Grady coming home?

[Langlier]

Grady Jackson-DL-Jaguars Mar. 30 - 2:35 pm et

The Raiders had "serious thoughts" about signing free agent DT Grady Jackson over the weekend, according to ESPN's John Clayton.

Apparently they soured on the idea after signing Kalimba Edwards to play defensive end. Tommy Kelly would've moved back outside if the Raiders had acquired Jackson. Even though he'd be a reserve now, Jackson would still be a nice addition for a team that needs run stoppers desperately.
Source: ESPN Insider

[massraider]

:woot::beerbang::chucle::bong:

[NIPS]

Saw this acouple days back

I'm guessing he'll sign right after the draft... Al's way of poker I guess

Would be a good solid pickup

He is 35 tho'.. might be able to squeeze one more year outta him or 2

[Byron2112]

What's to think about?

[doingthisinsteadofwork]

Bring Gravy back.We need run stuffers.

[SoCalRaider]

Apparently they soured on the idea after signing Kalimba Edwards to play defensive end. Tommy Kelly would've moved back outside if the Raiders had acquired Jackson.

I'd sure like to see what the Raiders could get out of a guy like Grady Jackson. I'm assuming and hoping this last part is speculation on ESPN's part. I don't see Grady Jackson manning the 3 spot.... and I really hope Al is messing around with the idea of throwing Kelly back out at end if he drafts a guy like Dorsey who's a better fit at nose in a 4 man front.

[Crow]

Grady Jackson-DL-Jaguars Mar. 30 - 2:35 pm et

The Raiders had "serious thoughts" about signing free agent DT Grady Jackson over the weekend, according to ESPN's John Clayton.

Apparently they soured on the idea after signing Kalimba Edwards to play defensive end. Tommy Kelly would've moved back outside if the Raiders had acquired Jackson. Even though he'd be a reserve now, Jackson would still be a nice addition for a team that needs run stoppers desperately.
Source: ESPN Insider

Signing a depth DE prevented us from signing a depth DT? Surely that's more speculation than anything.

Wait...

Source: ESPN Insider

Yep. Definitely speculation. :D

[hawaiianboy]

We should have never let him go... One of my favorite modern day Raiders...

Our little Grady has grown up from this:

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/727644.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193875DCB1DD8387ABB139D6BD3AF580373 284831B75F48EF45

Into this:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2004/12/08/sports/08heavy.184.jpghttp://media.scout.com/Media/Image/49/490603.jpg

[Postmaster]

That can't be healthy.

lol

[s.dot88]

and I really hope Al is messing around with the idea of throwing Kelly back out at end if he drafts a guy like Dorsey who's a better fit at nose in a 4 man front.

i agree that Dorsey might be a better fit at NT than Kelly because of his great leverage, but i dont think Dorsey nor Kelly is even on the radar to man the NT spot

if we can get Grady Jackson, we would have some solid veteran depth inside

then all we gotta do is draft a DE and this DL might be competant

[Byron2112]

I think the black just makes him look slimmer...


or, he's currently pregnent with quintuplets...

[SoCalRaider]

i agree that Dorsey might be a better fit at NT than Kelly because of his great leverage, but i dont think Dorsey nor Kelly is even on the radar to man the NT spot


I'm with you on Kelly really only being a viable 3 and not a NT... but I'm not really convinced Dorsey should be written off as a NT. He's an equally good prospect as a NT as he is a 3 in my opinion.

[Crow]

We played Darrell Russell at DE as a rookie just to get him on the field (Chet & Maryland were the DTs that year). Drafting a stud DL that we may not be completely certain where he fits ain't exactly unprecedented for us. Difference here is that I don't envision Dorsey going all Chet Jr on us, smoking more weed than QBs.

[s.dot88]

I'm with you on Kelly really only being a viable 3 and not a NT... but I'm not really convinced Dorsey should be written off as a NT. He's an equally good prospect as a NT as he is a 3 in my opinion.

i disagree

as an UT, he is probably the best UT prospect i have seen in my short time of following the draft as closely as i do

as a NT, he is nowhere near a John Henderson coming out fo Tennessee or Ngata coming out of Oregon

i dont mind tweaking and tweening with a 4th rounder, but 4th overall is a completely different story

[007]

If you're drafting a top tier guy like Dorsey, you don't do it to shuffle him into something he's not familiar with.

I'm sure McFadden can play wide receiver, doesnt mean we should do so...

