Raiders Draft: Defensive End not critical with first pick

Thoughts from the Dark Side

April 10, 2008

Raiders Draft: Defensive End not critical with first pick

56 Comments

Recommended (0) | Share

Image details: Virginia Cavaliers v Virginia Tech Hokies served by picapp.com

Chris Long is a popular choice with Raider Nation, but should the Raiders take him if he's still available when they pick?

With less than three weeks left before the 2008 NFL Draft, the drums are beginning to beat louder for teams to make certain picks. The Oakland Raiders fans may be beating the loudest drums, just not the same ones. The sounds emanating from Raider Nation sound a lot like Chris Long, Darren McFadden, Vernon Gholston, or trade down amongst others. It seems like we hear this every year, but whatever the Raiders decide to do will have a deep impact on the first round and the rest of the draft.

History proves that picking a defensive end in the first round could get you mainstays like Dwight Freeney, Julius Peppers, or Calvin Pace. It could also get you a guy like Michael Haynes, Erasmus James, or Jamal Reynolds. The second group of guys may have made you say to yourself, "Huh?" If it did, then I picked the right guys...the right 'wrong' guys.

Picking a guy in the first round doesn't necessarily guarantee that he'll be a star or even a good pro. I'm not going to lie, due to the incredible amount of information that teams get nowadays prior to drafting, there are fewer so-called busts than there used to be. Between 2000-2005, 21 defensive ends were drafted and 6 are either no longer in the league or not playing much. The other 15 guys have played in at least 10 games a season, but to give you an idea of what that means, Tyler Brayton is one of those guys.

For the most part, and calling a player a bust is subjective, at least 13 of the 21 defensive ends could be considered busts since they were all first round picks. Why is the bust criteria so difficult to determine? As long as the guy is still in the league, there's the opportunity for him to eventually become a star, and the average NFL career is only about four years. There are systems that fit and systems that don't so if you draft a guy that doesn't fit your system, then he probably will go down in history as a draft bust for your team.

All of this may lead you to believe that it's very rare to pick good defensive ends in the draft. That's not necessarily true. Many great defensive ends come in later rounds. Some that have come later in the draft from 2000-2005 are Robaire Smith (6th round), Adalius Thomas (6th round), Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila (5th round), Kyle Vanden Bosch (2nd round), Aaron Schobel (2nd round), Derrick Burgess (3rd round), Kalimba Edwards (2nd round), and Aaron Kampman (5th round). That's quite a few good defensive ends, and I only listed the ones drafted between 2000-2002, and those are only the guys that have made a name for themselves.

Last year, the Raiders drafted Quentin Moses in the third round and Jay Richardson in the fifth. In the end, they went one for two on defensive ends, and only time will tell if Richardson is another KGB or a Erasmus James. Of those 21 defensive ends drafted in the first round, only 7 have hit the ground running by starting in at least half of their first season and consistently starting ever since. This means that it's a safe bet to say that if the Raiders select a defensive end with their first pick, they won't get a return on their investment until at least the 2009 season.

Regardless of the stats and the history of the draft, it all comes down to factors not put in a stat sheet. Like drafting any position, the Raiders will want to draft someone that has a heart big enough to persevere and the talent to succeed. Chris Long is said to have both, and Gholston's talent and upside usually overshadows his heart, but if history is any indication there will be several others not as highly sought who will have equally great careers.

So while this won't tell you who the Raiders will draft, take heart in knowing that if they don't draft that prized defensive end with the fourth pick, it won't be too late for them to do it on the second day. In the end, does it really matter who it is? Let me go out on a ledge and say that Raider Nation cares not who the Raiders pick, as long as that pick is good. Isn't that what's so exciting about the draft?

Tags: NFL, Oakland Raiders, Raiders

Discussion

56 Comments on "Raiders Draft: Defensive End not critical with first pick"

Posted by Thoughts from the Dark Side: Raiders Draft: Defensive End not critical with first pick | The RaiderC, April 10, 2008 7:58 AM

[...] Read more. Posted in Blog, Oakland Raiders | [...]

Posted by B, April 10, 2008 8:49 AM

Long is Al's mandate!

Posted by inonewordraider, April 10, 2008 8:58 AM

You mention Burgess and Edwards as some of the good DE's in the league. If we have both, why would we draft another? Although I really beleive we should get Dorsey in order to secure a Dline that can get to the QB and stop the run, I feel like Al will go w/ Howies son, Mcfadden, or trade the pick. Would you guys be mad if We got C Johnson and say Cincinnati's 1st or 2nd round pick for our #1? If we don't get a DT, how good can Joseph be? He had to be a first round pick for something...

