Well, this year's NFL draft is nearly over and it's been an interesting and surprisingly entertaining two days, in spite of Mel Kiper and ESPN as a whole.
With that said, every draft has its share of reaches, blunders, and bad picks, as well as some great picks and the occasional diamond in the rough.
So here's who won and who lost in this year's NFL draft.
The Winners
1. New York Giants
They may not have done anything flashy or surprising, but the Giants filled just about every hole in their roster with quality players who have a chance to contribute right away.
With their first pick, New York took Kenny Phillips, whose athleticism, instincts, and playmaking ability could make him a more than capable replacement for the departed Gibril Wilson, if not a Pro Bowler.
However, the Giants made their best move late in the third round when they took Michigan wideout Mario Manningham.
New York's receiving corps, especially Amani Toomer, is aging quickly and Manningham's fantastic playmaking abilities make up for his character issues and combine woes that caused him to fall into the third round.
One of the more underrated picks by Jerry Reese in 2008 had to be Vandy's Jonathan Goff, With Kawika Mitchell's departure, New York had become very thin at inside linebacker. Goff is very tough, strong, and hard working.
He should be the starter from Day One next season if he can beat out former backup Gerris Wilkinson for the job.
Goff may not be an every-down starter, but he and Wilkinson will fill the void left by Mitchell on the interior of the Giants' defense.
Big Blue also found a bargain in Round Six in the form of Kentucky QB Andre Woodson, who was a first round possibility before the Senior Bowl.
Woodson is a developmental project at this point, but Eli Manning seems to have earned his place as New York's starting quarterback.
However, if Manning should fall back to his regular season form in the coming years, New York will have a viable option at quarterback in Woodson.
2. Kansas City Chiefs
The Chiefs have had unquestionably the best draft this year in terms of the quality of who they brought in and where they picked their guys.
Most notably, the Chiefs eschewed the biggest need on their roster, the O-line, to take arguably the best player in this year's draft, Glenn Dorsey.
Dorsey may not be the run-stopping 2-gap defensive tackle the Chiefs still need, but he is a disruptive force in the middle who is capable of getting to the quarterback and disrupting plays in the backfield.
Perhaps most importantly, Dorsey is a high-character guy who will bring a culture of winning to the beleaguered Chiefs' locker room.
He is also tenacious at the point of attack and he never gives up on a play. The Chiefs were lucky to be able to draft a player of Dorsey's caliber outside of the top 3.
Ten picks later, Carl Peterson astutely traded up two spots to pick up West Virginia guard Brandon Albert, who was actually a Top Five possibility before Dorsey dropped.
In essence, Peterson had two No. 5 here in that he got two of the guys they wanted at that spot without having to give out two Top Five contracts.
KC's O-line was nothing short of pathetic last year, and Albert's presence along the O-line should take some pressure off of starting QB Brodie Croyle and RB Larry Johnson.
However, I think that KC's best pick (Dorsey was a layup, only an idiot or Al Davis would've passed on him in that situation) occurred at No. 35, when they took Virginia Tech corner Brandon Flowers.
Flowers will provide a much-needed jolt of youth to an aging Chiefs secondary, not to mention a replacement for free agent corner Ty Law.
Flowers may be only 5-foot-9, and his measurables may be somewhat lacking, but the Chiefs saw that Flowers has the instincts and the toughness to be a Pro Bowler for years to come.
In the third round, the Chiefs took a few gambles on Texas RB Jamaal Charles and Tennesee TE Brad Cottam. Charles will likely be used to compliment aging starter Larry Johnson due to his speed and pass catching ability.
Cottam, while he only caught 20 passes in college due to injury, is huge at 6-foot-7 and 270 pounds. He should fill the role of blocking tight end, previously vacated by Jason Dunn, in KC's running game for now.
He also has the athleticism to blossom into a fantastic starter in the NFL when Tony Gonzales retires.
3. Baltimore Ravens
Despite the fact that the Ravens reached a bit for Joe Flacco, they got what they wanted on both sides of the ball. The only reason Baltimore makes this list is how they ripped off Jacksonville by trading out of the Top 10 to stockpile picks.
Even if they did end up moving back up to get Flacco, the Ravens got a package of picks (#26, 2 3rd rounders and a 4th rounder) In exchange for the pick that ended up being Derrick Harvey.
This was similar to what the Chiefs got from Minnesota for NFL sack leader Jared Allen.
Flacco may have been a reach at No. 18, but he has everything the Ravens look for in a franchise quarterback: arm strength, character, size, and (surprisingly enough) mobility. In the wake of the Kyle Boller debacle, the Ravens needed to get their man, no matter what the price.
With the pick they got from a trade with Seattle, the Ravens took Rutgers running back Ray Rice, who was a workhorse in the college ranks and can dole out some serious punishment despite his size.
Willis McGahee may be the starter for the time being, but he will be 28 when next year rolls around and most running backs begin to decline around age 30, so finding a replacement here was vital.
One round later, Baltimore picked up playmaking Miami linebacker Tavares Gooden, who is similar from an athletic standpoint to what Ray Lewis was at this point at his career.
While Gooden may never be a Ray Lewis-type player, he definitely has the potential to start from Day One over incumbent starter Bart Scott.