The Russell example is poor, as he had played along the line in college, we did it out of neccesity and he ended up moving to DT and getting 20 sacks in his first two seasons there. We had McGlockton, Gravy Jackson and Maryland at DT, and Lance Johnston and Anthony Friggin Smith at DE...Pretty easy decision in order to get the guy on th field.

Russell was quick to become a two time All-Pro once he moved back to his more comfortable position.

[Langlier]

If you're drafting a top tier guy like Dorsey, you don't do it to shuffle him into something he's not familiar with.

I'm sure McFadden can play wide receiver, doesnt mean we should do so...

The Russell example is poor, as he had played along the line in college, we did it out of neccesity and he ended up moving to DT and getting 20 sacks in his first two seasons there. We had McGlockton, Gravy Jackson and Maryland at DT, and Lance Johnston and Anthony Friggin Smith at DE...Pretty easy decision in order to get the guy on th field.

Russell was quick to become a two time All-Pro once he moved back to his more comfortable position.

honestly... if we draft dorsey i think we move to a more cover-2-ish front... a TK-Dorsey front is perfect for the scheme Indy currently employs. And either can play NT in a pinch.

[Crow]

We're paying Kelly $25 mill these next 3 years, allegedly to be our starting UT. A $25 million experiment. How is paying him that much to play a position he's never shown himself suited for any different than taking a stud like Dorsey and working him into the scheme?

Kelly played end and nose in a 30 front at MSU. He was a nickle NT in a 34 as a rookie. I guess I'm missing the boat with regards to how we're not now asking him to play out of position.

Dorsey is almost certainly going #2 or 3, so it really doesn't matter. But there's yet to be an argument against Dorsey coming here that holds any water.

Al wants to be a man on man defense. Doesn't it make sense to try to get the best men possible to give that "scheme" a chance at success?

The Russell example is entirely valid. (The McFadden to WR comment, on the other hand...) We drafted the best DT prospect available in Russell, but already had someone playing the position he should have played as a rookie. He was 330 pounds or more, and arguably was our best option inside even with Chet and Maryland there. But, we played him at DE to put our best 4 on the field.

As you said, his next two years when he was able to play inside where he belonged, he went nuts.

Put Dorsey next to Kelly and it won't take long to realize that Kelly has no more business at UT than Russell had a DE. Move Kelly back outside and play Dorsey at the 3, or let them shift from play to play and keep offenses guessing. Dorsey has shown a great ability for splitting doubleteams, so I don't really see an issue there.

So many people want to say that we'd be playing Dorsey out of position. That's really funny since we're asking a 34 end to play UT and asking a UT to play the nose already. Seems like adding a guy capable of playing well at either would perk people up. But instead they choose to over-think and think themselves right into an unfounded belief.

If Dorsey is there at 4, we'd be absolute fools to pass him up.


I guess I can borrow from the McFadden argument here. We don't actually need a RB. We have two good ones and a guy who could be great. But McFadden is just so damn talented...

Okay. Well, we already have a couple guys capable of playing the UT spot. But Dorsey is just so damn talented and high motor, how do you justify passing up a guy like that?



Another way one could look at it is this: Who would clearly be the better UT? Dorsey or Kelly? Obviously Dorsey.

Who would you rather have at starting at RE? Richardson, Edwards, or Kelly? None of the 3 should excite anyone, but Kelly is easily the best run defender of the 3 and offers just as much pass rush as Richardson...albeit not much.

Kick him inside on passing downs with Edwards coming off the bench, and we might be onto something.

Kelly's best ball has been played on passing downs playing right over the center. Seems like we'd take that into account at some point.

[Rupert]

One thing Crow. True head-up DL play through the OL. Shade DL beat OL to the gap. Head-up DL have to muscle their way through. Shades need muscle to not get engulfed.

Playing a head up DL in a shade doesn't hurt your defense. They were going to play through their OL anyway.

Having Kelly and Dorsey on the field wouldn't hurt us from a DL standpoint. It hurts us in letting the offense dictate who faces the center. But if Dorsey as good as you think (I like him too so don't get defensive) he's going to draw the double and let Kelly right on through.

There's no law that says we must play a 1 with a 3. It would be wrong to assume we couldn't put both Dorsey and Kelly out there at the same time.

Like you I see Kelly as a head-up DL, but I think his lack of closing speed makes him much better suited to DT play than DE.

