PDA

View Full Version : Better 2008-2009 season... A.D. or Run DMC?


katnip
04-30-2008, 04:21 PM
I'm interested in knowing how many fans here would take Run DMC over A.D. Especially my fellow J-E-T-S fans, who pretty much all wanted McFadden.

terribletowel39
04-30-2008, 04:22 PM
this is a special thread. everyone is gonna pick AD because we all know he can dominate. no one knows for sure if McFadden will for sure do any where near as good as Peterson.

katnip
04-30-2008, 04:24 PM
But isn't Run DMC the next great thing? The once in a decade running back.

Strongside
04-30-2008, 04:25 PM
AD and it's not close

Paranoidmoonduck
04-30-2008, 04:26 PM
Even for a rookie, McFadden has a shot at putting up more yards than Peterson does. He's entering the 6th rated rush attack from last year, a zone blocking offense no less, and he'll likely be called upon to make plays often. Both he and Peterson will share the ball somewhat with their fellow runners, but I think we all expect those two to be the main focuses of their respective offenses.

The real wildcard is whether Peterson can stay healthy.

Shiver
04-30-2008, 04:27 PM
I don't think McFadden will be as good as Peterson, mostly because he doesn't have Peterson's power. I do think he will be better than Reggie Bush because he doesn't dance around all the time.

PoopSandwich
04-30-2008, 04:29 PM
Vikings offensive line >>>>>>>> Raiders offensive line.

Edit : You ask better 2008-2009 season but ask who you would take in the poll? I would still take Peterson, but it's not by a landslide due to his injury history.

d34ng3l021
04-30-2008, 04:29 PM
Its really hard to argue against Adrian Peterson, but here is my case for Run DMC.

He is the perfect fit for the Raiders. Not only does he have character concerns, but he is just the type of back you look for when you employ the ZBS. He has great acceleration and is a ball out of a cannon. His acceleration is ridiculous. He is the type of back that will make one cut, and go. That is basically what you are looking for in a ZBS. I think his stiff arm and toughness just add to his perfect fit. No doubt he will not be carrying the load at Oakland, but I would not be surprised to see a 1000-1200 yard season out of him. I really think he will be breaking long ones alot, especially if Russell's arm can somewhat keep it from being 8 in the box (I know that is unlikely seeing he is a rookie, but hopefully they give the Russell to Walker connection some respect).

If we were to compare rookie seasons of the two though (yardage wise. not yards per game), I think they could end up being similar taking account AD's injury and hoping for an injury free season for Run DMC.

I am not saying that he is going to out AD this year or anything, I am just saying he is going to be good and may surprise alot of people.

LonghornsLegend
04-30-2008, 04:30 PM
If both stay healthy, why would Peterson not have a better season? He is going to get a bigger workload while Al Davis has said he still wants to use Fargas alot in the running game. Peterson is stronger and is a better inside runner, he is just a throwback RB, he has the frame and work ethic to carry the ball 25 times a game and do it year in and out, the same way Tomlinson does now...McFadden will have some explosive runs and plays, but he will not be the entire offense, the Vikings offense will run through Peterson this year.

The Legend
04-30-2008, 04:30 PM
man i ment to vote for AD boooooo there goes the shut out

Boston
04-30-2008, 04:38 PM
Peterson has to go up against the Packers twice a year, so definately McFadden...

princefielder28
04-30-2008, 04:39 PM
Peterson has to go up against the Packers twice a year, so definately McFadden...

but he also goes up against the Lions twice so it evens itself out

kmartin575
04-30-2008, 05:36 PM
Even for a rookie, McFadden has a shot at putting up more yards than Peterson does. He's entering the 6th rated rush attack from last year, a zone blocking offense no less, and he'll likely be called upon to make plays often. Both he and Peterson will share the ball somewhat with their fellow runners, but I think we all expect those two to be the main focuses of their respective offenses.

The real wildcard is whether Peterson can stay healthy.

Oakland was the #6 rushing offense but Minnesota was #1.

Also:

McKinnie-Hutchinson-Birk-Herrera-Cook >>>>>>>>>> whoever Oakland lines up on the offensive line.

I also think Oakland's run offense last year was a fluke. I expect them to greatly come back down to earth this year.

d34ng3l021
04-30-2008, 06:00 PM
They took Atlantas OC and Atlanta's OL coach. They are using the ZBS which almost always helps running games.