Baltimore will have three free agent linebackers in 2009, including Lewis and Terrell Suggs, so finding some youth at the linebacker position at this point in the draft was necessary.
What makes Baltimore's moves during the draft so impressive is not who they selected, but how they got in position to select these players and other that I didn't mention.
The Losers
1. Oakland Raiders
Sure, Darren McFadden is a special talent, and yes he may be the best player in this draft, but the Raiders have two proven veterans at running back in Dominic Rhodes and Justin Fargas, and a stud in Michael Bush.
No matter what they did in free agency, the Raiders still went 4-12 last year and a team in the Top Five can't afford to make a luxury pick, no matter who the player is.
What makes this pick even more surprising is the fact that DT Glenn Dorsey, who was thought to be even better than McFadden by some teams, could have filled a much bigger need at defensive tackle than McFadden did at running back.
Also, Dorsey was allowed to fall to division rival Kansas City, who took him almost immediately.
Normally, I wouldn't have had such a big problem with taking McFadden, even in light of what I said, but Oakland didn't make another pick until the fourth round. William Joseph and Kalimba Edwards aren't the answer, people.
A defensive player was a must at that position in the draft even, if Chris Long wasn't available and Dorsey falling to No. 4 was an absolute gift. Leave it to Al Davis to burn a pick like this.
However, I have seen some pretty convincing arguments in favor of McFadden going to Oakland on this site and his playmaking skill is undeniable, I think they made a costly mistake here, but the jury is out on this one.
2: Jacksonville Jaguars: The Jaguars at this point are one solid pass rusher away from being a bonafide Super Bowl contender. Unfortunately for the Jags, neither Derrick Harvey nor Quentin Groves will be that pass rusher, at least not immediately.
Trading up is one thing, but mortgaging your draft to reach for a guy who wouldn't have gone in the Top 15 is another thing entirely.
As I mentioned earlier, the Jags traded all of their picks in the third and fourth rounds, along with the 26th overall pick, to move up to No. 8 to pick up Florida defensive end Derrick Harvey.
This would have been fine had Harvey been a "can't miss" prospect. However, Harvey has been known to disappear at times, and there are a lot of questions surrounding his explosiveness and ability to shed blocks at the next level.
The Jags ended up taking yet another defensive end, Auburn's Quentin Groves, with their second-round pick, which again would have been fine if the need were truly dire and Groves had fallen from where he was expected to go.
Groves was not even a second-round pick on some teams' draft boards and he, like Harvey, has issues in the consistency department.
Groves is also a bit undersized for an NFL defensive end at 6-foot-2 and 250 pounds and he probably would have been a better fit as a rush linebacker in a 3-4 scheme.
Jacksonville is noticeably thin at wide receiver and unless they expect disappointing ex-Raider Jerry Porter to be a bonafide No. 1, David Garrard may not have many weapons going into next season.
Granted, defensive end was an area of need in Jacksonville, but the fact that they overpaid so grossly for Harvey and used all of their Day One picks on the position makes the Jags come out of the draft a loser.
3. Tennessee Titans
Unlike the preceding teams, I have no real issue with who the Titans drafted or where they went, with the exception of Chris Johnson at No. 24
However, the fact that they didn't get Vince Young a receiver, despite the fact that Early Doucet was available in the second round, is why the Titans are here.
As I said before, taking Chris Johnson at No. 24 was a bad pick, mainly because the Titans have drafted three running backs in the past three years, not to mention that it was a huge reach.
If Johnson was their guy, the least Tennessee could have done is trade down into the early- to mid-second round, where Johnson would have surely been available.
The Titans did get Vince Young a good tight end to throw to in Craig Stevens, but as long as Roydell Williams is their No. 1 receiver, the team is going nowhere.
Honorable mentions
New England Patriots, San Diego Chargers: Both of these teams made reaches early in the draft (Cason at No. 27, Wheatley at No. 62, Hester at No. 69, O'Connell at No. 94) but A.J. Smith and Bill Belichick usually know what they're doing, so I'll give these teams the benefit of the doubt.
comments (54) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
I agree withh you in the winners section of the article. All three teams picked the right players and filled major holes in their Offenses and defenses. Great Article!
from 3 months ago
Oh, and I suppose that the Panthers just drafted terribly, huh? They definitely should have been in the winners category.
3 months ago
Nice job, but I can't put the Raiders in the losers category. They ended up with the second best player in the draft, and they were picking fourth. You have to stay true to your board. If they thought he was a better player than Dorsey, they had to take him.
You don't pass on game-changers because you have OK players at the position already. You can fill your other needs later. It's not like they're winning a Super Bowl next season anyway.
from 3 months ago
I suppose, but they did not need him at all, plus he is nowhere near what Adrian Peterson was when Minnesota took him and Oakland has their runner of the future already in Michael Bush (unless he is traded) Fargas and Rhodes are good for at least 1,000 yards and bush is an absolute stud, McFadden to me is like how GB took Brian Brohm when they had Aaron Rodgers, fine in the second round but in the top 5? I don't think so. Who knows, I may be wrong, but I still don't like it.
