Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Solid draft, when it's all said and done....
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
EAST-BAY-RAIDER


Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Posts: 79
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dark Knight your such a homer!! : 0 Mr. 4.29 was going to be their @ 26. The kid might turn out to be a heck of a player, but you just don't give draft pick away for him. Don't even get me started on the bum we picked @ 38. Dark Knight I think the SD sun has been getting to you..... primo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bo Jackson 34


Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 43
Location: NY & Charlotte
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think one of the reasons they drafted 2 CBs is to prepare to let Woodson go next yr. They overloaded this yr as a precaution and to give them some leverage on him. Additionally, with that many CBs and the league's shifting toward multiple WR sets. They needed the help!!

Bottomline with this year's offseason, is that the team will be fun to watch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wpbsball12


Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 531
Location: Alexandria VA
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Washington is an upgrade but I'm afraid he's just a workout wonder. I'm not going to dance around the issue, Stanford Routt was a terrible pick. If they really liked him they could have taken him in the next round easy. There were many other players available (J. Miller C. Webster, McFadden) that would have been safer picks, but of course Al is in love with speed. However great late round picks. Morrison is kind of the opposite of Washington because he didn't work out well but just plays the game well. I think he's ready to start right away which would be HUGE for their Defense. Walter has the potential to develop into the starter and is a much better fit than Aaron Rodgers for the Raiders. Antajj Hawthorne is a STEAL in the 6th round even if he is a pothead. And honestly I have no idea about the other two picks because I don't know who they are.

Draft Grade (Including value recieved on trades): B+/A- with the only knocks of the Washington trade up and the Routt reach
_________________
http://sportssavants.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
boiseraider


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 31
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dark Knight..............I respect your opinion on this, but you seem a little emotionally overinvested here............Listen, 97 tackes in three seasons as a starter does not mean he's a good tackler. This is football; of course he will tackle if he has to. Deion Sanders would occasionally tackle. My point is this: Both Washington and Routt are making there money on being fast. There is nothing about these guys that sets them apart from what Buchanon has done in Oakland the past three years. In fact, without having actually done it, I would be willing to bet if you looked at film from college on Buchanon and Washington, you'd see little difference. Both are guys who relied a lot on their speed to make up ground while the ball was in the air. In college, you can get away with this, but it doesn't work for 99% of the fast corners who try it in the NFL. And it really won't work when you don't have an impact front seven, which we did not last year. But instead of using at least one of the first two picks to do that, we blew it on track stars.

And as far as the tackling goes, check your numbers again, a little closer this time, and tell me how many of those tackles were in run support. He darn well better have tackled guys he let catch the football, but was he sticking his neck out against RBs in the flat or run blitzing and making tackles for loss. This is where C-Wood stands out from many of his peers, and this is the reason that these two guys cannot add up to an eventual tandem, or even one piece, of the puzzle should Woodson eventually leave.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNBuff


Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 370
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

boiseraider wrote:
Dark Knight..............I respect your opinion on this, but you seem a little emotionally overinvested here............Listen, 97 tackes in three seasons as a starter does not mean he's a good tackler. This is football; of course he will tackle if he has to. Deion Sanders would occasionally tackle. My point is this: Both Washington and Routt are making there money on being fast. There is nothing about these guys that sets them apart from what Buchanon has done in Oakland the past three years. In fact, without having actually done it, I would be willing to bet if you looked at film from college on Buchanon and Washington, you'd see little difference. Both are guys who relied a lot on their speed to make up ground while the ball was in the air. In college, you can get away with this, but it doesn't work for 99% of the fast corners who try it in the NFL. And it really won't work when you don't have an impact front seven, which we did not last year. But instead of using at least one of the first two picks to do that, we blew it on track stars.

