PDA

View Full Version : With the 4th pick of the 2008 NFL Draft, the Oakland Raiders select...


Paranoidmoonduck
03-02-2008, 04:40 PM
Glenn Dorsey
Pros: Might just be the best player in this draft. Has an explosive first step and great strength. Top notch character guy, would become defensive leader.
Cons: Plays the same position as Tommy Kelly, and would cost a comparable amount of money. Has some injury concerns that make him a bit of a risk.

Sedrick Ellis
Pros: Gets absolutely great leverage and has the strength to use it against NFL guards and centers. Is a nice fit as nose tackle to play opposite Kelly (and keep Sands off the field). Also a good character guy with whom the coaching staff has familiarity.
Cons: Probably isn't the sort of penetrator and disruptor at the pro level that he was in college. Perhaps a tiny bit of a reach.

Darren McFadden
Pros: Tremendous burst and top gear, comfortable at the position, and is a terribly intriguing option in Oakland's one-cut running system. Would bring homerun ability and likely the most talent at runningback since Bo Jackson.
Cons: Not overly powerful and tends to topple if hit high. More of a luxury pick than a need due to the roster and offensive system.

Chris Long
Pros: Great motor and pass rushing repertoire. Plays intense and can be used in a multitude of ways. Would provide immediate lift to both pass rush and run defense.
Cons: Doesn't have the highest ceiling and his frame may be maxed out. If his opponent has enough of a size advantage, he can struggle (which will happen more and more often in the NFL). It may be tough to establish his own identity on the team.

Vernon Gholston
Pros: Tremendous first step and strength. One of the best bullrushers in the draft. Plays hard and we might just be seeing the tip of the iceberg potential-wise. A better fit in a 4-3 than a 3-4.
Cons: Not a very intelligent pass rusher. Can disappear at times and does not get consistent leverage. Not as quick as his long speed would imply. Doesn't always take good angles in pursuit.

Jake Long
Pros: Massive frame with good quickness paired with top notch strength. Long arms and a good base. Keeps balance well. Fills a huge need for now and the future.
Cons: Might not be the greatest option at left tackle, especially in Oakland's blocking scheme. Not the highest ceiling in terms of pass protection. Can get beat by speed rushers.

Ryan Clady
Pros: Fantastic potential on the left side. Great athleticism for his size, moves laterally as well as any lineman I've seen. Would be a great fit for Cable's blocking scheme. Fills a need.
Cons: Played inconsistently in college and is a bit raw. Where he stands right now, picking him at #4 would be a reach.

slightlyaraiderfan
03-02-2008, 04:57 PM
I'm still not entirely sure who we should take....at this point, i'd be happy with anyone of those players except McFadden and Clady.

I voted for Chris Long.

Oaktown1981
03-02-2008, 05:20 PM
Now that the Falcons signed Turner.. I don't see Allen Davis passing on McFadden.

doingthisinsteadofwork
03-02-2008, 05:35 PM
depending on what happens I think trading down may be the best option.
At this point I see Gholston,McFadden,and Jake Long being the most likely canidates.

nobodyinparticular
03-02-2008, 10:22 PM
I actually like Clady at #4. Why? Because he is being projected at #5 right now so he wouldn't be much of a reach and even if he falls past the Chiefs, he wouldn't go much further. His ability in pass protection is amazing. I definitely think he'd be worth a shot.

That said, I think Chris Long would be my #1 on my Raider big board. That's partly due to his ability and partly due to the fact that it could rally Raider fans to support the team again. The way he works so hard coupled with his great measurables (check out the combine, he and Gholston were trading off 1-2 for the most part) he could be a force in the league. Burgess, Kelly and Long on the line with another guy rotating with Sands at NT would be a very, very solid Dline.

On the topic of the defensive line, I'm going to say something that likely won't be well accepted by Raider fans--with Kelly on the interior of the line, he will be a huge upgrade in run defense over Warren Sapp. I liked Sapp as much as the next guy and I was really stoked about him dropping 50-some lbs over the offseason, but he just couldn't contain anything last year. Honestly, he was lucky to get the 2 sacks and and 51 tackles he got last year. He got pushed around a lot and couldn't push back. And neither was he penetrating well except when the opposing line was wanting to let him through. Kelly has strength and quickness on his side and he'll be better in pass rush and run support than Sapp was last year--that is as long as he is kept in the UT position rather than made a NT like 2006.