3 months ago
The Bears lost because they passed on Brohm. This year would have been perfect for the Bears to take a QB—give Grossman one more year to prove he's a bust while telling Brohm to do the exact opposite of what Grossman does. If Grossman magically regains the form he had in early 2006, then hey, nothing wrong with a little quarterback controversy.
But, for now, vote Matt Stafford for 2009 Chicago Bears quarteback.
3 months ago
seriously, al davis should not be allowed to be involved in any more drafts. I cant imagine how they drafted Mcfadden over Dorsey. I mean doesnt this mean they have 38 billion dollars tied up in running backs for next year?
3 months ago
Good article, but I think Oakland should have taken Dorsey.
I also think the Chiefs should have taken Gholston, and Jets pick McFadden. But all in all, it was a pretty good draft.
I don't know what my Panthers were thinking taking Johnathan Stewart instead of Rashard Medenhall or Felix Jones?
from 3 months ago
I think Oakland should've grabbed Dorsey as well, but gholston seems overrated to me, he had 10 of his sacks in 3-4 games and 3 more in the other 9, the guy takes games off. He can be a dominator but I'm not sure if he has what it takes mentally and from an effort standpoint.
I actually like Jonathan Stewart better then Mendenhall or Jones but he was injured, the Panthers stuck to their board and Stewart will probably recover, him and Otah were good picks. I probably should've had you guys on the winner list because of the steals you got in round 3 Connor and Godfrey are studs.
3 months ago
I agree that the Raiders are on the losers list. Sure, McFadden is a great player. BUT, just like Adrian Peterson he's got health issues. Another thing about McFadden is that he had more fumbles in the last three seasons then anyone in college football. The Raiders have a good running game with Justin Fargas, Dominic Rhodes, and even LaMont Jordan. The Raiders have a much bigger need on the defensive line and I just don't see how you can pass up on the next Warren Sapp. Plus, the Raiders selecting McFadden screwed up my entire Mock Draft!
3 months ago
So considering that McFadden ran over Dorsey and the Tigers last year for 3 TDs and for 2 TDs in 2006 where do you set the over/under for TDs he runs on the Chiefs this year before you'll admit he was a good pick? How about 4.5?
On the side, considering that Dorsey has to play the Donks and Raiders zone/cut blocking twice, what are the odds his leg doesn't crumple and he finishes the season? About as long as Andre Woodson making anybody in NY forget about Eli Manning, I'd say.
It's pretty hard to argue you have any respect for the game at all by following up calling a Hall of Fame coach and commissioner an idiot before including Bill Belicheat under any heading with the word honorable in it.
from 3 months ago
whoa dude... not cool. Alright let me clarify what I said about Al Davis:
Oakland (Al Davis) already passed on Dorsey at #4 so mentioning him as someone who would've passed at 5 was relevant, and I apologize for the apparent insinuation that Davis is an idiot (I think he's more "eccentric" then stupid).
And what the hell does that have to do with my "respect for the game" that shot was completely uncalled for. McFadden is a great player... but he's a bad pick, the Raiders did not need him by any stretch and Dorsey (possible best player in the draft) was available when it was made.
3 months ago
Max,
Nice article, and I totally understand your take on the Raiders.
Please consider the following:
1. The Raiders are so tired of being kicked by LT, LJ, and any donkey that Shanahan puts to pasture.
2. DMC goes to KC at 5...guaranteed....so, it was a defensive move afterall!!
3. M.Bush is the big ????...perhaps Al might not be convinced we will recover 100%
4. Fargus...one-and-done...it was an aboration...he will not make those numbers again.
4. Think Cowboys draft 1989 & 1990. Aikmen #1 in 89, Smith #1 in 90....and 3 rings later.
Sure..D wins the big game, but it can be developed...but your core raw talent needs to be QB/RB/TE/WR.
WR is still a ??? for the Raiders.
This is Ryan's "D" to lose this coming year.
from 3 months ago
The thing about your fifth point is that in 89 and 90 it was Aikman and Smith. Russell and McFadden are no Aikman and Smith. Russell looks like a money grubber and not ready for the NFL after last season. It is too early to decide on McFadden so I cannot say he will not be an Emmitt Smith type player, but you cannot necessarily say he will be either.
3 months ago
Good analysis, Max
About the Giants, I think the 'replacing Gibril Wilson' bandwagon is way off course.
I've been watching the Giants for 40 years - Wilson was good, but not great. Out of the 32 starting safeties in the NFL last year, he was somewhere in the middle. So, he was easily replaceable.
The Giants are winners in this draft primarily because they got Kenny Phillips and Terrell Thomas.
Last year, the Giants lost twice to Dallas - mainly because Wilson and the secondary could not cover Terrell Owens and Jason Witten.
These two picks will were designed to - yes, fill a need - but really they are tired of getting beat by Dallas. Instead of 10-6, they would rather be 12-4....
They also backfilled their LB corp nicely in the middle rounds and absolutely stole Mario Manningham and Andre Woodson..
3 months ago
Good analysis, Max
About the Giants, I think the 'replacing Gibril Wilson' bandwagon is way off course.
I've been watching the Giants for 40 years - Wilson was good, but not great. Out of the 32 starting safeties in the NFL last year, he was somewhere in the middle. So, he was easily replaceable.
