it's happened before, in terms of yardage, if not in terms of actual flags. This must, must be worked on.

- Jesus, what a kick from Pakulak. That 71-yarder may have just gotten him a job somewhere before all is said and done. Unbelievable.

- Speaking of penalties, how about a block in the back?

- That was just a mind-bogglingly stupid play by Higgins. He may have trouble making the roster as it is, but a) to field on the six, then b) to run backward, risking a safety, and then c) to fail to recognize your mistake and just hit the ground, but rather put the ball on the ground and give the Titans a cheap tying touchdown is just unbelievable. Man, that was awful.

- McQuistain running back a kickoff? That was one goofy-lookin' return.

- Ok, I like Knapp's call, giving Higgins the ball on the end-around. A decent little run by JLH, but he's hanging the ball out far too loose.

- If Chris Johnson is running through the Raiders like a blowtorch through butter, what is LT going to do to them? Same thing he always does, from the looks of it.

- Far be it from me to begrudge points (man, nice kick, Aaron Elling -- another guy who is potentially kicking his way into a job), but am I the only one who wanted to see Russell kick back and just launch one?

- That should just about do it for Michael Waddell. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you, dude.

- Schilens and Watkins are both showing something at WR. Both have been pretty impressive to this point.

- Last week, Rankin busted off a 72-yard run, only to be caught from behind. This week, Echemandu ripped off a 71-yarder, only to be caught from behind.

- And it doesn't matter, because OO just fumbled on the two. Great.

- That fumble turned out to be pretty significant, eh?

Some First-Quarter Notes, Raiders v. 9ers:

• God, it's good to have football back, even if it's only preseason.



• The Raiders are in midseason form with regard to penalties, I see. Ugh.



• Fargas and McFadden look pretty good in this first quarter. Here's hoping . . . and I want to see Michael Bush already.



• A sack on the first drive. Seriously?



• The first-team passing game doesn't look so great this first time out. At the same time, the first-team run D seems positively mediocre -- quite the improvement. That may be a positive, but what the hell, it's the 9ers -- a team unarguably in the same league as the Raiders.



• Gibril Wilson made his presence known. I am really looking forward to the starting back four getting some extended playing time -- they could be something special. And if the Raiders are going to win many games, they're going to have to be.



• If Tommy Kelly can get into game shape, he could begin to justify his contract. A good couple of series from him.

More after the game.

And the Oakland Raiders Make Another Mistake Heading into the Season:

It's been a less-than-stellar offseason for the Raiders, which seems to have continued into the weekend, if the rumors that Javon Walker offered to return his signing bonus and retire are true.

The rumors, which are coming from multiple sources, say that Walker offered to give the team back the $11 million he received in bonus money and walk away -- until Al talked him out of it.

This has all of the makings of a major, self-inflicted ass-biting in the making, considering that the consistent word is that everyone is outperforming Walker in camp, and that he is performing so badly that he may as well not even be there. And yet there he is -- and with that salary, does anyone think that he won't start, even if he's four or five on an honest performance chart?

Ugh.

On the Idea of "Legacy," I:

The idea of "legacy" has been on my mind quite a bit lately, and for obvious reasons: the (seemingly endless) Brett Favre flap. Will he or won't he? When will he? When won't he? What about the other guy? Have they moved on? Should there be competition? And so on, almost literally ad nauseum.

Here's the question that keeps sticking me: What about Brett's legacy? Doesn't he care about that?

Short answer, admittedly speculative, from the outside: No, he doesn't. And more than that, he's right not to care about that.

Legacy is a funny thing, but what gets lost in the continuous, endless, generally self-important pontificating on the matter, in the constant parade of false-modest "gatekeepers" of the man's legacy, of the countless stream of Besserwissers and well-wishers seeking to protect the man from himself, is one simple truth:

Brett Favre has no control over his legacy, not anymore, not at this point in his career. None. Arguably, he had none at all, but somehow, this is overlooked in the crush of sports pundits eager to weigh in -- and catch a little attention themselves (he said, fully aware of the irony of the statement) -- and proclaim what should and should not happen here.