Posted by B, April 10, 2008 9:06 AM

www.gbnreport.com The Raiders are up time to make our pick! 1:00pm ET 10:00am PT until 5:00pm ET. ONLY 4 HOURS TO MAKE OUR PICK!

Posted by Narcosis80, April 10, 2008 10:46 AM

I'm assuming when you mention Kalimba Edwards as a great DE you're talking about "potential" right? Because that's just stupid to put him up there with Vanden Bosch, Kampmann, and Thomas.

I'm a die hard Raider fan also but I'm not delirious. Edwards has to prove himself to be mentioned as great DE.

Posted by Scout, April 10, 2008 11:12 AM

Ty Warren a bust ?? He signed a nice extension with NE not too long ago and is considered one of the better 3-4 DEs in the league. I cant stand NE but he is a good player and moves better than most 300 pounders.

As far William Joseph is concerned he lost his position in the NYG dline rotation to rookie 3rd rounder Jay Alford. He had every opportunity in NY to become a good d-lineman but never got there

Posted by Juice, April 10, 2008 11:15 AM

I agree with you Rob that Oakland could find a quality defensive end in the later rounds of the draft (i.e. Chris Clemons). Much like any position in the draft, there are just as many players drafted late that blossom into solid players as thier more heralded counterparts. But with the current number of draft picks that the Raiders have at thier disposal, which in all likelyhood will increase, I believe defensive end is indeed a critical need to address with the fourth overall pick. With the shift of Tommy Kelly to his natural position of defensive tackle, and the release of both Chris Clemons and Tyler Brayton the Raiders are left very thin at defensive end. Derrick Burgess is the only proven thing at that position, and Kalimba Edwards is a third down specialist at best, while Jay Richardson isn't quite an every down player just yet. Without a second or third rounder thier chances of cashing in on a solid defensive end on the second day are seemingly slim. So the arguement comes down to Chris Long and Vernon Gholston. At this time the Dolphins are currently negotiating a contract with Gholston, so he may not even be available by the time the Raiders pick. For that matter, Chris Long is a candidate to be selected by the Rams and then neither would be available so this whole arguement would become moot. But let's try to pick Al Davis's brain for a minute. If both are still available, does he pick Gholston, the combine freak, or Long, the son of beloved Raider great Howie? My instincts tell me he would select Long, not just because of bloodlines but because he would be a far better fit in the Raiders scheme than Gholston would. Long would fit seemlessly at base end where he is both a rugged run defender and a solid pass rusher, not to mention a great technician. Perhaps he could even slide inside on passing downs a la Justin Tuck and provide a sense of veratility. The big thing with him though is that he seems to have his dad's attitude in spades, never giving up on a play and is also a high character guy. In my opinion, that is exactly what Gholston seems to be lacking. Sure he dominated the college tackles (i.e. Jake Long), but he seems to rely too much on his physical gifts while his motor runs inconsistantly. Sure he COULD be the next Shawne Merriman, but what if he's the next Andre Wadsworth? Chris Long makes way too much sense in my mind, which probably means that it won't happen, but of course there is one big wild card which would once again render this discussion moot. His name is Darren McFadden.

Posted by Juice, April 10, 2008 11:27 AM

And by the way, Ty Warren shouldn't be considered a bust Rob. He is a critical part of the Patriots' defensive line which is one of the finest in the entire league. Often times he outshines his more celebrated linemates Richard Seymour and Vincent Wilfork. Though he's not flashy, he is versatile and the prototypical defensive end for a 3/4 defense. In fact I believe you could draw comparisons between him and Chris Long.

Posted by Juice, April 10, 2008 11:43 AM

Calvin Pace? Rob you might be the only person in the world that will start a list of great defensive ends with Dwight Freeney, Julius Peppers,......and Calvin Pace! I realize that the dude just got paid a ton of cash by the Jets and God bless him, but your are smoking some serious shit to hold him in the same regard as Freeney and Peppers. Sure Julius had a down year, but Calvin Pace? Come on man, that's comical.

#10

Posted by Brian, April 10, 2008 1:30 PM

Edwards has to prove himself and the D-Line is thin. I agree with those who say C. Long or Ghoulston are what we need and if both are gone and a trade down is not possible, Dorsey is the guy. Remember, D-Mac cannot stop the run so he is not an option at pick #4.

#11

Posted by OakFoSho, April 10, 2008 1:36 PM

OK lets get hypothetical for a minute!

Lets just say that either C. Long (do you believe in miracles?), or Gholston (no thank you!) has been drafted at #4 by the Raiders. Many on this site believe that this is the way to go, but they fail to take into account the consequences of taking one of these two.

