The Mark Jackson/Lane Kiffin era of drafting

[hanuma]

Combined 07/08. 16 Players.

1.1 QB JaMarcus Russell
1.4 RB Darren McFadden
2.6 TE Zach Miller
3.1 DE Quentin Moses
3.24 OT Mario Henderson
3.32 WR Johnnie Lee Higgins
4.1 RB Michael Bush
4.1 DB Tyvon Branch
4.10 CB John Bowie
4.26 WR Arman Shields
5.1 DE Jay Richardson
5.23 SS Eric Frampton
6.1 FB Oren O'Neal
6.3 DE Trevor Scott
7.19 WR Chaz Schilens
7.31 WR Johnathan Holland

Thus far 3 successes (in bold), 2 outright failures (italics) and the rest are question marks, particularly the top 2, or projects that we haven't developed yet.

[HollandRobbie]

Some will hit it..i have high hopes for Chaz,Tyvon, Mario, Trevor, Bowie and Holland

[raiderArt]

What jumps out is that 3rd and 4th round. Way too many long term projects there. Other than Bush, I don't see any of those guys contributing anytime soon.

[RaiderInNY]

OK -- so all of the sudden, a year removed from one draft, and a few weeks from another, we can start evaluating their performance selecting players? Yeahhhhh Right!

And truth be told -- If JaMarcus Russell is everything we want him to be and is a pro bowl performer that is our 'franchise' QB for 10 years, that weighs heavier than any other bust you may want to label on that list or outweighs any of the BS drafting you may perceive we have done.

And in that 2nd draft, if D.McFadden is a stud RB, truth be told, those two will be what the draft will be evaluated by. I know, I know...2 players don't represent two drafts.

But when those two players are a RB and a QB especially, and one of those guys was selected no. 1 overall, will need/use up a lot of the team's time for development and both are making huge money - thats what happens.

Is it fair -- probably not. You judge drafts in their entirety, but those two players will weigh heavily on the success or failure of this team not just during their years here, but with implications that can have a domino effect maybe a few years after they may depart.

Im two years - it's about two guys - Darren and JaMarcus.

And yes; Bush, Miller and others are highly talented guys that may be productive players in the league. Richardson may be a a very solid player. And O'Neal may be a nice guy to have on a roster. And all may be very good stories among others. But the facts are, those two big names will/could make us or break us as a whole, and thus why those are the two names that will really influence how we look at those drafts 4-5-years from now.


PS -- What's with this O'Neal stuff around here lately. The guy is a nice story. PLayed decently as a rook in STINTS when he was out there. He showed promise of being a player that can play at this level. But theres too much of this" "great blocker", "great contributor" going around, especially when you can't assess a player by just a few plays here and there in a few series in a initial campaign. He's no more of a success than Mario Henderson, and the only reason you may not say that about Henderson is because he hasnt played as much, but may have more regard internally by coaches during practices we may not even see or ever be privy too.

[OTF]

Originally Posted by RaiderInNY

Im two years - it's about two guys - Darren and JaMarcus.

I agree! If those 2 reach their potential then it makes things easier for everyone else. A great RB makes the OLine look better (Henderson), the TE & WRs also looks better because the play act will free the safeties and LBs allowing them open space. A great QB will help the line because teams will be scared to blitz especially when it leaves a RB like DMac open in the flats.

If they don't not only will it make things harder for everyone else but it will cause these last 2 drafts to be bad period.

[Raider Ran]

Kinda early to tell but the drafting looks better so far

[Ih8bandwgnbchis]

Until he is no longer with this team this is the Al Davis era of drafting, to think otherwise would be silly.

[Slump]

Originally Posted by Ih8bandwgnbchis

Until he is no longer with this team this is the Al Davis era of drafting, to think otherwise would be silly.

Rep.


Lets not forget either that the draft involves a ton of luck. Gallery and Grove were the best picks we could have made, the fact that they haven't lived up to expectations is mostly bad luck (compounded with bad coaching).

[hanuma]

Originally Posted by RaiderInNY

OK -- so all of the sudden, a year removed from one draft, and a few weeks from another, we can start evaluating their performance selecting players? Yeahhhhh Right!

I never suggested anything of the sort. Just thought seeing what we've got in this format was interesting. See if there are any trends, see what peoples predictions are for how these picks will pan out, or not.

My personal opinion is that we've made a lot of common sense picks in these drafts. We needed a QB and a major offensive weapon was ONE of our needs this year. I think O'Neal, Richardson and Miller have been relatively big early successes and after Frampton and Moses turned out pretty quickly to be failures, we'll have to wait a fair bit to make our minds up on a lot of the others (maybe a couple of months, maybe a couple of years). Other than that, picking Bush might prove to be a masterstroke.

You judge drafts in their entirety, but those two players will weigh heavily on the success or failure of this team not just during their years here, but with implications that can have a domino effect maybe a few years after they may depart.

It's fair enough, because you don't make picks like this without accepting the risk factor and the potential consequences.

PS -- What's with this O'Neal stuff around here lately. The guy is a nice story. PLayed decently as a rook in STINTS when he was out there. He showed promise of being a player that can play at this level. But theres too much of this" "great blocker", "great contributor" going around, especially when you can't assess a player by just a few plays here and there in a few series in a initial campaign. He's no more of a success than Mario Henderson, and the only reason you may not say that about Henderson is because he hasnt played as much, but may have more regard internally by coaches during practices we may not even see or ever be privy too.

He was a starting fullback for several games towards the end of last season, he made plenty of blocks....it's pretty hard for a fullback to get attention but he achieved it on the back of consistently making some sort of impact when he was on the field. Did Henderson even get suited up all season? He certainly didn't make any lasting impressions on the coaches that they've been willing to talk about and it's not like our coaches haven't been asked plenty of times about him. Holding by info about his development would seem fairly redundant to me, you'd want to make a thing of it if he was coming along nicely.

As for Ihatebandwagonbitches comment on Al:
Why would he have sacked Lombardi if his opinion didn't matter? It doesn't sound like the work of a dictator.

[gdamac]

I think there is a difference between the miss in the 3rd round and the miss in the 5th round. Also, I think it is hard to expect a first year head coach to bring rookies along quickly. We gotta be patient, IMO.i

[RaiderInNY]