I see Dorsey as a shade DT because of his first step. He's better at splitting the double than anchoring against it. He's got great strength and great quicks. He's also got rare leverage. He'd be a great complement to Kelly on the inside.

[massraider]

Great post, Crow.

My preferred offseason in regards to the DT position would have been to re-sign Kelly, but to a much smaller deal. Draft Dorsey/Ellis, and sign another NT type.


The best thing we can hope for now, IMO, is a Philly wave-type situation with Kelly/Warren/Terd/someone else.

I am hoping we wind up with Grady or someone like Okam to spell Terd.

[Stanny]

We're paying Kelly $25 mill these next 3 years, allegedly to be our starting UT. A $25 million experiment. How is paying him that much to play a position he's never shown himself suited for any different than taking a stud like Dorsey and working him into the scheme?

Kelly played end and nose in a 30 front at MSU. He was a nickle NT in a 34 as a rookie. I guess I'm missing the boat with regards to how we're not now asking him to play out of position.

Dorsey is almost certainly going #2 or 3, so it really doesn't matter. But there's yet to be an argument against Dorsey coming here that holds any water.

Al wants to be a man on man defense. Doesn't it make sense to try to get the best men possible to give that "scheme" a chance at success?

The Russell example is entirely valid. (The McFadden to WR comment, on the other hand...) We drafted the best DT prospect available in Russell, but already had someone playing the position he should have played as a rookie. He was 330 pounds or more, and arguably was our best option inside even with Chet and Maryland there. But, we played him at DE to put our best 4 on the field.

As you said, his next two years when he was able to play inside where he belonged, he went nuts.

Put Dorsey next to Kelly and it won't take long to realize that Kelly has no more business at UT than Russell had a DE. Move Kelly back outside and play Dorsey at the 3, or let them shift from play to play and keep offenses guessing. Dorsey has shown a great ability for splitting doubleteams, so I don't really see an issue there.

So many people want to say that we'd be playing Dorsey out of position. That's really funny since we're asking a 34 end to play UT and asking a UT to play the nose already. Seems like adding a guy capable of playing well at either would perk people up. But instead they choose to over-think and think themselves right into an unfounded belief.

If Dorsey is there at 4, we'd be absolute fools to pass him up.


I guess I can borrow from the McFadden argument here. We don't actually need a RB. We have two good ones and a guy who could be great. But McFadden is just so damn talented...

Okay. Well, we already have a couple guys capable of playing the UT spot. But Dorsey is just so damn talented and high motor, how do you justify passing up a guy like that?



Another way one could look at it is this: Who would clearly be the better UT? Dorsey or Kelly? Obviously Dorsey.

Who would you rather have at starting at RE? Richardson, Edwards, or Kelly? None of the 3 should excite anyone, but Kelly is easily the best run defender of the 3 and offers just as much pass rush as Richardson...albeit not much.

Kick him inside on passing downs with Edwards coming off the bench, and we might be onto something.

Kelly's best ball has been played on passing downs playing right over the center. Seems like we'd take that into account at some point.

Nice post.....

[Crow]

I kick ass when I want to. ;)

[Crow]

One thing Crow. True head-up DL play through the OL. Shade DL beat OL to the gap. Head-up DL have to muscle their way through. Shades need muscle to not get engulfed.

Playing a head up DL in a shade doesn't hurt your defense. They were going to play through their OL anyway.

Having Kelly and Dorsey on the field wouldn't hurt us from a DL standpoint. It hurts us in letting the offense dictate who faces the center. But if Dorsey as good as you think (I like him too so don't get defensive) he's going to draw the double and let Kelly right on through.

There's no law that says we must play a 1 with a 3. It would be wrong to assume we couldn't put both Dorsey and Kelly out there at the same time.

Like you I see Kelly as a head-up DL, but I think his lack of closing speed makes him much better suited to DT play than DE.

I see Dorsey as a shade DT because of his first step. He's better at splitting the double than anchoring against it. He's got great strength and great quicks. He's also got rare leverage. He'd be a great complement to Kelly on the inside.
As for Kelly's speed/quickness, I see this as another reason he's unlikely to succeed as a 3. He's quicker than Terd, but that's not saying much.

But I agree. I'm not a fan of having him at RE as "the answer" there. But, given our current options, he looks like the best one. He's done a good job of keeping Howard clean in run defense, and I think in this division, that's a good quality. Inside, he doesn't do as well.