Oaktown1981
03-03-2008, 09:27 AM
I just don't see the Raiders drafting defense with their 1st round pick..

As of right now the Raiders offense looks like this.

QB - Russell, Walter.
HB - Fargas, Bush.
FB - Griffith, O'Neal.
TE - Miller, Madsen.
WR - Curry, Higgins.
T - Henderson, McQuistan.
G - Gallery, Carlisle.
C - Grove, Morris.

On defense we all know the Raiders need someone to play NT and a better RE.. There not going to draft a SLB they just have too many other needs right now.

The best thing for the Raiders would be to trade down if McFadden was still in play with the 4th pick.

portermvp84
03-03-2008, 12:16 PM
I voted Glenn Dorsey great athlete and I still say he's one of a kind. He'd fit good in our system not great but good. I'm very impressed with him. IMO I think he is a little bit better than Ellis is but thats just my IMO.

I would take Long first off no questions asked but, we already know Miami or the Rams will draft him, he's too good to pass up.

I love DMAC if not Dorsey thats who we should draft. I think he might be better than Peterson, he's an expulsive back. And I'm fallking in love with this guy's running ability.

Jake Long is like last year's Joe Thomas but tackle is not our highest priority.

Oaktown1981
03-03-2008, 10:53 PM
I voted Glenn Dorsey great athlete and I still say he's one of a kind. He'd fit good in our system not great but good. I'm very impressed with him. IMO I think he is a little bit better than Ellis is but thats just my IMO.

I would take Long first off no questions asked but, we already know Miami or the Rams will draft him, he's too good to pass up.

I love DMAC if not Dorsey thats who we should draft. I think he might be better than Peterson, he's an expulsive back. And I'm fallking in love with this guy's running ability.

Jake Long is like last year's Joe Thomas but tackle is not our highest priority.


I don't see where Dorsey would fit on the Raiders DL... Kelly is moving back to UT and thats were Dorsey would play.. The chances of the Raiders drafting Dorsey went out the window with the resigning of Kelly.

Raiders only have two OT on the team McQuistan and Henderson.. Getting a LT is a must.

NIN1984
03-03-2008, 11:07 PM
I would love to trade the pick to Dallas.

Komp
03-04-2008, 12:13 AM
Yah the trade with Dallas would be the best thing that could happen to us. If we got those two picks there are a lot of holes we could fill....WR [Kelly, Jackson, etc], DL [Balmer, Lawrence Jackson, Harvey], or we could grab Dan Connor and finally fill that SLB spot.

If we don't trade I see us going with Ellis or McFadden now. I'd love to see us grab Baker in the 2nd.

nobodyinparticular
03-04-2008, 12:25 AM
No Balmer PLEASE! This guys screams bust.

Oaktown1981
03-04-2008, 10:32 AM
Dallas would have to give Al a lot to trade down... Maybe both their 1st and a 3rd or a 4th something like that..

But if the trade where to happen it would be the best thing for the team..

WR M.Kelly, L.Sweed, D.Thomas, E.Doucet, D.Jackson
OL C.Williams, S.Baker, B.Albert

If the Raiders could end up with any two of those players that would be a good start.

The Legend
03-04-2008, 10:35 AM
Raiders getting Chirs Long would be so cool playing on his fathers team

NIN1984
03-04-2008, 10:48 AM
I'm not sure what the 4th pick is worth but if Dallas offered both 1st round picks and their 3rd, that would be perfect for the Raiders.

22 - Probably should draft a WR, Jackson, Kelly, Sweed whoever looks the best?

28 - We could go O-line or D-line, maybe Baker or Campbell.

Hopefully McFadden falls to us and JJ wants him.

portermvp84
03-04-2008, 11:55 AM
If we did get two first rounders that help out a little bit.