The Giants are winners in this draft primarily because they got Kenny Phillips and Terrell Thomas.
Last year, the Giants lost twice to Dallas - mainly because Wilson and the secondary could not cover Terrell Owens and Jason Witten.
These two picks will were designed to - yes, fill a need - but really they are tired of getting beat by Dallas. Instead of 10-6, they would rather be 12-4....
They also backfilled their LB corp nicely in the middle rounds and absolutely stole Mario Manningham and Andre Woodson..
from 3 months ago
i totally agree john, good s--t
3 months ago
Max,
I disagree with you about Jacksonville. Unfortunately for Jaguar fans, looking back, Del Rio and former coordinator Mike Smith did not implement the correct game plan against the Pats. A decision was made for the defense to drop into coverage. After watching this playoff matchup, Jacksonville did not get any pressure on Brady. Brady picked them apart.
They lost players on the defensive line. McCray and Stroud are gone.
I am a big fan of the SEC. Harvey and Groves were studs in college. I think they will do the same at the pro level.
The Giants were not thin at linebacker. Please look for last year's draft pick LB Zak DeOssie to make an impression at training camp. I think Reese was looking to add extra depth to the linebacker position and special teams.
John,
Spags still has not figured out how to stop Dallas' offense. Even in the playoff win, Dallas outgained the Giants in every offensive category. I agree with you about Wilson. I think the media has exaggerated his talent level. I think he is a good player. He is not even close to a Ken Houston type player at safety. Yes, you are correct. If you watch tapes of Giants games, at times, Wilson would be in the wrong place on coverages.
from 3 months ago
I'm fine with the fact that they picked DEs, but they picked the wrong ones, (Harvey at least was bad at #8) if Gholston or Long were in the equation, I would understand, but Harvey and Groves are inconsistant, Harvey was overpayed for and that's the main reason I had 'em on the losers list, they should've gone after Jared Allen or Jason Taylor, proven impact players, they'll be Super Bowl contenders if Harvey and Groves pan out but I'm just not sure if they will. The Jags are young though and they should be a great team if they can get a wideout or two, once New England starts to fall of it'll be an interesting league.
3 months ago
I think the biggest problem, most people see with the Raiders taking McFadden, since they're stocked up on RB, is why did they take him.
The reason, is look at what they presently have. Sure, they were the 6th best running club last year, a pretty good trick, if you consider that was with what, 3 different running backs?
Do any of the present RBs have McFadden's talent? break-speed? durability?
About the only player, right now that could give McFadden a run, might be Bush, simply, because we haven't seen him.
As for not addressing the needs, sure, the Raiders had a gaping hole in draft picks, dating back to last season. At the same time though, the Raiders will start to see some advantages, to having 5 RBs....trading value, or, the ability to deal for positions needed.
And as much dealing as the Chiefs did...you gotta ask yourself. After last year's mess, how sure are they, that more rookies will help a squad that had massive problems? Replacing Trent Green with a backup, and then a rookie, sure worked out well, didn't it?
I think KC's major problem, will be the opposite of the Raiders. They'll have a lot of smart players, but without the QB to bring it together.....problems will persist.
from 3 months ago
But the Chiefs undeniably ended up with the best players when it was all said and done, that's all I can rate a draft with for a few more years, and to every McFadden lover out there, yes he's fantastic but joesph is sub-par and Dorsey is almost as great a playmaker as McFadden so they would've taken an exciting player either way.
I will admit Fargas and Rhodes are aging, but they are fine until Bush comes into his own, they were stacked at RB so McFadden was an unnecessary gamble in my mind, the Chiefs still suck, not much of a question there, but nobody can deny how well Carl peterson did unless you're in heavy denial, the Raiders made spalshes in FA and the Chiefs won in the draft. Croyle isn't the guy, you're right about that, but Trent Dilfer won a super bowl, Croyle can do it too if they give him enough to work with.
from 3 months ago
Well, I can give them Dorsey, there's not doubt on that pick. At the same time, it's anyone's guess if Larry Johnson is going to be another Shaun Alexander, Marshall Faulk, Curtis Martin, et al.
If that happens, it'll be interesting if they can turn Dorsey into a runningback for emergency usage.
With McFadden, there's rumors, that they can use him on the running game, spot duty on returns, an extra wide-out if needed....heck, I'd use a Tecmo play, and put the 4 RB, 2 HB position up, and then watch the defense try to figure out who's going to get the ball.....general confusion, paging general confusion!
Well, Trent had one advantage, and one disadvantage, in his super bowl year. His advantage, is his coaches knew they had the defensive skills, that an offensive game-plan was optional. Didn't they set a record for most consecutive games without an offensive TD? And still win 3 out of 4 games?
The Chiefs may have loaded up on picks, but they're still not on the same page as the Ravens were defensively. And without the offensive numbers....KC's situation could be brutal.
from 3 months ago
I'm not saying that the Chiefs will be good next year, but they did the best job of stockpiling good young talent in this draft out of any team. McFadden is an interesting, versatille, and exciting option but I still can't see why they need a 4th running back (other then of course the tecmo play) The Raiders have had a fantastic offseason but Al Davis went for the sexy pick instead of the one that would best fit the Raiders' particular situation. As for Larry Johnson, his future is uncertain which is why they brought in Charles, who will be a compliment back now and a starter later. Dorsey at RB would be pretty fun to watch... hopefully they try it (Will Perry anyone?).