1. The Raiders basically will be forced to pay Kalimba Edwards two seasons worth of guaranteed money to ride the pine. I believe this is not what Al had in mind when picking him.

2. Richardson's development is put on hold as he too is forced to ride the pine. He showed flashes towards the end of the season last year, and picking a DE at #4 would basically throw that out the door, along with his possibly great future.

3. Not only is D Burgess, a two time pro-bowler and heart of the defense, one of the lowest paid players on the defense, but he will not even be the highest paid DE on the Roster. Not only this, but he could look at the pick as his future replacement, or the enabler for the Raiders to replace him! Not the message you want to send to the STAR on your D-Line!

4. Yes, the Raiders have a good core of RBs, and yes they appear to have a solid core of WRs, but picking a DE at #4 keeps the Raiders from getting that one piece that can take it to the house on ANY GIVEN PLAY the Raiders have the football, offense (RB, WR) and ST (PR, KR). That piece is Run DMC!

So, if a person is ready to give up on (1) the guaranteed money given to Kalimba, (2) the development of Richardson, (3) whatever happiness or contentment that Burgess still has, (4) and the opportunity to get that one dangerous piece that can put the offense and ST over the top, then by all means, pick a DE at #4.

The Raiders Biggest Need is TDs, thus.....

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

#12

Posted by Rob Calonge, April 10, 2008 1:56 PM

To all, I was falling asleep when I added Ty Warren in the bust category. His name was above Michael Haynes. My apologies, and I'm editing it now.

Also, in the paragraph where I state, "That��s not necessarily true. Many great defensive ends come in later rounds." That's not to infer that Edwards is 'great', but when I mention Edwards with the others, I'm talking about good. I might add, and I think that I also mentioned this, but the longevity of the career adds to how they rate.

#13

Posted by Rob Calonge, April 10, 2008 2:06 PM

Juice,

I do agree that Pace isn't 'great'. At least not yet. I put him in the list as a 'mainstay' meaning that he has longevity in the league. I honestly don't think that Pace's stats are an indication of how good he'll be in the coming years, but if last year is any indication, he should be on that list of 'greats' soon.

These are some of his stats from last year: 16 games started, 98 tackles, 80 solo tackles, 6.5 sacks, 6 passes defensed, and 1 interception.

#14

Posted by Brandon, April 10, 2008 3:13 PM

Could the Raiders get away with not drafting a DE with the 4th pick? I think they could. But if they do take Gholston and he develops into a double digit sack artist Derrick Burgess won't be mad at all. He will be seeing some 1 on 1 match ups which he hasnt seen for some time. Gholston put up 37 reps of 225 at the combine and showed that he can be strong at the point of attack as well. The two of them would cause major havoc on third downs. and wasn't it AL Davis himself that said "The quarterback must go down and he must go down hard."

#15

Posted by LDizzle, April 10, 2008 3:14 PM

As usual OakFo adds nothing to the conversation. He just twists it so he can ride McFaddens dick a bit more. I have never seen someone so obsessed with a player coming out of college. Pathetic.

I too don't think that you can put Calvin Pace and Kalimba Edwards on that list. Both have been so-so and when you are the Lions picking in the 2nd round, it is pretty much a 1st rounder so Kalimba is hardly considered a "later" pick. But that actually further proves what you are saying here Rob. That being that it is hard to find a DE worth a high pick. Gholston scares me for that reason. Physical tools have always awed scouts with college players but it is ALWAYS the high motor guys that succeed. Chris Long reminds me of guys like Patrick Kerney, Kyle Vanden Bosch and Jason Taylor. Big, passionate guys who never quit. If he isn't there I think we should look DT or try and trade down. If we can't trade down I guess we are stuck with what is there. Which is something else to remember: Just because AD didn't trade down, doesn't mean he didn't try. He may just pick a guy because he couldn't the player or the trade he wanted.

#16

Posted by inonewordraider, April 10, 2008 3:59 PM

Think back to two years ago... We were top 5 overall defense all year but couldn't run or pass. Then Kelly went down and we couldn't stop the run. Now Kelly is back but Sapp is gone. So we need Dorsey or Ellis to fill Sapps void and we will again be able to stop the run of course now we have better corners, more experienced linebackers, and safeties that will come up and hit. We could have a potentially better D than two years ago plus we have a running game and potentially a passing game

#17

Posted by OakFoSho, April 10, 2008 7:16 PM

As Usual,

LDizzle feels defeated and adds nothing to refute the FACTS that I always use to make my points. It has become obvious that he cannot hang in debate, as he can only throw out weak personal attacks that are devoid of anything intelligent at all.

A new challenger is still needed!!

NEXT!!!

The Raiders Biggest Need is TDs, thus....