Brett's a quarterback, so let's think about other QBs. "Broadway" Joe Namath. Ken "The Snake" Stabler. John Elway. Joe Montana. Steve Young. What about them? Their legacies, or lack thereof:

• Joe Namath and Ken Stabler are so firmly identified with their respective teams -- the Jets and the Raiders -- that no one immediately remembers that they both finished their careers elsewhere (the Rams and the Oilers and then Saints, respectively). Sure, people know that, but it's trivia in the truest sense of the word: it's trivial. Unimportant. No one cares that these two were fairly mediocre in their final playing locations; what's remembered is their greatness, their great moments, the way they stood out and played the game at a level higher than virtually anyone around them. Their legacies are, as it were, intact, despite the fairly ignominious endings to their careers.



• John Elway is another guy whose legacy is largely intact, and most people remember that "he went out on top," a two-time Super Bowl winner who retired after winning The Big One, just as he should have.
  
  Not so fast. John Elway's legacy is largely intact, but he's also the three-time Super Bowl loser whose teams constantly got killed on the biggest stage, who, until the Broncos finally landed an elite running back in Terrell Davis, was a lovable loser, the emblematic forlorn visage of the loser; were the Wide World of Sports longer-lived, Elway's distant stare at the end of Super Bowl XXII could have been the end footage in the opening montage.
  
  Lest there be any complaint that a Raiders partisan is taking unnecessary shots at Elway, let me come clean: John Elway is my first-ballot choice for "G.O.A.T.": the greatest of all time. Not Montana, not Marino, not Unitas -- Elway. John Elway did more with less talent around him, and was more effective at maximizing the abilities and output of those playing with him -- at turning mediocre teams into great teams -- than anyone else in the history of the game. That is what makes him the best: He turned losers into winners . . . except when it came to the Super Bowl, when he needed help to get over the top. That's far from a knock -- it's just how it was. But the mere fact that Elway called it quits at the top doesn't impact his legacy, which includes those three ugly, ugly Super Bowl blowouts.



• Does anyone really care that Joe Montana finished his career in Kansas City, or that Steve Young began his in Tampa Bay? Does anyone ever even think of those two outside of the red and gold?

Let Brett play if he wants, let him stay retired if he wants. But let's not kid ourselves: No one writing about this, no one bloviating on one side or the other has any genuine interest in Brett's impact on his legacy, because they all know, or should have figured out by now, what is so nakedly apparent in all of this:

Brett Favre's legacy has already been determined, and nothing he can do, short of committing a felony, will change that.

Brett's legacy is securely where it always has been, in the hands of writers, fans and anyone who cares to opine. That's what a legacy is. A legacy is how you're remembered after you're gone. When all is said and done, who were you? What were you? What were you all about? Did you generally leave things better than you found them, as the greats did, or did you muck everything up, as Ryan Leaf did? Let's not kid ourselves -- each great had his Ryan Leaf moments, and each Ryan Leaf had his great moments. A truly fair assessment of each would take that into consideration, and determine their legacies based in part upon that determination.

That's not how a legacy works, though. It's never objective, it's never an unqualified, pure assessment. It's gut, it's emotion, it's love and hate, with some greater or lesser degree of factual support. (To be honest, I'm torn between factual and "factual" in the preceding sentence, for reasons that should be obvious.)


Just don't pretend that you're opining with Brett's impact on Brett's legacy in mind, because that's just about the furthest thing from the truth. His legacy is already written in the minds of everyone who will help write it. And, for the record, Brett is one of the Great Ones, one who was so great and so much fun to watch that it still seems mean-spirited and somehow wrong to point out how simply "above-average" he's been for the second half of his career.

My Father's Day Present:

Behold:



Unbelievably cute. Real kids do indeed wear black, even if they're drooling feverishly (a couple more teeth en route, apparently).

Some more recent reasons it's great to be a dad:

Cedric Benson Released By Bears:

Yet another idiot screws up one too many times and is now in jeopardy of not having a job.

Unlike Chris Henry and Odell Thurman, however, Benson hasn't displayed the talent and on-field ability to compensate for his off-field stupidity. Could be tough getting another job any time soon, and I can't imagine any owner dumb enough to offer him more than a minimum contract loaded with escape clauses. Even then, I doubt he's worth the risk.

Here's the potential upside: what would the Bears be willing to part with for, say, LaMont Jordan?

Just sayin'.

MSSM With Good Things To Say About the Raiders?

Perish the thought!

It's a weird time when ESPN.com and NFL.com BOTH have articles saying nice things about the Raiders generally, or specific Raiders.

Over at NFL.com, they've a feature on the best free-agent signings of the last 15 years. The pick for 1999?

Rich Gannon. As well it should be.

Gannon's numbers in the four years he was the full-time starter in Oakland?

