MVN: Most Valuable Network

#1

Posted by RaiderKen, February 23, 2008 12:42 AM

A trade down with Dallas would be the best case senario. Getting two later 1st round picks and maybe a 3rd would get up closer to filling our needs. With one first rounder you can land a LT suposedly a record # this year in the 1st, with the second 1st round pick look at WR, DT, or if you really like Arkansas RB's take Felix Jones! Then fill the DT in the 2nd round third pick overall. With the 3rd rounder get a LB.

Or Forget all that shit and pick Dmac

Reply

#2

Posted by martin lopez, February 23, 2008 12:49 AM

jordan and rhodes will be release for cap ussues and we might draft mcfadden or get jammal charles in the second round that dude is a best i think he is even better the dmac, he is a complete back but i dont think he will fall out of the first round

Reply

#3

Posted by OakFoSho, February 23, 2008 3:25 AM

OK Al,

Don't listen to Patrick on this one. If by some miracle the best player in the draft falls to #4, you have to take him. Patrick, I know the Raiders are stacked at the position, but you have to take into account McFadden's intangibles. He can be split out wide, run the rock, and even throw a pass or two. I smell match-up problems across the board. I smell the second coming of Bo. (I still have nightmares of that tackle from behind against Cincinnati)

I know, I know a lot of you have a problem with this, but hear me out. If McFadden falls to #4, in my mind that means that, Dorsey, Chris Long, and Matt Ryan are gone. Some may say that the Raiders should then take Jake Long or Sedrick Ellis. However, Long projects more as a power guy that "lacks elite mobility for an elite OT prospect" (Scouts Inc.), and Sedrick Ellis "Plays with a narrow base and will get overwhelmed by bigger blockers in the phone booth. He struggles to anchor when teams run at him and he really needs to be on the move in order to be successful. Durability has been somewhat of an issue." (Scouts Inc.)

Don't get me wrong, I think these guys will be good players in the No Fun League, but none will have the impact of McFadden, and certainly not at the #4 pick.

BUT, I'm sure some of you (L Dizzle) have something to say to the contrary, so lets hear it.

OakFoSho

PS: 1st!

Reply

#4

Posted by Patrick Patterson, February 23, 2008 3:44 AM

Fo Sho, I don't think you have to worry about Al caring what I write on this site. I wish he would listen to me on occasion, in fact, Al if you are reading this contact me to negotiate terms so I can ghost-write your autobiography.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Reply

#5

Posted by Anthony, February 23, 2008 3:50 AM

The questions at this position are legion, but to begin with only the obvious:

1. Can the Raiders trade Jordan, or will they have to cut him? A trade gets him out of the division, but if the Raiders dropped Moss for a 4, will Jordan even fetch a 7? I'm only being slightly facetious here. My hunch is that Al will have to make a gut-check call: either keep the dead weight or take the chance that Jordan goes to KC or Denver, where, I'd be willing to bet, he has two good games a season against you-know-who. Naturally, this will pull the media into a feast on the Raiders's "characteristic power struggles" -- if Jordan is cut, it'll be played as a Kiffin win; if he's held on, even if only specifically to keep him away from Denver and KC (and maybe have a healthy and occasionally productive back ready to move at the trade deadline?), then "Davis is undercutting his coaches again." All of the above is a long way of saying that this situation is a lot more complicated than it appears, and the "locker room" question is a downed live wire sitting in a puddle.

2. Rhodes has more trade value than Jordan, even with his contract. There's not even a question about this. Rhodes also cannot be particularly happy about the prospect of staying in Oakland, since I assume he signed there expecting to become the #1 guy and earn a bigger contract with a better team. He'll be traded before camp.

3. Bush -- is he healthy or not? Is he Jamal Lewis, or is he Nick Bell? Unfortunately, he's just an X-Factor at this point, and, working against him in the short-term is the fact that he's a fourth-round x-factor, i.e., a cheap loss if "it doesn't work out." I'm actually more pessimistic about his future in Oakland than I would like to be, because given the internal power dynamic, will the organization be patient with a fourth the way they would be with a first or second?

4. If McFadden is still on the board and the Raiders can land a sweet trade -- Dallas' 2 #1s look awful good -- then they have to pull that trigger. If no one is biting, I have a hard time seeing them take anyone else at this spot, unless somehow Chris Long bypasses the Rams (which I think are salvating at the prospect of signing him, and with good reason). If the Raiders can get any sort of DL help, then Dallas' 2 1s could be turned into maybe Mario Manningham and one of the ACC DLs (Balmer or Merling, depending on whether DT or DE is prioritized). Branden Albert may drop to the Raiders in the second, which would be a fantastic pick (some clever OL coach is going to turn that kid into a solid OLT -- watch it happen).