Thanks as always for the interesting feedback,
Max
from 3 months ago
I'm not saying the Chiefs will be good, but they did the best job of stockpiling good young talent out of any team in this draft... than again their general suckiness alllowed them to go BPA alot but that's beside the point. As for Larry Johnson, you're right, his future is up in the air, which is why Charles was such a good pick.
As for McFadden, he is a very exciting player but why do they need 4 RBs again? (other then for the tecmo play of course) Dorsey filled a bigger need then McFadden did and he has drawn many comparisons to Warren Sapp... imagine the Raiders with the studs they have in the secondary along with Howard and Morrisson and Dorsey/Burgess pressuring the QB, the D would've been nigh unstoppable, instead they're stuck with a choice of Kelly, Gerard Warren, William Joseph, and of course the big terd. A big hole still exists at DT and Michael Bush is a stud, they don't need 4 guys in the backfield (5 if you count Jordan but he's as good as gone) Rhodes and Fargas are aging but Bush was their guy and a tandem back isn't worth a #4 pick (unless they trade Bush, in which case I'm fine with the pick if William Joseph works out)
Thanks for the feedback,
Max
3 months ago
Good article, I think that KC's 12 quality picks give them a slight edge over the G-Men, but New York got plenty of steals too (can't believe Manningham fell that far)
Baltimore got their QB, but the wrong one in my mind (Brohm has better 'starter' potential), and fell into GB laps(as a Cheesehead, I was shocked). But the Ravens did make up for it by snagging Ray Rice.
What the hell were the Titans thinking this weekend?? Johnson is good, but they really had no need for him, plus they failed to get themselves a top-notch reciever, which goes to show that Tennessee is definitely going to run the ball about 85% of the time.
The Patriots should've never had a first round pick at all; trade or not.
3 months ago
Hmmm...
So the Giants won because they took Kenny Phillips, a slow, overrated safety from the U, and a slow, problematic receiver from Michigan in Mario Manningham. Comeon now, that's gotta be a homer statement. KC obviously won this draft. NYG did average, like most teams. No standout players there.
THE RAIDERS LOST??
Yes, they didn't take Dorsey, but they just signed Tommy Kelly to the highest defensive contact of all time. They took the best player in this year's draft, how does that make them the losers? McFadden gives Russell a home-run threat constantly, and with Lane Kiffen running the show, McFadden will not only be in the backfield, but in the slot as well, much like Reggie Bush was used in his first year.
I agree with Jax and the Titans, but you should have mentioned that the Jags had the chance to trade for Jason Taylor, perhaps the best pass rusher in the league.
The Titans are simply retarded by not picking a receiver at 24 when none had come off the board. They don't like Vince Young, apparently
from 3 months ago
kc had 20 picks and all of a sudden, best draft? i think we did have the best draft besides carolina and baltimore, you dont know what your talking about, players come out of college and most do better with the right coaching personel, last i checked we are the world champs, and our coaches will have them ready to defend our elite status and compete in january, so boof it
3 months ago
Quick disclaimor: the ordering of this article is very loose (i.e. KC did better than NY in my opinion) these are simply the 3 best and worst but the ordering is near irrelevant
3 months ago
(Sighing) Max, Max, Max.....
I've read numerous comments from you on Bleacher Report, I'd say 80% of them are negative towards the Oakland Raiders. You should start a website devoted to bagging on the whole Raider Organization and its fan, It'll will be a big hit and lord knows there will be a ton of people who will join.
On a different note....
Darren Mcfadden was the logical desicion to make. It wasnt a difficult one. We have solid RB's... and theres no questioning JFargs Heart but the bottom line is none of them are playmakers. They can get the first downs (With huge appreciation to Cable and the Offensive line) but they dont have the potential to be make plays and take it the distance. McFadden brings just that to the table. Our defense will be just fine, If we need to we'll put 9 in the box.... and now have the 2 best CB's in the league shut down WR's. Your over analyzing our team due to your bias views. Were stacked at DL thx to Free Agency and have two great rising LB's in Howard n' Morrison. Do your homework. Good luck
from 3 months ago
dude... what comments are you reading? I don't hate on the raiders and if you payed attention you'd know that. I have no problem with the team or it's fans.
And who do you have on the D-line? Kelly (unproven) Joseph and Edwards (mediocre) Richardson (like this guy, he'll be good) Burgess (nothing else to say) and of course how could I forget the big terd (do i even need a parenthetical thing here?) they're stacked at DE but the middle is porous at best as of yet. (oh I forgot Gerard Warren, but you're crazy if you think he's the answer.)
All I said is that McFadden did not fill a need and that Dorsey was the far better pick, I may have sounded a bit harsh but I really didn't mean too, just saying what I think and if that makes me a hater then so be it... I see nothing wrong in what I said from any standpoint. I recognize that a few things I said about Al Davis may be misconstruable, personally I love the guy but he has his moments you know? I also think they should've kept Clemens, he'll be good in Philly. And what do Morrisson and Howard have to do with this, yes they are great young linebackers (especially Howard when he's at his best) but they don't play DT and the simple fact remains that they went 4-12, they are a team on the rise but they should have been more pragmatic in regards to the #4 pick.