2,155 attempts
1,367 completions
63.4% competion rate (59.0% at the low end, 67.8% at the high)
15,787 yards
105 touchdowns
44 interceptions

An average season?

342 for 539, 63.4%, 3,947, 26, and 11. Oh, and he was good for a bit over 300 and 4 on the ground in any given season, too. OH, and one MORE thing -- his completion percentage and rating both improved annually.

You know what? I'd take that as a long-term average for any duration, any amount of years.

Is it any wonder that of all of the Raider QBs I can remember watching -- starting with the downside of Plunkett's career through Russell -- Gannon remains my favorite? Any wonder that I have a signed, framed Gannon jersey on my office wall?

Over at ESPN, meanwhile, there's a very, very curious little projection, a "Five Teams That Will Surprise You" sort of thing. Number five? Oakland.

Here's the money bit:

Sure, the Raiders look to still be the most dysfunctional team in football. But they have plenty of talent on the roster and, no matter what Al Davis thinks, Lane Kiffin can coach.

When's the last time the Raiders were spoken of as having "plenty of talent on the roster," by someone now physically in that very moment wearing some combination of silver and black?

Good times ahead, maybe, finally . . . here's hoping.

Meanwhile, my Lakers are one game away from the NBA Finals. Here's the upside there: we're flying back to the US tomorrow, which means from Game 5 on, I can actually watch the games.

Good times ahead, maybe -- depends on who wins in the East, but either way, should be a good Finals, but here's the real link:

When is it appropriate to start talking about the Gasol deal in the category of "best-ever trades"? Not yet -- the Lakers need a ring or several out of the deal, and he needs to stay healthy and complete his career at the level he projects at -- but if both of those happen, it's a given that this trade will be high on any all-time list.

With Their Draft Picks, The Raiders Selected:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

"Model Dad" Howie Long v. "Soccer Mom" Archie Manning:

Cultural Studies 101 has something to say about this post.

It's fantastic -- check it out.

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.

Thoughts on the Oakland Raiders' 2008 Schedule:

I was worried for a while that the Raiders would get hammered by the NFL and get both San Diego games, New England and a cross-country road game, say, Baltimore, in the first four weeks, to kill off the season just in time for the bye week (speaking of, is there some NFL by-law that the Raiders MUST have their bye week before week 5?). Fortunately, this turns out not to be the case:

DEN, @ KC, @ BUF, SD, BYE, @ NO, NYJ, @ BAL, ATL, CAR, @ MIA, @ DEN, KC, @ SD, NE, HOU, @ TB

Let's get the oddities out of the way first:

1. The Raiders play all three division opponents in the first four games, and then get them in a row weeks 12-14. Harsh. It's unfortunate that the Raiders get two of the first three at home, putting them on the road twice the second time around.

1b. Oh, and for good measure, after the third straight AFC West game at San Diego Dec. 4, they get New England at home. That's just piling on, loading arguably the two most talented teams in the league back-to-back like that.

3. I LOVE the games for weeks 9 and 10 -- Atlanta and Carolina, both at home. The Raiders, even at their worst, seldom lack for drama, and Hall going up against his old team one week and his "favorite" WR the next? I love it.

4. This schedule makes three straight pairings of Denver and Kansas City -- that's just damned odd.

Now, what can Raider fans hope for?

It all depends on Week 1. That could be the difference between a gentleman's 8-8 and a loser's 5-11. The Raiders have a great shot to get off to a good start -- three of their first four games are winnable, and while I'd rather get the road SD game out of the way first, they could get lucky there. Anything less than 2-2 in the first four puts the season in jeopardy, and 3-1 may be the best conceivable start (also unlikely, but one never knows).

After that, the schedule acutally is somewhat kind -- there are batches of tough games, but they are followed by streaks of winnable games. For example: SD, BYE, @ NO -- two potential back-to-back losses, but followed by a home game against the Jets. Weeks 9-11 could give the Raiders a legitimate shot at a three-game winning streak for the first time since 2002 (ATL, CAR, @ MIA), and if the Raiders can snag a couple into the second round of West games, they could put together a nice little run for themselves.

Prediction based on the schedule:

I have to predict two scenarios:

1. The Raiders beat the Broncos opening week. Based on the schedule and the staggering of opponents, the Raiders could actually get to 9-7, and maybe, maybe flirt with 10 wins.

2. The Raiders lose to the Broncos opening week. That would have the Nation looking at 4-12 again, maybe 5-11.