Komp
03-04-2008, 09:53 PM
It would almost be better to get Dallas' two firsts and maybe their 2nd next year. Would be hard to find roster space for all those draft picks this year....specially with a couple of the signings we've made.

TORAIDER
03-05-2008, 10:30 AM
I would mind getting the 2 Dallas first round picks and Bobby Carpenter (I believe they were shopping him at one point) to upgrade our SAM spot.

It would give us some options for the OT, DT and WR in Rounds 1 & 2. We could end up with something like Sam Baker, Red Bryant, Trevor Laws or Pat Sims and one of the WRs. It would add some much needed depth across the lines...

Stash
03-05-2008, 02:17 PM
Since we gave Kelly that huge contract to play UT I can't see us taking Dorsey/Ellis anymore. I would be hesitant to take Jake Long because most of what I've heard is that he doesn't have what it takes to be a LT and thats really the only OL position we need. I wouldn't want DMC either because we just re-signed Fargas and we have a surplus of other backs behind him. That pretty much leaves the DE's. I'm hoping we take either C. Long or Gholston to give us a pass rush threat to play opposite Burgess and then take Baker in the 2nd to fill the LT void (I'm hoping he turns out like Ugoh did last year). That would be my ideal first 2 rounds at this point.

nobodyinparticular
03-05-2008, 02:29 PM
Since we gave Kelly that huge contract to play UT I can't see us taking Dorsey/Ellis anymore. I would be hesitant to take Jake Long because most of what I've heard is that he doesn't have what it takes to be a LT and thats really the only OL position we need. I wouldn't want DMC either because we just re-signed Fargas and we have a surplus of other backs behind him. That pretty much leaves the DE's. I'm hoping we take either C. Long or Gholston to give us a pass rush threat to play opposite Burgess and then take Baker in the 2nd to fill the LT void (I'm hoping he turns out like Ugoh did last year). That would be my ideal first 2 rounds at this point.

Apart from trading down, that scenario is ideal.

portermvp84
03-06-2008, 12:00 PM
We still need depth at DT. I know we have Kelly and Warren, I'm pry forgeting somebody else, we should take Simms in the second. And take a DE in the first since Clemmons signed with another team.

nobodyinparticular
03-06-2008, 02:40 PM
We still need depth at DT. I know we have Kelly and Warren, I'm pry forgeting somebody else, we should take Simms in the second. And take a DE in the first since Clemmons signed with another team.

I'll be honest, I'm more concerned with protecting my QBs blindside than making a defense go from good to amazing with another DE/DT. I'll take one of them, for sure, but I can't see the Raiders not getting a LT in the 1st two rounds of the draft. They would be dooming their season as well as their future if they did that.

portermvp84
03-07-2008, 11:51 AM
I'll be honest, I'm more concerned with protecting my QBs blindside than making a defense go from good to amazing with another DE/DT. I'll take one of them, for sure, but I can't see the Raiders not getting a LT in the 1st two rounds of the draft. They would be dooming their season as well as their future if they did that.

We can pick up guys in FA, I'm tired investing in guys like Henderson, and Gallery. We should get someone who is gonna impact our team right away, and whose to say the LT we sign could turn out to be another Gallery?

princefielder28
03-07-2008, 11:56 AM
We can pick up guys in FA, I'm tired investing in guys like Henderson, and Gallery. We should get someone who is gonna impact our team right away, and whose to say the LT we sign could turn out to be another Gallery?

If you honestly think that the Raiders should invest a Top 4 pick after the contracts of Kelly and Sands then I have to question how you would develop a team. Yes depth at DT is still needed but there's seven rounds to address that and this DT is fairly deep. If you are afraid to take another Gallery then you are just hurting your team because what if Long, the "next Gallery", truns out to be the next Joe Thomas. You are left with a gapping hole at LT.

portermvp84
03-07-2008, 12:29 PM
If you honestly think that the Raiders should invest a Top 4 pick after the contracts of Kelly and Sands then I have to question how you would develop a team. Yes depth at DT is still needed but there's seven rounds to address that and this DT is fairly deep. If you are afraid to take another Gallery then you are just hurting your team because what if Long, the "next Gallery", truns out to be the next Joe Thomas. You are left with a gapping hole at LT.