On a different note, Bush is a plamaker... have you seen this guy play, he's a dynamo... and a bruiser. The Raiders have too many backs (even when they cut Jordan) for my tastes, I've heard of a 2-back system but 3? at least deal Rhodes, Bush, or Fargas for some picks if McFadden is the guy.
I think that you have rushed to judgement here because I don't have a thing against the Raiders and what "numerous" comments are you talking about? because I don't remember making them. If anything, my comments regarding the Raiders have been quite tame (unless my roomie got onto my account) but i honestly don't see where you get that I have been incessantly negative in regards to the Raiders, some quotes would be nice because I honestly don't recall saying anything inflammatory.
3 months ago
I like what the Giants did in this draft, I wish they would've gone after a Dan Connor from Penn State or Spencer Larsen from U of A in the later rounds but I think they did what they needed to. I like the Woodson pick especially because now Jared Lorenzen isn't the #2 backup most likely anymore. He's a good guy but I don't see him as anything more then a #3 QB in the nfl. Woodson with a little work can become a solid #2.
3 months ago
gr8 opening line!
3 months ago
Max....
Darren Mcfadden is NOT Reggie Bush. I dont know how arrogant the league has to be to realize this. They are two complete different backs rushing for two complete different teams. Are you aware of that? Rhodes was just released.... Jordan is next. It will be Fargas, Mcfadden, and Bush(Not Reggie Bush considering you like to compare many to him). Fargas only has a 3 year contract...Bush is recovering from a critical injury so theres no rush to bring him back soon, understand?
And yes, we are stacked at Dline. And yes many of them are unproven. But thats what football is all about Max.... not just getting the star players, but creating them on your own. So keep your chin up and stay positive and as T.O said, ''Get your popcorn ready!'' Cause there is about to be fireworks in the Coliseum this year.
The Nation of Raiders,
Andres Sanchez
from 3 months ago
did I ever say he was reggie bush? ... I have said repeatedly that he is a special talent and he will be a great NFL player. I wish you guys luck... god knows y'all deserve it... i'm impressed at how loyal you guys are to your team despite your troubles so good luck to you next season.
As for the D-line, kelly may be good but Warren is proven to be mediocre and terdell Sands has been proven to suck, even if Kelly is good Dorsey would have been the better pick, I'm not bagging on McFadden I just think it was a bad pick for the Raiders in particular because they have so many good running backs.
3 months ago
By the way Max, Just thought I'd let you know I think your a good writter and i meant no intention on desrespecting you on the Raider Judgement if you felt that way. Just realize my passion and understanding that i have for the Oakland Raiders. Good times
from 3 months ago
You know what... I like fans like you, and you're right, you probably know your team better then I do since I live 3000 sumodd miles away, thanks for taking the time to say that, your orginal comment sounded somewhat condascending but I see now that that was not the intention.
Peace,
Max
3 months ago
Dude,
Where is the love for the Tuna and the fins????
from 3 months ago
I thought about 'em, I really did, and they had a great first 3 rounds, however, they took a few reaches later on and I simply think that the teams I mentioned (and Carolina) got more in terms of quality in relation to where they picked and they got more blue chip prospects, Miami was in my top 5 but not top 3 for me.
from 3 months ago
How was the kid from Hampton a reach? He is a really good player. Do you think the RB from Toledo was a reach? Parcells can flat out evaluate talent and build a winner and I can not wait cuz Miami is going to be relevant again.
from 3 months ago
I love langford despite the fact that he was supposed to be a 5th rounder... parmele and guys like that were reaches. Parcells is a great talent evaluator... he built my Pats from the ground up so i should know, but for now, he made a few reaches, they may be good picks a few years from now but right now... judging from how the players in question were analyzed, they were reaches. If i wrote this article again in 3 years, who knows, the Dolphins may win, but right now they were right on the cusp but not quite there. I can't wait for the Dolhpins to be good either... the better you guys are, the more often the Jets lose. Last year was very misleading because your best players was injured for most of the year... the Dolphins aren't the worst team in the league and they had a good draft but not top 3 in my mind.
Peace,
Max
3 months ago
I am seriously opposed to your losers pick of the Jaguars, a draft is about the quality of picks for your needs, not the quantity. They picked Derrick Harvery before the Bengals who lost Justin Smith could get to him so they could pick him up. Last year in the real late first round they drafted another Florida product who some considered a reach, and he took over the starting job and had 5 INT's at Safety. To declare Harvey a bust this early isn't fair to him and to the team. Quentin Groves looks like an all-around stud with 4.5 blazing speed, and excellent tackling ability, he'll be a good change of pace at OLB and DE when stacking the d-line to rush the passer. And Jerry Porter can't be that disappointing with 6 TD's and 700 yards last year. The last Raider reciever i saw go was Mr. Moss, who everyone contended can't go back to his original Viking playmaker form how is he working out for the Patriots? Porter is athletic, and with young Reggie Williams, Matt Jones and others on the rise they will only get better. Besides name the last time Jack Del Rio had a bad defense, he's one of the best coaches in the NFL and one of the youngest to, I like Jerry Porter, one word stud, finally a playmaker for the Jaguars rather than forcing balls into the hands of those who are fortunate enough to be open for Garrard.