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

#18

Posted by OakFoSho, April 10, 2008 7:29 PM

By the way,

LDizzle is the type of Raider fan I was referring too. The type of fan that is OK with wasting money on Kalimba, stalling Richardson's development, upsetting Burgess further, and not having a home run hitter. Pretty sound judgment huh? (Ahem!! Cough!! Laughing Hysterically!!)

The Raiders Biggest Need is TDs, thus....

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

#19

Posted by Juice, April 10, 2008 7:41 PM

Rob I wasn't trying to call you out on the whole Calvin Pace deal, and the Ty Warren statement was pretty comical to me even if it was a typo. But you give me calvin Pace's statistics and that was the only season he ever came close to putting up "decent" numbers. Let's call it for what it is though, 6.5 sacks is far from dominant. Let us not forget that Pace himself was labled a bust, and he just "amazingly" seemed to have it all come together in a contract year. Buyer beware if I"m the Jets. Just can't trust a player who has finally puts it together in a contract year. I've seen it too many times. I mean Freeney and Peppers have had 13+ sack seasons and have been to regular pro bowls. They're game changers dude. Pace just simply doesn't belong in the conversation with them. As for OakFoSho, dude it amazes me that you are able to twist everything into the Raiders drafting Darren McFadden. Not to mention sometimes it's pretty funny. Even though I don't think the team needs him, put me down as one of the people who wouldn't mind one bit if D-Mac joins the Silver & Black. There you go, when he gets drafted the marketing slogan should be "D-Mac in Silver & Black".

#20

Posted by OakFoSho, April 10, 2008 7:44 PM

Juice,

I can understand if you disagree with #4, though it appears you wouldn't mind having Run DMC. But its pretty hard to argue with #s 1,2, and 3 in my argument against getting a DE.

Al's Mandate is McFadden!

OakFoSho

#21

Posted by Juice, April 10, 2008 7:44 PM

It's just not a Raiders blog without the "Al's Mandate is McFadden" rant. Seriously I could see you passing out silver and black tee shirts with that printed on it. Dude you should do it and make some bank.

#22

Posted by Juice, April 10, 2008 7:51 PM

OakFoSho you do make a good arguement. I think it's a hell of a luxury that our team actually has to decide between McFadden and Long. Both will make an impact, put people in the seats and make our team a whole lot more satisfying to watch. D-Mac rushing for 1,500 yards and 15 td's or Chris Long racking up 12 sacks will be great either way, not to mention going a long way towards imrpoving either side of the ball. Seriously though, the tee shirt idea has the potential to blow up.

#23

Posted by OakFoSho, April 10, 2008 7:52 PM

Juice,

I would like you to try to refute #s 1, 2, and 3, as I always like a good debate. I believe you can do it with out the weak personal attacks (unlike someone else I know) as there are always two sides to an argument. Hopefully someone on this blog will respond with some decent fact filled arguments against me, and I believe that could be you, as.....

A new challenger is definitely needed!

The Raiders Biggest Need is TDs, thus.....

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

#24

Posted by OakFoSho, April 10, 2008 7:55 PM

LOL,

We were typing at the same time, so my response is a little late, but thanks for the argument. I have always said that C. Long would be great, its just that I (along with 99% of NFL fans) know he will be gone at #4. I would love to have him, but I can't afford the pipe dream. (Though I love Pipe Dreams! I just don't have $5 dollars to spend!)

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

#25

Posted by OakFoSho, April 10, 2008 7:56 PM

Its a student budget thing, you know?

OakFoSho

#26

Posted by Rob Calonge, April 10, 2008 8:49 PM

Juice, I agree that Pace is what you say he is. My point was the guy has been in the league 5 years, really only played two and will be in the league for 5 more years...not bad for any pick. I'm glad you called me on it, but I wasn't saying he was on the level of a Freeney, just that he can't be considered a total bust yet, like others picked in the first round and never started more than 4 games in a season and out of the league by the fifth.

Thanks for reading and posting!

#27

Posted by OakFoSho, April 10, 2008 9:17 PM

LDizzle,

something I forgot to mention. You state.....

"Which is something else to remember: Just because AD didn��t trade down, doesn��t mean he didn��t try. He may just pick a guy because he couldn��t the player or the trade he wanted."

I see you are positioning yourself for reversal. I can see it now.....

LDizzle: "OakFoSho, the only reason Al picked McFadden is because he had too."

The truth is if Al wants one of the top two DEs or DTs, they will be there, and you will have no excuse. Everyone here knows your position against McFadden, but this is a serious stretch even for you.

I like the fact that you realize your arguments are looking less and less likely, but this excuse just won't fly buddy. If McFadden is picked you will be incorrect, excuses or no excuses!!

