doug7dust
11-05-2010, 10:21 AM
Inside a Raiders revivalDespite draft questions, Oakland is flush with talent, and the future is nowEmailPrintComments By Mel Kiper
ESPN Insider
Archive
Getty Images
Hue Jackson has brought out the best in Darren McFadden, who many considered a bust.
Every Friday, Mel takes a look at the NFL through the prism of the draft.
Every year after I put out my draft grades, there's a mountain of email and comments saying the same thing: "Mel, you (insert adjective), you can't grade a draft for at least a few years!" But that's not true. You can't grade the success of the actual picks for a few years, but you can absolutely grade a draft. Let me explain:
A draft isn't just about who you picked, it's about when you picked him. If Jerry Jones bought Google stock at $5.00, and Mike Holmgren bought it at $50.00, they'd both be rich, but it's clear who played the market more adeptly. So when the Jags picked Tyson Alualu at No. 10, I didn't slam the player -- I praised Alualu often when he was at Cal, and I like his start in Jacksonville -- but I did question the ability of the Jags to maximize their draft. Taking a guy at No. 10 who you could have landed at picks 28 thru 38 could potentially have cost you a couple more picks. You can't just have a sense of who you want -- you should also have a sense of who other teams covet. It's called a draft, not "Pick your favorite guy."
That's an important example when discussing the Raiders. We've heard so many criticisms of Al Davis -- he's too old, he's out of touch, he's infatuated with physical talent, he believes in a deep-ball system that doesn't work, his drafting is wacky -- but people within that organization have told me that within the last few years, the old man has been as sharp as ever, particularly when it comes to his input on players. Really. And as you look at recent drafts and decisions, you'll see that Davis and the Raiders are experiencing a revival because of a keen eye for talent (if not a sense of draft know-how), and some solid personnel decisions and hires. Let's look at some keys.
The draft: Perhaps peaking with the pick of Darrius Heyward-Bey at No. 7 and Mike Mitchell in Round 2 in 2009, there's been a lot of criticism with how the Raiders have drafted. Again, it's not the picks, it's that some of them could have been picked later. But in terms of picking starters, Al Davis and Co. have done well in the last few years, particularly in identifying talent in later rounds. The team will get slammed for taking JaMarcus Russell in 2007, but few saw what a trainwreck he would become, and look deeper at that draft. Zach Miller (Round 2) is currently their leading pass-catcher. Johnny Lee Higgins and Michael Bush have become contributors as deep picks. In 2008, the team got Darren McFadden, who's living up to expectations now, but they were also brilliant late in getting Tyvon Branch, Trevor Scott and Chaz Schilens. Aside from Heyward-Bey (starter) and Mitchell (starter), last year also produced the solid Matt Shaughnessy and Louis Murphy. Four developing starters from one draft just a year removed is very good work.
And 2010's draft has proven solid so far. There had been a joke going around the ESPN draft set after the Raiders picked Rolando McClain, Lamarr Houston and Jared Veldheer with their first three picks, that perhaps Al Davis had skipped the early rounds. That's because each guy was extremely productive in college, as opposed to being defined by their physical ability. In Houston, for example, the Raiders got a guy who was more productive than Gerald McCoy against the same schedule, over 30 picks later. Then the Raiders got a great value pick in Bruce Campbell in Round 4, and the snickers continued. But Al perhaps didn't get enough credit. All three of those early picks are solid starters early in their careers. Even a late get like Jacoby Ford, who is clearly more known for his speed than production, could develop. Bottom line, people can rightfully question the draft reaches, but in simply picking players, Oakland is on a decent run.
Hiring Hue Jackson: I considered this an inspired hire at the time, and I continue to. Jackson came from Baltimore, where he was instrumental in the development of Joe Flacco, and his magic touch has expanded with the Oakland offense. The offense is scoring 26.5 points per game after scoring 12.3 last year (the Denver game is an outlier, but in reality, it could have been worse). Jackson has tapped into McFadden's strengths. People who gave up on McFadden as an inside runner forget that he hadn't been utilized in another role -- the passing game. Now, he's the team's third-leading pass-catcher, and has 885 yards from scrimmage (and that's after missing two games). Overall, the Raiders are second in the NFL in total offense. It's a stunning turnaround. Jackson has to get credit for his role in the revival.