from 3 months ago
who said Harvey was a bust? I just think they gave up way too much for him, Jared Allen could have been had with a similar package and i would've rather gambled with his fading drinking problem then on an unproven rookie with a massive contract (16 million guarenteed is standard at number 8). As for groves, he may be a stud but he is maddeningly inconsistant and he may turn out to be a complete and utter bust, he has first round talent but 4-5th round consistancy in terms of quality of play, which is a problem which may also haunt Vernon Gholston, although Groves would simply be a burnt 2nd rounder while Gholston's contract would cripple the Jets should he burn out.
As for Jerry Porter, he was disappointing in that he was supposed to make The Leap this year and he merely regressed, 700 yards and 6 TDs are not the numbers of a #1 option no matter who was throwing him the ball. Porter can't be compared to a first ballot HOF candidate like Moss especially because the difference in effort between his stint and Oakland and his season with the Pats was palpable, a similar comparison can't be drawn with Porter as of yet. Porter will help garrard but jones is a bust, Williamson is inconsistant, and Williams has not lived up to his mammoth potential despite his adequate play. Another wideout (the Jags would've had their pick at #26), Groves, and whatever they would've got with the 2 #3s and the 4 might have been enough for a winner dependent on who the other picks were, they simply put too much into DEs considering the fact that they didn't have another pick until round 5.
The Bengals not only liked Rivers over Harvey, but Rivers filled an even bigger need (last year's starter was Dhani Jones, i don't even need a joke there)
I could be wrong, but i just don't like how the Jags approached this draft, heck, if DE was a must, Merling would have been available at #26, that may not have been a reasonable assumption to make but even the difference between Harvey and say... Lawrence Jackson, was not large enough to justify mortgaging the rest of their draft for (I understand that late round picks matter as well but gems are not nearly as common in late rounds as ESPN would make it seem). Thanks for the feedback
Peace,
Max
3 months ago
Two back system Bush n McFadden sounds nice
from 3 months ago
As I've said before... 2 is fine but 4? 4 rbs is overkill especially for a team with other needs to fill, since they didn't have another pick until round 4, the #4 pick made or broke their draft in my eyes and i happen to think they misused it, Dorsey or a trade down each would have been more palatable options than McFadden. They recently cut Rhodes and Jordan is on the chopping block so the backfield is becoming less crowded, I still dislike the pick though.
3 months ago
Fargas and Rhodes proven veterans? Rhodes played in 10 games last season and scored only one touchdown while fumbling twice. Fargas had a nice season, barely eclipsing 1,000 yards with 1, 009, but is not by any means as talented as McFadden. Michael Bush is unproven and we don't even know how he will recover from his injury. LaMont Jordan has been injured a lot during his stint with Oakland and has certainly not lived up to his expectations. So what's the problem with the Raiders taking the best player in the draft and significantly upgrading the backfield?
from 3 months ago
Rhodes has been a 1k yard guy wherever he started (full season) and Fargas' 1009 yards came in 9 starts. McFadden is very talented but so is Dorsey, opinions differ as to who is the better prospect but if an argument like this occurs, the bigger need (Dorsey) should be addressed first. Fargas and Rhodes are not as talented as McFadden, you're right there, but both are continually underrated because they lack explosiveness and great speed, they get the job done and that's all you need for the running game, especially with a rookie (practically) QB starting.
My problem is that the Raiders had an incredibly crowded backfield and a porous defensive line (in the middle) Dorsey and McFadden are comparable prospects so need should take precedent when deciding between them. What was the point of drafting Michael Bush if he was not going to be given the chance to prove himself? Fargas and Rhodes were capable of sustaining the Raiders 6th place in the NFL running game long enough for Bush to recover, and Bush seems to be recovering, unlike Ki-Jana Carter. Oakland's zone blocking scheme is capable of making any running back look good so no change in the backfield was necessary. A 4-12 team, regardless of the fact that they are indeed on the
rise, should never make a luxury pick, especially without picks in rounds 2 or 3 to fall back on. I have no problem with McFadden himself, he will be special someday, I simply think that the Raiders should have been more pragmatic in regards to the use of a top 5 pick, and since there were no other picks until round 4, #4 all but made or broke Oakland's draft this year.
3 months ago
"Dorsey was a layup, only an idiot or Al Davis would've passed on him." - Max
You didn't insinuate anything Max, that would require subtlety. You plainly equated Al Davis as an idiot. You can't soft shoe out of this. You're being completely disingenuous by backpeddaling, calling Davis only "eccentric" and claiming that my calling out your lack of respect for the game is uncalled for. No commentator on this medium or any other has accomplished or contributed as much to the game as Al Davis, all his failures notwithstanding. Disagree with Al Davis all you want, I certainly do. That's fine, this is America, we're entitled to our opinions and entitled to express them. But to call Al Davis an idiot crosses the line and disrespects the game and that's what you did.