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

#28

Posted by inonewordraider, April 11, 2008 12:52 AM

Dorsey and C Long are worthy of #4 pick and fill the biggest whole in our team. If neither is there I guess you trade down right? I'd still go Ellis, he too got doubled all day for a team that competes for the National title every year.

#29

Posted by slvrnblck478, April 11, 2008 6:44 AM

I have been keeping up with these blogs for a couple of months now and can no longer sit here reading Oakfosho comments without out putting my two cents in. Mcfadden is not the player this team needs with the #4 pick. You keep saying we would hurt the development of richardson and pay edwards for nothing. What about the development of bush and paying fargas A LOT MORE for nothing. I know, Oakfosho is goin to say they are still goin to get to split 25 or 30 carries apiece, but that wont be the case when the opposing offense is running the ball down our throat and chewing up time because we didn' t draft a DT that could stop the run!!!

#30

Posted by Aaronraider13, April 11, 2008 7:50 AM

I wonder what Oakfosho is going to post the day after we DO NOT draft Mcfadden.

The Man crush on Mcfadden is kinda creepy.

Mcfadden does not stop the run. Running backs get hurt. I don't expect the Raiders to be drafting this high again for a long time. There is no way you waste a #4 pick on a RB.

#31

Posted by Rebel2124, April 11, 2008 8:08 AM

OakFoSho I must respectfully disagree with you. A home run hitter will always be appreciated, but its not our teams biggest glaring need at this time. We have four running backs under contract, although we'll soon part ways with Jordan I'm hoping. Our biggest need is where we lack the most dept and performed below whats needed to compete in this league. The Giants D should've proved to you that defense wins championships, it always has and always will whether it be good pitching in baseball or a premier shot blocker in basketball. In addition, I believe MacFadden will soon find out turning the corner isn't as easy in the NFL as it was in college and with those twig-like legs he may even find himself in the training room more often than not. I truely appreciate your enthusiasm however. Defense is the way to go.

#32

Posted by slvrnblck478, April 11, 2008 8:13 AM

Exactly! We have 3 quality RB's. Mcfadden is a horrible pick. Like Mike Mayock said "he gets hit and legs quit moving." Why waste a pick on a Rb who cant break tackles. Raiders need to do like the Texans and pick a quality DL over a speedy Rb.

#33

Posted by RizingSoul, April 11, 2008 8:16 AM

It amazes me to keep hearing people over and over saying we need to go DT at #4 to help our run defense. The top two DE's are pass rushing under tackles who are above average against the run. Neither of them are pure NT's. They are UT's at the pro level. These guys will do much more for our pass rush than our run D.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take one, because either would help our D line just because they are talented players. I'm just saying it probably won't fix our run D problems. I think Dorsey is the only one who could help much in that department, because he is the type of player that makes everyone around him better, which means our D Line guys like Warren and Sands might step their game up with a fiery guy like Dorsey playing with them.

I think Chris Long is hands down the best pick we can get, but HE WILL BE GONE BY #4. If he fell to us it would be as shocking as it would've been for Reggie Bush to fall to us at #6 2 years ago.

Beyond Long, I think it's a dead heat between Dorsey and McFadden. They are both impact players. Do we want to score more TD's with McFadden or stop other teams from scoring more TD's by picking Dorsey? I think that's the basic question.

Sedrick Ellis would be a good pick, but not a great one. He's very good, but not #4 overall good. He has a similar skill set to Dorsey, but he's not the impact, leader of the defense, make-people-around-him-better type of player that Dorsey is.

I think Gholston is way too one dimensional for this team. He is very small for a base DE, he's more of 3-4 OLB. He would help our pass rush alot, but he would probably have to come out on obvious running downs. Whoever we select, they need to be an every down player.

Jake Long is a solid RT prospect. He shouldn't be thought of as a franchise LT. He showed his true colors against Gholston when he got man-handled by a speed rusher. (Sound familiar? Barry Sims?). If he had come out last year, he would have been the 3rd or 4th tackle picked. Now he is the cream of the crop because the crop is a little weak this year.

But then again, he'd have to be better than Gallery, right?