Anyway, my $.02.

Reply

#6

Posted by Anthony, February 23, 2008 3:55 AM

Oh, and one last comment: in a way, I find the RB speculation somewhat puzzling, since if last season is any indication -- and that's a BIG if, granted -- the Raiders may be well on their way toward building a Denver-esque system; i.e., anyone back there could rack up 1,000.

Fargas did it, Jordan would have had he not gotten hurt, and despite timidity against superior defenses from time to time, the Raiders were clearly a "1,000-yards with any back" offense -- hell, Rhodes averaged almost 120 against Jacksonville and SD, no mean feat.

Granted, an offense that can turn anyone into a 1,000-yard back is only the starting point, but given that it looks stable from that perspective, there should be more attention paid the other side of the ball and the other half of the offense than RB.

Reply

#7

Posted by LDizzle, February 23, 2008 11:29 PM

Thanks for the shout out OakFoSho. My stance on McFadden may not be as passionately against him as you may think. I Agree that McFadden could be a great back and would be a welcome addition to the Raiders. And for that reason I would not pull a Jets/Eagles fan routine if they drafted him. But as Anthony just pointed out, this offense could indeed produce a 1000 yard back regardless of who is there. And d-line is the glaring weakness on this team right now. So it is a fundamental difference between the schools of thought "best available player" or "Fill the area of need". I agree that Sedrick Ellis is a slight reach at the #4 spot in the draft. For that reason my stance is that if Dorsey and Chris Long are gone then perhaps this talk of a Dallas trade is something we should consider. But no way in hell do we do that trade straight up. We get more than those two picks for that spot. It was my thinking that we could try and pull a trade with someone in the top 10 if it came to that. What I do know is that I will be on the edge of my seat for the first two picks and if any other names than Glenn Dorsey or Chris Long come out of Goodell's mouth in those first two picks then I will launch the same way I did when my Blazers got the #1 pick in the NBA draft lottery (it went a bit sour shortly thereafter but we won't go into that). And of course I will be a bit nervous that Atlanta will do something unexpected. So the only thing that would truly disappoint me (within reason) is if we have a chance to get either Dorsey or C Long and don't get them. I am not too passionate about anyone else.

Reply

#8

Posted by rodmoney, February 24, 2008 10:53 AM

Drafting is not a science, it is the ability to evaluate talent and select what your team needs. If we draft McFadden how much does that improve our team? We have RB's out the ass and ranked 6th in rushing. The Vikes were the best with Peterson and Taylor but where did that land them? Out of the playoffs as well as us. The Giants won the SB due to relentless pressure on T.B. We were 31st against the rush and can't put consistent pressure on QB's to keep the D off the field so DL has priority over all other positions. Whether we trade down a few slots or with Dallas we have to go Defense initilally. We have players we can trade for picks we don't have (3rd, 5th) so we can address the O in the later rds. The draft is deep in WR and RB's so we go that direction in the later rds.

Reply

#9

Posted by The RaiderCast » Blog Archive » Thoughts from the Dark Side: Oakland Raider position Ana, February 24, 2008 8:48 PM

[...] Read more. [...]

Reply

#10

Posted by Max, February 25, 2008 11:33 AM

If I were Al Davis and Dorsey and Long are off the board(Long will be gone, Dorsey's place in this draft is debateable), I'd try to swing a trade with a top-10 draft team with some picks to burn and a hole at RB (say New England although NE with Dmac would be quite frightening next year, just an example cuz of their 3 picks in rounds 2-3 and history of activity on draft day) Ellis or Gholston, the kind of playmaker the Raiders need on defense will be available at pick 7, or maybe a trade with dallas would be more inviting but I doubt Jerry Jones is dumb enough to part with 2 #1s and a 3 for Run DMC if he already has a back as great as Marion Barber. If the Raiders are really making a Denver esque system they should focus on their ailing D-line and giving Franchise player Jamarcus Russel some weapons to work with. The Raiders could be a formidable team(or at least more formidable then they were last year) if Al Davis handles this draft well enough

Reply

#11

Posted by OakFoSho, February 25, 2008 8:06 PM

Anthony- True there is a lot to be said about the system, but if you put an elite back in that system, then 2000 yards is a possibility. Terrel Davis in Denver? I truly believe that this system would take the next step for the Raiders with McFadden. Especially after that 40 Time he just ran at the combine. Again, he is the 2nd comig of Bo Jackson.

OakFoSho

Reply