Why McFadden would be a great fit in Oakland

[Raider Loyalist]

McFadden would be a great fit anywhere. The guy is a natural athlete.

[elvistcb]

DRAFT MCFADDEN!!! All top ten picks are going to want BIG money. Do you think if we take somebody else at #4 they are going to want less money? What fantasy world you living in?

[RaiderDave34]

Originally Posted by ironstarks36

Last season the Oakland Raiders experienced a rebirth of the ground game. The Raiders ground-attack finished sixth in the NFL averaging 130.4 YPG. This was good for a 35.5 YPG increase over the 29th ranked Oakland rushing attack of 2006. The most impressive aspect of this improvement is that it has to deal more with a change in philosophy than personnel. That being said, adding an elite talent to this system could drastically change the performance level of all offensive components.

Tom Cable took over as Oakland’s offensive line coach last season quickly discarding the man to man blocking scheme taught by former Raiders head coach Art Shell. Cable was confident that the Raider’s current offensive line talent could excel in the zone-blocking system. So much so that Cable only sought minor upgrades to a line that allowed a league-worst, 72 sacks, and provided a paltry 94.9 YPG rushing in 2006.

The running game in the zone-blocking scheme requires a running back to make quick decisions. The back must read the front seven to find the weak-spot, make one cut, and hit the hole quickly. This scheme actually favors backs who are more upright runners, as they reach their top speed quicker. Darren McFadden is a natural in the zone-blocking system. In addition to receiving hand-offs from the QB, McFadden also lined up as the QB in the shotgun formation. While you will never see the Raiders run this, it did serve to reinforce in McFadden some of the fundamentals of the ZBS. After receiving the snap, McFadden would determine the weakness and and hit the appropriate gap. In both Arkansas’ system and Oakland’s ZBS there is a predefined motion, but it is up to the back to determine the best gap to run through. When you combine the natural ZBS running skills that McFadden posses with his freakish speed, you get a threat that will give NFL defenses fits. McFadden is such an explosive athlete that he would be a threat to score on every play. This is the one thing the Raiders ground-game lacked last year.

With McFadden in silver and black, you not only get an upgrade to the running game, but also the passing game. McFadden is a decent pass blocker and would provide good protection for Jamarcus when he throws deep. Also, McFadden has good hands, a skill required by running backs in a west coast passing attack. McFadden would make the Raiders much tougher to defend as defenses would have to account for a receiving threat out of the backfield. This would effectively soften the under coverage of opponents deep zones, providing room for our wideouts to gain separation.

McFadden has the all-around skills necessary to become a star at the pro level. He would also be instrumental in the development of JaMarcus Russell. The days of every down backs in the NFL are coming to a close. With Fargas resigned and the potential addition of McFadden, the Raiders would posses the necessary components to posses the most dominant ground game in the NFL for years to come. Fargas has had durability concerns during his career. McFadden would allow the Raiders to maintain an elite rushing attack in the event of injury.


I will still tell you that if Chris Long is available, when the Raiders pick fourth, that he is the right choice. However, that is beginning to seem unlikely with Miami and St. Louis both in need of a dominant defensive end. With the addition of McFadden, the Raiders would become a dynamic offensive powerhouse for years to come.

ok so how much sense do you see in paying fargas,mcfadden, rhodes, and bush( who could be a star, but nobody is even willing to give him a try) ..... alot of people have tunnel vision, and those are the ones who actually have to post a 3 or more paragraph statement to justify the nonsense......... let me sum this up for all mcfadden wanters... WE DONT NEED HIM

[Raider Ran]

Originally Posted by elvistcb

DRAFT MCFADDEN!!! All top ten picks are going to want BIG money. Do you think if we take somebody else at #4 they are going to want less money? What fantasy world you living in?

Pay scales are different for different positions. RB, QB and WR will demand more money. DE slightly less. DT less yet. Just like CB and S get paid different. OT and G are different.

[TheAxis]

Originally Posted by RaiderInNY

I agree with some points, but yet again, like it happens with all these arguments for any particular player, you fail to really drive home points that are without bias, and that leave a lot of holes, such as assuming certain things will happen...