#34

Posted by Jim C NJ Raider, April 11, 2008 8:35 AM

I suggest we go for Dorsey or Ellis, we need to stop the run. Although the defense was ranked 3rd two years ago, remember when it came to crunch time the opponents controled the clock and game by running the ball - we couldn't stop them. Last year it became obvious we couldn't stop the run and the defense dropped to one of the worse in the league. Remember the great teams that won the Super Bowl had great defenses - Raiders, Steelers, Ravins, Giants, Cowboys, 49ers, ...defense wins, the #1 pick should be Dorsey or Ellis

#35

Posted by slvrnblck478, April 11, 2008 8:37 AM

RizingSoul makes some good points, but I think he underestimate Dorseys run stopping ability. In college he always got double teams and in some cases tripled team, but yet still managed to make plays. He might not have the typical size of a nose tackle but could play there b/c he has the smarts and motor. I agree chris long would be the best pick, but since he will probably be takin before the raiders pick, why not add a DT that adds versatility to the D-line, not to mention who doesnt have character issues like Mcfadden and Ghoulston!

#36

Posted by SDRaidah, April 11, 2008 10:36 AM

Dorsey or C. Long would be best at #4. We could use exceptional talent at DE or DT. Or even make C. Long our SLB.

Yet, I have this feeling the Raiders will pick McFadden. Not too upset but we need to get something in return for the RB's that we would cut or make at least a return man. I dont see us keeping Fargas, Bush, Rhodes, and Jordan. We might look to cut Jordan if no late round trade can be made, and try to trade one of the others for 2-5 rounder. This is a deep draft for RB so it may be tough to find a trade partner.

Best scenario is Dorsey or C. Long if one of them is available. The D would command attention.

#37

Posted by SDRaidah, April 11, 2008 10:46 AM

C. Long or Dorsey would be the best p/u for the Raiders. Either would contribute immediately. C. Long may be able to play some SLB as well as DE which is a bonus. We need help at both.

I have this feeling that McFadden is going to be the call. I am ok with it but then we have 5 RB's and need to trade 2. We could look for a draft day trade but this draft is stocked with good RB's. At least until the 3rd round. We might pull a 3rd round for Fargas, Bush or Rhodes but for Jordan we might not be able to get a 5th rounder. We might have to cut him which we will probably do anyway even if McFadden isn the pick.

My choice is Dorsey or C. Long. Gholston if niether of them are available.

#38

Posted by SDRaidah, April 11, 2008 10:48 AM

Sorry for the double post. I thought the first didnt go through.

#39

Posted by Rebel2124, April 11, 2008 10:49 AM

SDRaidah, I think they keep Fargas, Bush and Rhodes, I guess we'll soon see though. Fargas being the feature with his speed. Bush being the pounder and Rhodes being the serviceable vet who can also return kickoffs.

#40

Posted by SDRaidah, April 11, 2008 11:15 AM

Rebel2124, I was refering only to if we draft McFadden. I would love to have McFadden with Fargas and Bush as Back ups. What a stable. But I just think it is a bit crowded with Rhodes and the aforementioned. We need draft picks bad and I think just about anyone on the Raiders could be used for trade bait for the right price. RB would be the logical choice for trade bait if we take DMC because of the depth at that position. The other position being shopped is CB. Fabe is rumored to being shopped already. We need a 2nd round choice and I am not sure how we'll get it.

#41

Posted by slvrnblck478, April 11, 2008 11:26 AM

If Bush is able to return to his old form, he has a good shot of being the starter since he has ability to catch the ball. Fargas would be an excellent change of pace back with rhodes there for added depth & KR duties. I wouldnt be surprised if bush becomes a better pro then Mcfadden b/c he can break tackles and has better character!

#42

Posted by O, April 11, 2008 2:42 PM

This should be a no brainer though, everyone seems to think Al Davis is going to go with overhyped Mr. McFadden though yes being intrigued does not exactly mean is going to select him to fill in the many whole this team has. Reallity if Jake Long is gone the two other best selection for the Raiders is ethier Chris Long or Vernon Gholston. There really is know reason to trade down unless they are going to trade with Dallas. So lets be realistic before pre-judging this crazy owner may be thinking.

#43

Posted by B, April 11, 2008 4:12 PM

Something about Gholston does not sit right with me. I think if C Long and Dorsey are both gone we should at least try to trade down and get DE Harvey

#44

Posted by OakFoSho, April 11, 2008 4:31 PM

slvrnblck478,

A few questions...

1. What about the development of Bush? Is it not reasonable to think that 10-20 carries a game is enough for Bush to get his feet wet through the first half of the season? It takes a lot to be a full time starter, especially for veritable rookie!

2. Do you think 12 million over 3 season is paying too much? The reality is Justin Fargas' contract is quite reasonable and he probably could have gotten more elsewhere. He is a true Raider, and splitting 25-30 carries with Bush, might keep him fresh and healthy for a full season, for the first time in his career. (ahem!)

3. What do you believe the philosophy of the offense will be next year? With a rookie (basically) QB with little experience? The Raiders are going to do what they do best, and that's RUN THE FOOTBALL!! I would bet even more than last year in an attempt to protect J Money. Regardless of the score, if the Raiders were to run the ball less than 35-40 times a game, especially in the first half of the season, I will be shocked!