I understand your point at DT, I know we just signed Kelly to a monster deal. But I would like to invest in maybe a DE like Long or somebody around those lines we lost Clemmons and Brayton and I don't know if Richardson can really step it up and produce. I understand that we can get a DT in the second or third. But I don't really wanna take another chance on having another bust like Gallery. Gallery coming out of Iowa being hyped up and suppose to be the next great thing and he turns out to be a bust who never panned out. I know theres that chance of Long or Clady being great like Thomas. But I wanna take my chances in FA. I would really like to beaf up our defense to what it was a couple of years ago.

Oaktown1981
03-07-2008, 12:54 PM
Chris Long would be ideal but chances are he won't be there..

2nd best thing is to trade down if McFadden is on the board.. Raiders have a lot of needs trade down get extra picks and save money.

TORAIDER
03-10-2008, 10:22 AM
We still have not addressed our need for a run stuffing DT, which we need in our division. After watching the SB, I hope we draft Gholston or C. Long with the 4th and a Red Bryant or Pat Sims in the second.

WR is pretty deep this year, so I hope we address that in the 4th RD.

We have Henderson, Harris, McQ & Green for the OT spots already...

portermvp84
03-11-2008, 12:05 PM
This year's draft is stacked at WR, if we don't sign another WR in the FA market, we should def draft one in the 4th or 5th round.

As for ther O-line situation we'd invested enough money in guys like Green, Harris, Henderson and Gallery. I don't want to draft Jake Long that high. The more I see Gholston, the more I remember we need help at DE postion.

RaiderNation
03-13-2008, 09:43 PM
We are in a simular situation as the Vikings last year. We have a good running in Fargas(Taylor for Vikes) . Even though Taylor got a 1,000+ the season before they got AD they still picked him. I think we should also pick a running back (DMAC). It will give us a great 1-2 punch with fargas and DMAC. I mean if Fargas got 1000+ yards last year, just wonder what he and DMAC can do together. The Vikings had Jackson(young qb) starting for them and he made great strides with a great running game behind him, so JaMarcus should too. JaMarcus will also have a star behind him for a long time and wont have the pressure to make all the plays when he could just hand the ball off to 2 good rbs.

Also I like our current situation at WRs and TEs. We will in the next 1-3 years will need to get a star wr from trade or draft since curry and walker arnt getting any younger.

portermvp84
03-14-2008, 12:06 PM
Where were at in the draft, I'd say it would be a safe bet to draft DMAC. I agree with what RaiderNation said, by drafting DMAC it would give our running game a good one two punch.

619
03-14-2008, 12:09 PM
Where does this leave Michael Bush? I don't think the coaching staff has given up on him just yet. Give him the other 'freak' Gholston.

Xonraider
03-16-2008, 02:23 PM
Here's the list, IMO.

1. Chris Long
2. Glenn Dorsey
3. Darren McFadden
4. Sedrick Ellis

raidersfanxxx
03-16-2008, 09:35 PM
if we did pick up dorsey, would he play along side kelly or would kelly move back to end?

neko4
03-16-2008, 09:39 PM
I think Oakland should get Jake Long
Why?
A: Kansas City wont get him, thats a plus when you can screw a rival over
B: At worst, he'll be better than Gallery

619
03-16-2008, 09:42 PM
Here's the list, IMO.

1. Chris Long
2. Glenn Dorsey
3. Darren McFadden
4. Sedrick Ellis

Here's my list imo.

1. Chris Long
2. Vernon Gholston
3. Jake Long
4. Darren McFadden
5. Sedrick Ellis
if we did pick up dorsey, would he play along side kelly or would kelly move back to end?