"That being said, adding an elite talent to this system could drastically change the performance level of all offensive components."

Ok? HOW? Hearsay and just assumptions. That still doesnt address the lack of talent at WR, the lack of explosiveness and moreover, the lack of ability on that unit to match the attributes that our QB possesses. SO NO -- adding an elite RB to an already 5th ranked rushing offense, does NOT guarantee that the level of "ALL" offensive components get better. Especially when you are searching for a LT, and still more consistent cohesive play along the OL.

"With McFadden in silver and black, you not only get an upgrade to the running game, but also the passing game. McFadden is a decent pass blocker and would provide good protection for Jamarcus when he throws deep. Also, McFadden has good hands, a skill required by running backs in a west coast passing attack. McFadden would make the Raiders much tougher to defend as defenses would have to account for a receiving threat out of the backfield. This would effectively soften the under coverage of opponents deep zones, providing room for our wideouts to gain separation."

OK...AND? Rhodes is very, very adept at the screen game, catching the ball out of the backfield, as evidenced by his play in the INDY offe. over the years.


LOOK -- I don't mind if you are making a case for one particular player, whether D-Mac, The Longs, etc. in the draft.

But base your arguments on more tangible stuff...

Plus, its not like we dont have holes elsewhere...

And there is not ONE solution in the draft that is the ONLY cure.

I tend to side with the OP on this one RiNY... First, if my assumption is correct that the point of his post is in the title, i think he was successful in making it. That is that McFadden would be a great fit in Oakland. I agree that McFadden's skill set fits perfectly behind ZBS for the reasons mentioned by the OP.. Perhaps i am missing where you are coming from but i think the main response to the questions you have posed is McFadden's ability to break the big run.

You ask how McFadden can make the players around him better. The idea behind this thinking is the effect of the big play. If teams are keying on McFadden, it opens up more single coverages on the outside and also deters blitzing, thus ideally making the WRs and OLine more effective.

As far as Rhodes being effective out of the backfield, that still doesnt compare with McFadden. Rhodes out in the open field is not the same as McFadden..

I doubt very much that teams spend too much time worrying about or gameplanning for Fargas or Rhodes.

Of course all this is hypothetical, assuming McFadden is going to be the great RB in the NFL that he was in college. Some people think he will be, others do not. Obviously we agree that we have too many holes to be able to fill them all, so no matter what important areas are going to be neglected.

[ironstarks36]

Originally Posted by RaiderInNY

Ok? HOW? Hearsay and just assumptions. That still doesnt address the lack of talent at WR, the lack of explosiveness and moreover, the lack of ability on that unit to match the attributes that our QB possesses. SO NO -- adding an elite RB to an already 5th ranked rushing offense, does NOT guarantee that the level of "ALL" offensive components get better. Especially when you are searching for a LT, and still more consistent cohesive play along the OL.

Far from hearsay and assumptions bro. Signing Walker addresses the lack of talent at wide receiver. While there are talented WR's in this years draft that would bolster our receiving core, none project as high as #4. Most of the top tiered receivers will be gone when we pick #3 in the second round. At #4 McFadden is the only homerun threat we can add on the offensive side of the ball. It's a fact that when teams have an offensive threat of that magnitude that defenses adjust their formations and personnel to account for that person. That's exactly how it can improve all areas of the offense. WR won't receive as much of the focus as normal. As far as addressing the homerun threat at receiver, this years class is very deep as far as speed is concerned. We could potentially address that in latter rounds, but it's not probable considering when we pick. There is talent at the top of the second round at DE and DT however.

Originally Posted by RaiderInNY

OK...AND? Rhodes is very, very adept at the screen game, catching the ball out of the backfield, as evidenced by his play in the INDY offe. over the years.

And Rhodes also fell out of favor early with the coaching staff and only came on in to fill in for an injured Fargas. Rhodes is a great change of pace back, but far from being an explosive threat. He's also 29, and only around on a one year contract now. He's a great back to have on the roster, but it's not a tangible argument to say that we shouldn't draft McFadden because of what Rhodes did at Indy.