You mention my arguments against drafting a DE at #4 but you fail to address them in any meaningful way. Thats because they are pretty sound arguments, in line with the moves that the Raiders have made this off season. Its hard to refute this that make that much sense.

Heck, even LDizzle is starting to come around to the reality of drafting McFadden, piling up every excuse in the book for why Al will HAVE to take him, with out actually saying it.

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

#45

Posted by OakFoSho, April 11, 2008 4:38 PM

Aaronraider13,

As I have said several times in the past, I will freely admit if I am wrong the day of the draft, heck one minute after the pick, if that pick is not McFadden! I don't mind being wrong, though I will be highly disappointed if Run DMC is not picked.

Again, you, as well as several others, fail to address the 4 specific issues that I discussed in my post. Rather you just got all upset, and failed to sit back and think about, or respond to the logic behind the argument.

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

#46

Posted by OakFoSho, April 11, 2008 4:42 PM

Rebel2124,

Thank you for you thoughtful response, and I can see your point. We will just have to disagree until draft day, and see what happens.

However, you did not respond directly to my four part argument against drafting a DE.

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

#47

Posted by Rebel2124, April 11, 2008 6:17 PM

OakFoSho,

On points, 1,2 and 3:

Both Edwards and Burgess are situational players meant for rushing the passer only. Burgess SHOULD be looking over his shoulder. More competition makes for a better football team. There HAS to be an infusion of youth at both DE and DT. Furthermore, Burgess isn't happy with his contract and may hold out. He can hold out if he wants while the young guys get developed. No one will be riding pine, guys are continuously rotated in and out to keep them fresh during a game. Fresh guys make for better production.

Point 4:

It won't make a difference having DMC if we can't stop anybody on defense.

Defense wins championships!

#48

Posted by rockyraida, April 11, 2008 9:04 PM

no, no no, This guy ( DMC) has trouble written all over him. millions $ contract mixed with big posse, punk attitude from the getto= trouble we don't need. When bush hit's his stride you will forget all about him. There

is no rebuttle needed for your points , as there are twice as many reasons why we SHOULD NOT draft this kid. Dorsey is the only thing we need to turn this ship around. my what short memory you have oak4,don't you remeber LT"s 200 yard games?

How did you feel? How about the titans 2 Huge back to back runs to seal the game? and on and on.STOP THE RUN and evrything els will fall into place

#49

Posted by OakFoSho, April 11, 2008 9:11 PM

Rebel2124,

You make some pretty outlandish statements there buddy. I have never heard someone that harsh on the STAR of the defensive line and a two time pro-bowler. Also, we have been hearing about Burgess holding out for two seasons. He is not that type of guy, as proven in the past. He voices his displeasure, but in the end he comes to camp a little late and it's all good.

Basing a draft pick on whether someone will or will not hold out is pointless. Also, Burgess has no need to sweat, as after he recovered from his leg injury injury last year (Yes, he played injured for the entire first half of the season, like a true Raider!) he was dominant yet again. He deserves a little bit more respect from you I would think.

Yes Kalimba is a pass rushing DE, but thats matches up perfectly with Richardson at the RE. I believe this is what Al had in mind when he brought him in. This allows Richardson to develop, and allows Kalimba to best use his talents.

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

#50

Posted by Stonewall, April 11, 2008 10:10 PM

Problem with OakFoSho is evident: He talks and acts like he's from the "Hood" and recently learned to read, write and walk on two legs after swinging from the trees like the rest of the vermin in the hood.

What you guys have done to this country, sports and the English language is a damn shame.

Crawl back up your tree.

#51

Posted by OakFoSho, April 11, 2008 10:42 PM

Stonewall,

Ummm?!?!? Where does this come from? Could you give me some examples where I try and talk like I'm "from the hood" please? I have no idea where you get that impression. I did grow up near 73rd, a few blocks up from Macarthur, but it is by no means the worst part of Oakland. It's a bit downtrodden in some areas, especially if you get near Macarthur, but its not the Murder Dubs or the Dirty 30s by any means.

I am sorry that you have to result to baseless personal attack. I know my arguments are deeply entrenched in fact and reason, thus making them difficult to refute, but I think you are better than this.

I am proud of where I am from. My neighborhood is filled with people of all races, religions, and backgrounds, all working hard to survive in a country and a city that cares less and less for its blue collar middle class. Its about common people sacrificing for their families and trying to put food on the table. (which is getting more and more difficult in todays economy!)