Team has already committed Kelly to play UT so Dorsey would then have to play NT which is a complete waste of his talent.

portermvp84
03-17-2008, 12:28 PM
1. Chris Long
2. Glenn Dorsey
3. DMAC
4. Vernon Gholston
5. Sedrick Ellis

gdamac
03-27-2008, 08:54 PM
1. Chris Long
2. Vernon Gholston
3. Glenn Dorsey
4. Trade Down
5. Darren McFadden

RaiderFan
03-27-2008, 09:31 PM
Dmac Please

RaiderNation
03-28-2008, 11:17 AM
Chris Long- help out our pass rush and its howies kid
Darren McFadden- great talent that would be hard to pass up
Jake Long- would fill a huge hole that we have had for a long time
Vernon Gholston- will give us a fast pass rusher
Trade Down- hopefully with dallas
Glenn Dorsey- Nice player, since we have Kelly paid to play UT with he be NT?

Donno
04-11-2008, 05:24 PM
They wont pass on any of these guys. This is in order too.

1. Chris Long
2. Jake Long
3. Darren McFadden
4. Glenn Dorsey
5. Vernon Gholston

NFLCommander
04-13-2008, 01:46 PM
As much as I hate the idea, I know they are going to take McFadden. Fargas can keep the offense going, he had over 1000 yards in 7 starts. Raiders could really use a WR, but the fact of the matter is there are none worthy of the 4th overall pick in the draft. At number 4, I would rather see Gholston or Dorsey taken to help finish off a defense that could be one of the best in the league, but I doubt Al Davis can do anything coherent with all of that senility in his brain.

NFLCommander
04-13-2008, 01:56 PM
We are in a simular situation as the Vikings last year. We have a good running in Fargas(Taylor for Vikes) . Even though Taylor got a 1,000+ the season before they got AD they still picked him. I think we should also pick a running back (DMAC). It will give us a great 1-2 punch with fargas and DMAC. I mean if Fargas got 1000+ yards last year, just wonder what he and DMAC can do together. The Vikings had Jackson(young qb) starting for them and he made great strides with a great running game behind him, so JaMarcus should too. JaMarcus will also have a star behind him for a long time and wont have the pressure to make all the plays when he could just hand the ball off to 2 good rbs.

Also I like our current situation at WRs and TEs. We will in the next 1-3 years will need to get a star wr from trade or draft since curry and walker arnt getting any younger.

I watched every Vikings game last season (I'm from MN) and Jackson was terrible for having the top rushing game behind him. But yes they're team are on the same path, however, as great as AD is I can only wonder where we would be if we actually addressed a real need other than just picking "the best possible player on the board." I wanted Quinn with that pick, but we got AD. Peterson is great, but 6 of our 8 losses were due to Jackson making idiot plays. Sometimes I wonder "what if" and think about how we would have faired with Brady Quinn instead of AD.

keylime_5
04-13-2008, 02:22 PM
The Raiders really like Vernon Gholston a lot, and I am among the crowd who still believes that he would be better in a 4-3 than he would in a 3-4 (kinda stiff to be an OLB in the NFL)....but I have heard from multiple sources that Oakland really like Vern but likes McFadden even more. The question is do they take McFadden who is clearly a superior prospect but doesn't fill a need, or do they fill a need with a guy who is not a top 5 pick type of player but a freak athlete with a lot of upside nonetheless who fills a need. I think they go DMC as of right now until I hear otherwise.

gdamac
04-13-2008, 02:33 PM
The Raiders really like Vernon Gholston a lot, and I am among the crowd who still believes that he would be better in a 4-3 than he would in a 3-4 (kinda stiff to be an OLB in the NFL)....but I have heard from multiple sources that Oakland really like Vern but likes McFadden even more. The question is do they take McFadden who is clearly a superior prospect but doesn't fill a need, or do they fill a need with a guy who is not a top 5 pick type of player but a freak athlete with a lot of upside nonetheless who fills a need. I think they go DMC as of right now until I hear otherwise.

Personally I hoe we pass on McFadden and if Bush doesn't pan out we take Beanie Wells, but I am a Buckeye homer.

Having said that, I want to fill needs but won't complain if we take a possible elite RB in McFadden.

Stash
04-13-2008, 03:28 PM
Personally I hoe we pass on McFadden and if Bush doesn't pan out we take Beanie Wells, but I am a Buckeye homer.

Having said that, I want to fill needs but won't complain if we take a possible elite RB in McFadden.