And as far as the tackling goes, check your numbers again, a little closer this time, and tell me how many of those tackles were in run support. He darn well better have tackled guys he let catch the football, but was he sticking his neck out against RBs in the flat or run blitzing and making tackles for loss. This is where C-Wood stands out from many of his peers, and this is the reason that these two guys cannot add up to an eventual tandem, or even one piece, of the puzzle should Woodson eventually leave.

Well put!!!
I personally would've liked to see a Justin Miller pick instead of Routt, at a minimum for the returning skills (and if you like tackles, pretty sure he had 157 in 3 seasons). If not him then I would've liked to see Cody out of OU to get to the QB.......a good pass rush is a CB's best friend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bo Jackson 34


Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 43
Location: NY & Charlotte
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stretch of the day
If Pete Mcmahon does not work out on the OL, what do you guys think about trying move Pete McMahon to DT? At 6'7" and 329lbs, he is mammoth. He probably could take up multiple blockers and deflect a ton of balls at 6'7".

I know its a stretch, but why give up on someone with that size that easily.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SanDiegoRaiderFan


Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Posts: 3114
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boise and MNBuf, here is how I see our DL:

DE - Burgess, Brayton
DT - Sapp, K. Smith
DT - Washington, Hawthorne, Sands
DE - Hamilton, Kelly

We'll probably have to release Grant Irons, who showed some flashes when given the opportunity. Who could we have gotten in the 2nd round that would have helped our pass rush? The only DEs left were Matt Roth and Dan Cody. Would they have been a big upgrade over the DEs we have now? Burgess is our big signing on the defensive side and is counted on to improve the pass rush. Hamilton is a leader and is strong against the run. Kelly led the team in sacks as a rookie. That leaves Brayton, a high motor white guy without the blazing speed. Which, IMHO, is what Roth and Cody are. They're not any faster than Brayton, and so I don't think choosing them would have been much of an upgrade. And I don't think we're going to keep 10 DL, so anyone we chose would have to beat out one of the nine that I listed above.

If we went LB, who would we have taken in the 2nd round? Thurman? Crowder? I read that the Raiders had Kirk Morrison rated the #2 ILB after Barrett Ruud, and we got Morrison in the 3rd round. Blackstock? We had three shots at him, and turned him down each time. He's a 3-4 OLB and wouldn't fit in with our 4-3 because he's weak against the run and in coverage. The only possible LB I would have considered in the 2nd round was Kevin Burnett, and some people say even he was not worth it. This was a weak year for LBs overall.

I think our pass rush will be better this year because (1) the 4-3 will be the base defense, (2) Derrick Burgess at DE, (3) one more year of experience for Tommy Kelly, and (4) Tyler Brayton at DE instead of OLB. Plus, the additions on offense will help the defense in general and the pass rush in particular. With Randy Moss, we'll be ahead more and force teams to play catch up. With Lamont Jordan, we'll run the ball more, which will help us with time of possession (we were last in TOP last year). Both of those mean that there will be fewer rushing attempts against our defense (we were second worse in terms of numbers of rushes against us last year). That means the D-line will be fresher and be able to generate more of a pass rush. Or so I hope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bo Jackson 34


Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 43
Location: NY & Charlotte
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good points on the TOP and the aquisitions of Jordon and Moss.

The draft is tough b/c I like our later picks. The Raiders could have taken Justin Tuck out of ND with the 3rd rounder, but they passed on him to take Walters. Only to have Tuck go to the Giants. I like Walters though!

I also think that Thurman from GA is going to be nasty. He hits like a truck and is fast too. From what I have read, he supposedly has an attitude problem, which is probably why we passed on him.