Maybe you should think before you type, as this kind of comment only reflects badly upon yourself. It's weak minded hearsay that has no basis in reality.

Al's Mandate is McFadden!!

OakFoSho

#52

Posted by Sandblack, April 12, 2008 4:14 AM

Hi Nation,

Rading all the posts as ever and all the arguments are sound. For me its about how much each player imporves what we have rather than their own individual talents. McF i dont think improves us a huge deal and Bush is an unknown. He might be as good but break tackles. We def need def line as this would improve us a lot if we can manage the run game.

I'm worried about Gholston as i'm not sure a player imporoves his effort level when he gets to the NFL if her didnt have it before. I think we need a pure 4-3 lineman at either ont mind who.

Just think how lcose we were last year to reasonable and the additions we've made. Best offseason for years.

Go Raiders!

#53

Posted by Rob Calonge, April 12, 2008 5:43 AM

OFS, I want to apologize for Stonewall's comment and that I didn't catch it until only now.

Raider Nation - While this is a forum for free speech, race attacks will not be tolerated and will get your post removed from the board and you removed from the site. I'm the least PC guy you're going to find, so if I find your comment offensive or out of line, it's a good bet that it is.

Thanks to all for reading and posting!

#54

Posted by Raider Scott, April 12, 2008 3:20 PM

I have read the rebuttals going back and forth regarding DE's vs. Run DMC and AL's mandate, etc. The bottom line is we have been getting torched in run defense for too long. Yes, Al may very well draft Run DMC but that does not make it the right pick. If we dump Jordan adding a 4th running back is hard to make sense of. As OakFoSho points out, Bush and Fargas can split 25-30 carries a game. Does that mean we will have Rhodes running 5-10 times per game with Run DMC getting another 5-10 carries? I hope we have time to throw the ball when DMC gets here (we did pick up a few WR��s this year too). We added some guys on the D-line this year, but then again we have added players over the last 3 years or so on defense and we can��t say that we have shown big improvements against the run. I am pretty sure no one threw the ball against our top rated defense from a few years back because it was not necessary to throw when the getting was so good on the ground. I think we have the passing defense in place and we appear to be getting better (adding Hall and Wilson). We added a few guys on the defensive line who MAY help the d-line but it is not a guarantee they will fit/work. Knowing that we have been torched on the ground and at the same time we produced the sixth best rushing offense in the league (one of the worst defenses against the rush) I can��t believe I have read a solid argument of why we need Run DMC. Once again, that doesn��t mean Al won��t draft him. If we can continue to maintain the 6th rated rushing offense I can live with that, but at the same time I have a hard time watching running backs effortlessly glide through our Swiss cheese defense. The holes on defense against the run have been so glaring; I still have a hard time believing Al should mandate DMC. I cannot logically argue why we need him vs. help against the run. We need to evaluate as much talent on the defensive line as possible in order to figure out the right combination to stop the run. To beat a dead horse even further, Rhodes was a second back in nice running game for Indy. If Bush is a bust we still have Fargas and Rhodes. Can we comfortably say that we have enough runs toppers on our defense? We have no clue what we have against the run. We know what we have in our rushing game.

#55

Posted by sbdice, April 12, 2008 4:46 PM

First of all let me say that I like where we sit at #4. We can go a number of ways and still help the team. After reading everything and listening to different sports shows I have come to this conclusion. I feel strongly that they are going to pick a Defensive Linemen. It depends on who falls to the #4 pick. I used to think maybe they should trade out but I don't think they will. I think they will try to pick up some extra picks another way. As much as I like Mcfadden and the possibilities therein I would go with a Defensive Linemen. Last year Calvin Johnson was the best athlete in the draft and the Raiders went with need. This year will be the same. With Warren Sapp retiring and Kelly moving down to take his place, there is a big hole that can't be ignored. Unfortunately Derrick Burgess is not happy with no new contract, so the Raiders will pick a Defensive End. I wish it would be Chris Long but he won't be there. It will be Vernon Gholston. If I am wrong that is ok. Whatever they decide to do will help the team.

#56

Posted by O, April 16, 2008 9:40 AM

The article written is overstating all DMac though now. Tell in reallity other then Al mandate or loves speed what is the true reason he will Choose him or any running back look people seem to forget about Michael Bush. O yay he is great back to and probably would have gone in the first round if he did not get injured. So the Raiders not have Fargus, Jordon and Rhodes they have Bush who might be better then McFadden. So yes I would define the best pick available for the Raiders would either be Chris Long, Dorsey or Gholston who will all help and make an impact on the pass rush that was laking in everyway last year. It was not their running game. Even the O-line improved from the previous year. Kalimba Edwards was just taken as back-up and sbdice you are right...