They found a pass rush: A lot of people griped about the Richard Seymour trade with New England, because it again highlighted a lack of respect for the value of early draft picks. But nobody is upset with the revival of the Raiders' rush. The team currently has 24 sacks, good for third in the NFL, and well past the pace of last year, when they had 37 for the season. More importantly, Shaughnessy leads the team with just five, so they've found depth and spread the wealth. The addition of Kamerion Wimbley didn't get the press of the Seymour move, but it's paid off.
Sleepers: Good teams find value where others missed it. Marcel Reese -- a former WR turned fullback -- has been a good find; Veldheer's versatility on the O-line has been helpful; Shaughnessy's development as a pass-rusher has been huge.
Style: It goes back Jackson, but people need to suspend the illusion that the Raiders are somehow married to Davis' trademark vertical game. A tight end leads the team in catches, McFadden and Reese have combined for 31 catches, which is 10 more than Murphy's total and 12 more than Heyward-Bey's. Jackson is calling a game that fits the strengths of the personnel, not playing run-run-deep ball, as some tend to think all of Davis' teams do. That cliche should go away.
So what's next?
As I look at their current personnel from a draft perspective, I see next April's needs focusing on:
OLB: The team could look for a starter to supplant Quentin Groves, and there figures to be some good ones to choose from.
CB: The secondary is actually pretty solid, which makes it a great time to try to capitalize on the improved pass rush and add a ball-hawking talent who could help add INTs.
WR: Murphy and Heyward-Bey are adequate, but they'll likely look for another sleeper at this position.
OL: Because they may be improved, but they aren't deep.
QB project: While Jackson is around, there's no better time to take on a potential athlete with a big arm, such as Delaware's Pat Devlin or Nevada's Colin Kaepernick to see if you can develop him.
In any event, while it's just a half season, a Raiders team that should be 5-3 (a missed FG against Arizona is the reason they're 4-4) finally appears to be on the upswing. And they've proven that just because you didn't get the best price for your stock doesn't mean you don't have a solid portfolio.
ESPN Insider
Archive
Getty Images
Hue Jackson has brought out the best in Darren McFadden, who many considered a bust.
Every Friday, Mel takes a look at the NFL through the prism of the draft.
Every year after I put out my draft grades, there's a mountain of email and comments saying the same thing: "Mel, you (insert adjective), you can't grade a draft for at least a few years!" But that's not true. You can't grade the success of the actual picks for a few years, but you can absolutely grade a draft. Let me explain:
A draft isn't just about who you picked, it's about when you picked him. If Jerry Jones bought Google stock at $5.00, and Mike Holmgren bought it at $50.00, they'd both be rich, but it's clear who played the market more adeptly. So when the Jags picked Tyson Alualu at No. 10, I didn't slam the player -- I praised Alualu often when he was at Cal, and I like his start in Jacksonville -- but I did question the ability of the Jags to maximize their draft. Taking a guy at No. 10 who you could have landed at picks 28 thru 38 could potentially have cost you a couple more picks. You can't just have a sense of who you want -- you should also have a sense of who other teams covet. It's called a draft, not "Pick your favorite guy."
That's an important example when discussing the Raiders. We've heard so many criticisms of Al Davis -- he's too old, he's out of touch, he's infatuated with physical talent, he believes in a deep-ball system that doesn't work, his drafting is wacky -- but people within that organization have told me that within the last few years, the old man has been as sharp as ever, particularly when it comes to his input on players. Really. And as you look at recent drafts and decisions, you'll see that Davis and the Raiders are experiencing a revival because of a keen eye for talent (if not a sense of draft know-how), and some solid personnel decisions and hires. Let's look at some keys.