As for your analysis I see you claim that Dorsey is equal to McFadden as a playmaker. Like I noted above, their college matchups don't support your assertion. The beauty of DMC going to Oakland and Dorsey going to KC is we'll get to see them continue head to head. So, I repeat, how's 4.5 TDs v. the Chiefs this year suit you for an over/under on whether McFadden is the better playmaker than Dorsey?
from 3 months ago
Their equality was not the point of my analysis, McFadden was by no means a need for Oakland and a luxury pick is generally not a good move in the top 5 and Oakland is no exception, point taken that McFadden is more exciting but Dorsey clearly filled the bigger need and he is no slouch in the playmaking department either (has been compared to Warren Sapp).
And as for Davis... his contrbutions to the game are undeniable but right now... I would venture to call him an idiot due to the fact that he is apparently overenamored by speed as was shown by thyis pick, I am entitled to my opinion and i did not cross any line, people called Pete Rozelle an idiot in the '70s... were they disrepsecting the game? of course not they were simply expressing their opinions, nobody is above reproach despite their accomplisments... especially someone as controversial as Al Davis
from 3 months ago
one last thing, you make a good point about Dorsey and Mcfadden's head to head stats, however, Dorsey can not be held completely responsible for LSU's inability to contain McFadden, mcFadden may just run all over the Chiefs because they, like LSU, are not well-equipped to contain McFadden, due to the dynamic of the team, not just Dorsey.
Also, Dorsey is not a run-stuffer by trade so how McFadden did against him isn't as relevant as it seems. Dorsey is a Warren Sapp esque penetrator who makes his living rushing the QB and disrupting plays in the backfield, not by holding the line of scrimmage like a Red Bryant or an Ahtyba Rubin. While i disagree with your points, as you said, everyone is entitled to their opinions, only time will tell how this one works out. KC has a porous run defense but 2 TDs per game is a bit much for a rookie, even if it is McFadden, 3 is more logical from my point of view.
How's 2.5 for an over-under on Dorsey's sack totals against oakland? John Wade and Robert Gallery are good inside but i don't see them containing Dorsey all game. I exaggerated when i said they were equal but my main point was that Dorsey would have filled a larger need and that he was a great playmaker in his own right.
Peace,
Max
3 months ago
My picks for winners would be Dallas,Carolina,and Kansas City.Dallas filled there needs well they need a running back to team with Barber and they got a good one in Felix Jones they also selected Tashard Choice as well so now if they cant get there contract issues with Barber worked out they will still be covered if they lose him in free agency cause they have Jones and Choice.Also Dallas filled there need for a cornerback (and covered themselves if the Pacman experiment doesnt work)by selecting Mike Jenkins who was rated as a top 5 corner in this draft. Carolina had a great draft in my oppinion as well I think they got a real steal getting Jonathan Stewart he will be 100% healthy by the start of the season and he will easily get 1000+ yards they also got a top notch OT in Jeff Otah and a good if not great middle linebacker to replace Dan Morgan by getting Dan Conner. And as for K.C. they arguably had the best draft of any team landing two potental top 10 callibar players in Glenn Dorsey and Branden Albert.And getting Brandon Flowers and Jamall Charles as well is icing on the cake. As for my picks for draft losers I would have to go with the following Tennessee,Cincinatti,and Chicago. Tennessee did not address there need for a playmaking reciever to help out Vince Young.Chris Johnson is good but he didnt fit there biggest need. Cincinatti lost out on the player they had targeted not once but twice losing Sedrick Ellis to the Saints and then losing Derick Harvey as well to the Jags,Rivers isnt a bad pick but the rest of there draft are all basic duds to me.And Chicago well not much I can say really if your best player is Chris Williams then I dont think you had a very good draft,and not addressing the quarterback situation not good moves in my oppinion for the bears.
from 3 months ago
You make some very good points here, perhaps you should have written an article about this subject, I like my rankings as is but as i said before, you back up your points quite well, thanks for the interesting feedback. I agree with you on Stewart (McFadden is better in my eyes but he will not get Stewart's carries due to competition between him, Fargas, and Bush.)
3 months ago
Im making my prediction official you heard it hear first.I am going to predict that Jonathan Stewart will start for Carolina from day one and that he will lead all rookie running backs in rushing.
3 months ago
Dude watch the NHL not the NFL.
from 3 months ago
lol, I was a Bruins fan... I refuse to follow the NHL until Jeremy Jacobs relinquishes ownership of the Bruins' franchise, he is probably the cheapest, most hypocritical owner in all of professional sports. (that includes John York)
3 months ago
"they get the job done and that's all you need for the running game, especially with a rookie (practically) QB starting." -you
That just doesn't make any sense.
Wouldn't a young quarterback need a very good backfield to take off some of the pressure? If anything, the Raiders needed another explosive player in the backfield to divert attention away from the passing game, allowing for a much better air attack when the defense is focusing on the run.
I'm not saying taking Dorsey would have been a bad pick, but I certainly don't have a problem with McFadden.
And if you're gonna call Al Davis an idiot, don't call him an idiot at first, then back off and call him eccentric, and then go back to calling him an idiot. Show a little consistency.
write a new comment