Anyway, it is going to take more than 1 draft to turn our D into a Top 10 D. However, if the O performs as predicted (scoring points and controlling the clock with LJ), they should be able to let lose and attack QB's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kjherrm


Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1596
Location: Stillman Valley
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Our D line is going to be better with the additions of Burgess, Smith, and Hawthorne. I truly believe that Hawthorne will be the biggest help if he plays up to his potential. I'm not sold on Burgess though. He is an upgrade but he only had 4 sacks last year during the season. If he was so good i don't think that Philly would have brought Hugh Douglas back. I still think we should have gotten another DL in the draft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boiseraider


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 31
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SDRF

The one major assumption here is that we go to a 4-3 base defense. Early in the offseason, when the rumbling was that Rob Ryan's job was in jeopardy, Turner alluded to the possibility of adjusting the scheme to fit the personnel a little better, but he stopped short of saying they would use a 4-3 predominantly. I think we're going to need more linebackers, so when I argue that the first two choices were wasted on burners, in particular I mean that we need more linebackers, and we needed some downlinemen who can adjust between the 4-3 and the 3-4. Sapp cannot, Brayton cannot, Burgess comes from a system that used 4-3 primarily. Washington did not exactly play up to expectations in the system he was supposed to help implement. So given that, minimally, we can expect this team to show many different types of seven front, they require some guys who have demonstrated the flexibility to play in both.

Where this leaves me, and as I've stated before, based on the premise that defenses are built around the strength of the front seven, this team is still short at least two impact defensive players in the front seven, even with the existing draft choices included. If it were me, I would have gone balls to the wall when I saw Derrick Johnson drop out of the top 10 to move above KC and nab him. Since Saturday, I've been having nightmares/flashbacks of Derrick Thomas wreaking havoc on Raider QBs and RBs in the 90's. Mark my words, folks, those days may yet come again with this kid. There is no worse place DJ could have ended up than KC. Not even Denver would have been worse.

I've seen it mentioned before that the team could have made an even smaller jump into the top 20 and snagged Marcus Spears. I agree, after that pick, the quality drops off dramatically. Davis didn't sit pat at 26, but he didn't exactly wow the world with his dramatic jump ahead of GB. It was a huge let down to not see some movement to get one of these higher rated defensive players, especially with all the work they did in the days leading up to the draft. There were three corners taken in the first 10 picks, and that was all the defense that went in that period. Everyone knew the next 10 would see a glut of defensive players, and as it played out, 7 of the next 10 were not just defense, they were LBs or DL.

Instead, we opted to ship a second rounder to draft a guy who may well would have still been there at 26, and even if he wasn't, we could have nearly matched in the second round anyway(Routt, Miller). Hey, if NE can do it, why not convert Carlos Francis to CB? That way he doesn't have to worry about people criticizing his dropped balls............all CBs drop easy interceptions once in a while..................But seriously, I agree we may not have gotten much bang for our buck at those spots at linebacker. I just don't think Washington and Routt were worth the work, and the extra pick for Washington, that we doled out.

Moving into the top 15-20 would have made more sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNBuff


Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 370
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SDRF
I think I was in the same line as boise here. Why trade up if Washington, who you KNOW Al loved, was going to be there?? And why Routt??? He's big and fast, but RAW. I liked Miller at that point -- he could return punts as well.
As far as Cody goes, I guess I don't see that front 4 being as great as you claim. I would love to be COMPLETELY wrong with Routt and the front 4.......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kjherrm


Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1596
Location: Stillman Valley
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with you boiseraider, but just to let you know we traded a 4th rounder not a second to move up to 23. The only thing left to do is pay woodson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boiseraider


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 31
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right, right, fourth round.

Even then, we didn't have any choices in the fourth or fifth after that trade. Lots of value still on the table in the early fourth.

As much as I hate to say it, because his presence may be as much of a negative as a positive force in the locker room, the team really needs to lock Woodson down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SanDiegoRaiderFan


Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Posts: 3114
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

About moving up from #26 to #23: The radio here in San Diego is reporting that the Chargers were trying to trade up from #28 with teams in front of the Raiders to get F. Washington. I guess they're scared of Moss too. More later.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boiseraider


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 31
PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Everybody's scared of Moss. Denver drafted three frickin' corners in row beginning in the second round. Now that is overkill.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group