The draft: Perhaps peaking with the pick of Darrius Heyward-Bey at No. 7 and Mike Mitchell in Round 2 in 2009, there's been a lot of criticism with how the Raiders have drafted. Again, it's not the picks, it's that some of them could have been picked later. But in terms of picking starters, Al Davis and Co. have done well in the last few years, particularly in identifying talent in later rounds. The team will get slammed for taking JaMarcus Russell in 2007, but few saw what a trainwreck he would become, and look deeper at that draft. Zach Miller (Round 2) is currently their leading pass-catcher. Johnny Lee Higgins and Michael Bush have become contributors as deep picks. In 2008, the team got Darren McFadden, who's living up to expectations now, but they were also brilliant late in getting Tyvon Branch, Trevor Scott and Chaz Schilens. Aside from Heyward-Bey (starter) and Mitchell (starter), last year also produced the solid Matt Shaughnessy and Louis Murphy. Four developing starters from one draft just a year removed is very good work.
And 2010's draft has proven solid so far. There had been a joke going around the ESPN draft set after the Raiders picked Rolando McClain, Lamarr Houston and Jared Veldheer with their first three picks, that perhaps Al Davis had skipped the early rounds. That's because each guy was extremely productive in college, as opposed to being defined by their physical ability. In Houston, for example, the Raiders got a guy who was more productive than Gerald McCoy against the same schedule, over 30 picks later. Then the Raiders got a great value pick in Bruce Campbell in Round 4, and the snickers continued. But Al perhaps didn't get enough credit. All three of those early picks are solid starters early in their careers. Even a late get like Jacoby Ford, who is clearly more known for his speed than production, could develop. Bottom line, people can rightfully question the draft reaches, but in simply picking players, Oakland is on a decent run.
Hiring Hue Jackson: I considered this an inspired hire at the time, and I continue to. Jackson came from Baltimore, where he was instrumental in the development of Joe Flacco, and his magic touch has expanded with the Oakland offense. The offense is scoring 26.5 points per game after scoring 12.3 last year (the Denver game is an outlier, but in reality, it could have been worse). Jackson has tapped into McFadden's strengths. People who gave up on McFadden as an inside runner forget that he hadn't been utilized in another role -- the passing game. Now, he's the team's third-leading pass-catcher, and has 885 yards from scrimmage (and that's after missing two games). Overall, the Raiders are second in the NFL in total offense. It's a stunning turnaround. Jackson has to get credit for his role in the revival.
They found a pass rush: A lot of people griped about the Richard Seymour trade with New England, because it again highlighted a lack of respect for the value of early draft picks. But nobody is upset with the revival of the Raiders' rush. The team currently has 24 sacks, good for third in the NFL, and well past the pace of last year, when they had 37 for the season. More importantly, Shaughnessy leads the team with just five, so they've found depth and spread the wealth. The addition of Kamerion Wimbley didn't get the press of the Seymour move, but it's paid off.
Sleepers: Good teams find value where others missed it. Marcel Reese -- a former WR turned fullback -- has been a good find; Veldheer's versatility on the O-line has been helpful; Shaughnessy's development as a pass-rusher has been huge.
Style: It goes back Jackson, but people need to suspend the illusion that the Raiders are somehow married to Davis' trademark vertical game. A tight end leads the team in catches, McFadden and Reese have combined for 31 catches, which is 10 more than Murphy's total and 12 more than Heyward-Bey's. Jackson is calling a game that fits the strengths of the personnel, not playing run-run-deep ball, as some tend to think all of Davis' teams do. That cliche should go away.
So what's next?
As I look at their current personnel from a draft perspective, I see next April's needs focusing on:
OLB: The team could look for a starter to supplant Quentin Groves, and there figures to be some good ones to choose from.
CB: The secondary is actually pretty solid, which makes it a great time to try to capitalize on the improved pass rush and add a ball-hawking talent who could help add INTs.
WR: Murphy and Heyward-Bey are adequate, but they'll likely look for another sleeper at this position.
OL: Because they may be improved, but they aren't deep.
QB project: While Jackson is around, there's no better time to take on a potential athlete with a big arm, such as Delaware's Pat Devlin or Nevada's Colin Kaepernick to see if you can develop him.
In any event, while it's just a half season, a Raiders team that should be 5-3 (a missed FG against Arizona is the reason they're 4-4) finally appears to be on the upswing. And they've proven that just because you didn't get the best price for your stock doesn't mean you don't have a solid portfolio.