And contrary to popular belief, yes. We've seen enough of him over the years to make that assessment and feel pretty good about it.

[Rupert]

I disagree. I don't think we've seen him play very often head up on the guard.

I think we could draft Dorsey, shade him on the guard either outside or inside, and put Kelly head up on the guard.

The problem is that would put pressure on Morrison since there would be times he'd have to take on the center based upon the games run between the tackles and him.

With Kelly as a 3, he will play through the guard and will collapse the A-gap, so it's no problem to shade him outside. I don't like putting him in the A-gap (or shaded ont he center) since he hasn't shown the quickness to shoot it. And though he anchors well enough against the double, he's not got the stamina to do that for a whole game and he hasn't shown the ability to split it.

I think a Kelly/Warren combo could be decent in this scenario. Problem is Warren isn't as quick as Dorsey/Ellis (he's close) and doesn't have the motor/stamina to consistently shoot the gap and occassionally anchor for a whole game. I don't think the Kelly/Sapp combo was likely to be as effective since Sapp didn't have the 1st-step quickness to shoot the gap effectively anymore. He was best at keeping the OL off him and working to make a play (like his big-sack season).

Regardless, I think we need to see more of Kelly head-up than shaded. I like him as a 3 collapsing the A-gap and manning his B-gap, but that requires someone to shoot the opposite A-gap or we force Morrison to take the center. When Sapp was opposite Kelly, that's not how we were using them.

If we draft Dorsey, I see him rotating with Warren, and likely taking the bulk of the snaps eventually. I'd have Terd backing up Kelly and doing the head-up work on the guard, just like Kelly.

The key to having a shade opposite the head up is running an inside slant for the head-up DT and an outside slant for the shade. The C is used to looking to the shade and gets caught napping. Sure he'll come off to the Mike, but he'll be a step slow and the DT will be heading by him. If the Mike runs a twist with the DT into the B-gap you've got the whole interior OL befuddled. If you send the DT on an outside slant you shoot his A-gap with the Mike and the center will be lunging to put some kind of hit on him.

I definitely think the personnel we've got can do those things. I think adding Dorsey makes it a whole lot harder to defend for years to come.

I don't think adding Dorsey is out of the question since we added Hall with Nnamdi getting franchise jack.

[NIPS]

Might as well stop all this Dorsey shit....

The Rams are gonna take him at #2

[Jack's sore libido]

i disagree

as an UT, he is probably the best UT prospect i have seen in my short time of following the draft as closely as i do

as a NT, he is nowhere near a John Henderson coming out fo Tennessee or Ngata coming out of Oregon

i dont mind tweaking and tweening with a 4th rounder, but 4th overall is a completely different story

I didn't watch too much of LSU last year, at least focusing in on Dorsey, until the title game.

In the title game, I came away very impressed by the guy playing next to Dorsey, moreso than Dorsey.

[Byron2112]

I've got no problem with Dorsey playing next to Kelly, I'm sure they'd do very well together no matter that they're both undersized... Dorsey is a fine DT and I'd be glad to have him.

I just believe that McDookie is a better RB than Dorsey is a DT, and this offense needs the pop that he brings. I'm also in agreemnent with Hboy that it's the smart move to give JaRuss as much help as possible.

Attempting to get inside Al's head, Dorsey is not that monster athlete, really at any line position O or D, that Al takes high... and not ony would Dorsey, and Kelly be highly paid "undertackle" types, but Warren is an undertackle tackle too and he's making around 5 mill this comming season awswell. Soo... I just don't see Dorsey happening, although it wouldn't break my heart if it did...

[Stanny]

Might as well stop all this Dorsey shit....

The Rams are gonna take him at #2



Every-time I see your avatar I want two scoops on a sugar cone....:D
Who is that? She's tits....:pound:

[Stanny]

I have a feeling both the Jets and Pats will be knocking on the Raiders door come draft day....I think both the Pats and Jets will be fighting to get after Gholston....The Jets give up more than the Pats, slide into 4th and grab Gholston...The Raiders slide to 6th and still grab McDaddymaker. Or if the Pats out-bid the Jets, the Raiders nab Sedrick the Entertainer.

[Madturk]

Al's going to command a kings ransom from New England after basically giving Moss away last season. I seriously doubt we'll deal with them. The Yets are a possibility but they're also rumored to be hot after DMac.