Originally Posted by RaiderInNY

LOOK -- I don't mind if you are making a case for one particular player, whether D-Mac, The Longs, etc. in the draft.

But base your arguments on more tangible stuff...

Plus, its not like we dont have holes elsewhere...

And there is not ONE solution in the draft that is the ONLY cure.

We surely have holes all over the place, I don't deny that. I'm not being biased because my first choice is Chris Long. I would love to see Chris Long in silver and black. He is one of the most complete football players in this draft, and if he IS there at number 4, he is DEFINITELY the pick. However, McFadden is an outstanding talent, and contrary to the esoteric nature of Mayock's grading system, a good football player. I agree that there is not one solution that is the only cure, I'm simply providing my opinion as to why McFadden would be a great fit in Oakland. I don't know how much more tangible I can be the describing how adding a dynamic player can change the scope of what you can do offensively.

[Attyla]

logically, an athlete like him would do very well in a number of run oriented systems

I do not think he is a bad player, he may just be the wrong direction for the team at this time

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by RaiderInNY

you fail to really drive home points that are without bias, and that leave a lot of holes, such as assuming certain things will happen...

"That being said, adding an elite talent to this system could drastically change the performance level of all offensive components."

Ok? HOW? Hearsay and just assumptions. That still doesnt address the lack of talent at WR, the lack of explosiveness and moreover, the lack of ability on that unit to match the attributes that our QB possesses.

As I read it, that isn't an assumption, it is a thesis statement. Read it like an essay; that is his opening statement, not an argument.
It is up to you to decide whether the paragraphs that follow it offer enough support to make it credible.
In fact, he addresses exactly your criticisms in the 3rd paragraph:

"With McFadden in silver and black, you not only get an upgrade to the running game, but also the passing game. McFadden is a decent pass blocker and would provide good protection for Jamarcus when he throws deep. Also, McFadden has good hands, a skill required by running backs in a west coast passing attack. McFadden would make the Raiders much tougher to defend as defenses would have to account for a receiving threat out of the backfield. This would effectively soften the under coverage of opponents deep zones, providing room for our wideouts to gain separation."

So do you think that provides a sufficient argument to support his "assumption"? I'm not saying who is right or wrong (I still want C. Long, but I know he won't be there), but I do think that the OP made a good argument. I think you may have just misunderstood how he was making his point.

[N.O.RaiDaNation]

Originally Posted by RaiderDave34

WE DONT NEED HIM

1. The vikings didn't need A- Pete last year and ask them what they think.

2. I'd like to see some explosiveness on this offense.

That being said, I'd be happy with anyone being discussed in the mock drafts etc because we need help period.

[RaiderSithLord]

Originally Posted by Midwest Raider

My thoughts are that we need to solidify the skilled positions on offense and allow them to get in and gel as a YOUNG unit. Russell, possibly McFadden and a top tier WR could all have 5-6 years together as a unit to get things rolling b/f having to worry about contract issues.

Imagine an in tune Russell, a ZBS back like DMAC and a sppedy wide out like Manningham and Walker with Curry in the slot and a huge Miller over the middle. I dunno about you guys, but I'M excited!

I would rather imagine LaDainian Tomlinson not running for two bills against us.

[RaiderSithLord]

Originally Posted by milo_s_thomas

Why do many feel that it is logical to draft a running back when we have three good backs (not great) on the roster. Last year the raiders d-line could not get to the QB. If Vernon Gholston is available that is who we need to draft. He made Jake Long (The best tackle in the draft) give up his only sacks last season. We were ranked sixth in the NFL last season in rushing and that is not to bad considering the condition of our o-line the year before. I think DMC would we a wasted draft pick for us, especially when there is great talent at other positions, such as d-end, that we have a bigger need to fill. Also, with Bush on the roster we need to to give him the opportunity to show his talent as well. Super Bowl teams, especially of late are not about the freak athletes but solid teams.

That makes sense...