The only complaint I would have if we took DMC is why did we re-sign Fargas? I would still prefer to take one of the DE's, but DMC is just scary.

doingthisinsteadofwork
04-13-2008, 05:02 PM
We are in a simular situation as the Vikings last year. We have a good running in Fargas(Taylor for Vikes) . Even though Taylor got a 1,000+ the season before they got AD they still picked him. I think we should also pick a running back (DMAC). It will give us a great 1-2 punch with fargas and DMAC. I mean if Fargas got 1000+ yards last year, just wonder what he and DMAC can do together. The Vikings had Jackson(young qb) starting for them and he made great strides with a great running game behind him, so JaMarcus should too. JaMarcus will also have a star behind him for a long time and wont have the pressure to make all the plays when he could just hand the ball off to 2 good rbs.
The difference is that Minnesota had one of the best run defenses in the league.Our run D sucks.
Jackson made great strides with a good running game?Hes a horrible QB.I dont see how he got better.

doingthisinsteadofwork
04-13-2008, 05:07 PM
Personally I hoe we pass on McFadden and if Bush doesn't pan out we take Beanie Wells, but I am a Buckeye homer.

Having said that, I want to fill needs but won't complain if we take a possible elite RB in McFadden.
I like Wells alot to.I think he'll easily turn out to be a better prospect than McFadden.But I hope we arent in position to take him next year.

gdamac
04-13-2008, 05:53 PM
I like Wells alot to.I think he'll easily turn out to be a better prospect than McFadden.But I hope we arent in position to take him next year.

No doubt, I hope we are .500 at least, and I think they can, but it will of course depend on JaMarcus' development.

The only complaint I would have if we took DMC is why did we re-sign Fargas? I would still prefer to take one of the DE's, but DMC is just scary.

Yeah, I hear ya. Which is why I think we are passing on him. But you never know with Al.

619
04-15-2008, 03:43 PM
I still want Chris Long first and foremost! :)

RaiderNation
04-17-2008, 05:36 PM
Just said on PTI that McFadden loved his visit to Oakland. Hope that means we draft him

619
04-18-2008, 08:02 AM
Just said on PTI that McFadden loved his visit to Oakland. Hope that means we draft him

Yes, no denying if Long is gone DMAC is the man! :)

bernbabybern820
04-19-2008, 05:51 PM
We better hope that either Gholston or Ryan gets picked up by the first 3 teams so that we have a choice between C Long, J Long, and Dorsey.

RaiderNation
04-19-2008, 10:17 PM
We better hope that either Gholston or Ryan gets picked up by the first 3 teams so that we have a choice between C Long, J Long, and Dorsey.

jake is gonna be the first overall. i think it depends on if rams take gholston or chris long. if chris long we will take DMC, if gholston we will take long

HEISMANHERSCHEL
04-20-2008, 01:19 AM
I am taking Dorsey if i am yall. He is good.

And I agree. The only thing Tavaris improved on last year was his tackling technique, because of all his turnovers. :)

Stash
04-20-2008, 03:01 PM
I am taking Dorsey if i am yall. He is good.

And I agree. The only thing Tavaris improved on last year was his tackling technique, because of all his turnovers. :)

???
I'm not following you here. Tavaris who?

holt_bruce81
04-20-2008, 03:02 PM
If I was the Raiders, I would take Dorsey or Mcfadden.

HEISMANHERSCHEL
04-23-2008, 06:21 PM
To clarify (sorry for the confusion) I brought up Tavaris Jackson because Raider Nation said Tavaris Jackson made huge strides in Minnesota because of a strong running game (because they drafted Peterson).

I just wanted to throw my two cents in and say the strong running game helped mask Tavaris' short cummings, but did not make him better. My point was I wouldnt draft McFadden. I think he is great! But Oakland has a young Bush and Fargas. I think Dorsey is possibly the best player in the draft. Immediate impact, so thats who I would take.

Sorry for the confusion.

raidersfanxxx
04-23-2008, 10:24 PM
we just paid kelly alot of money to play the 3 tech...i like dorsey alot, i just dont know how he would fit into our d-line.