CC.SD
04-30-2008, 06:23 PM
It's clearly AD and I even like McFadden.

BaLLiN
04-30-2008, 06:27 PM
AD set the single game rushing record, if he didnt get injured he was on pace to be the league's Rushing leader. Also AD was MVP of the Probowl, not many rookies go to the probowl, and i dont remember the last time a rookie won the MVP over talented veterans in the league like today's.

devinhester=R.O.Y 2006
04-30-2008, 06:28 PM
but he also goes up against the Lions twice so it evens itself out

AD also completely owned the Bears last year as well.

keylime_5
04-30-2008, 06:28 PM
I hear the Oakland coaching staff wants Fargas to be the starter there and DMca to be the compliment back who can catch out of the backfield, the kind who gets 500 yards or so while Fargas gets 1000+. While that's what they want I think we'll probably see DMac get 1000+ and Fargas get near 1000 like AD/Taylor did in Minnesota last year. But no doubt Peterson is gonna have another 1500+ yard season while splitting carries.

Bucs_Rule
04-30-2008, 06:30 PM
Both have great speed and moves, AD has power. That is huge in the pros.

BaLLiN
04-30-2008, 06:31 PM
AD also completely owned the Bears last year as well.

and the chargers, whom he put 300+ rushing yards on and beat the Single game rushing record.

Yatta!
04-30-2008, 06:54 PM
After what we saw last year everyone will go for AD but as prospects I think they are very similar, I think Run DMC might have been the better prospect just.

Caddy
04-30-2008, 06:57 PM
Honestly, if both were prospects and I had never seen AD play in the NFL, I think I would lean towards Run DMC.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-30-2008, 07:02 PM
Oakland was the #6 rushing offense but Minnesota was #1.

Yes, and before Peterson showed up Minnesota's rushing attack was rated #16.

thetedginnshow
04-30-2008, 07:16 PM
I could see McFadden staying healthier than AD and for that reason gaining more yards.

...But which Jets fans wanted McFadden?

UKfan
04-30-2008, 07:36 PM
AD All day for me

The Great Jonathan Vilma
04-30-2008, 07:50 PM
Peterson, and its not close for me. At this point, as well as coming out as a prospect. I am probably alone, but coming out as a prospect i would have taken Peterson no doubt. Only question was durability for me. His character puts it over the edge.

I'm a Jet fan who wasn't hopng for McFadden

RaiderFan
04-30-2008, 07:57 PM
McFadden he is just too explosive.

TitleTown088
04-30-2008, 08:00 PM
McFadden he is just too explosive.

Gee, Convinced me! I bet your opinion has nothing to do wit your username, eh?

Vikes99ej
04-30-2008, 08:08 PM
I'll take Peterson's "injury concerns" and fantastic character over someone with some baggage.

Paranoidmoonduck
04-30-2008, 08:12 PM
I'll take Peterson's "injury concerns" and fantastic character over someone with some baggage.

Yeah, OJ Simpson never produced at the pro level.

Vikes99ej
04-30-2008, 08:38 PM
Yeah, OJ Simpson never produced at the pro level.

Someone with off-the-field problems back then is different than it is now. Roger Goodell wasn't commissioner in the 70's.

RaiderFan
04-30-2008, 08:43 PM
Someone with off-the-field problems back then is different than it is now. Roger Goodell wasn't commissioner in the 70's.

A 20 year old Kid got in some fights, and maybe he likes pu$$y too much. Big Deal

I like Peterson i thought he was awesome last year but you can't ignore his injury problems. If he keeps taking leg injuries he will slow down very quickly. I Believe McFadden will have more longevity and Similar if not better numbers.
I may be a little biased
We shall see.

Young Legend
04-30-2008, 08:44 PM
Justin Fargas is gonna be Oakland number 1 back this year. He is gonna get most of the carriers McFadden will get some touches but will be more involved in the passing game. He should have around 60 catches..

Young Legend
04-30-2008, 08:45 PM
I'll take Peterson's "injury concerns" and fantastic character over someone with some baggage.

LOL, But has J.Allen in his Avi.

RaiderFan
04-30-2008, 08:47 PM
LOL, But has J.Allen in his Avi.

Exactly the guy one DUI away from a 1 Year suspension.

Number 10
04-30-2008, 08:52 PM
Mendenhall is closer to Peterson than McFadden.

Cunningham
04-30-2008, 08:56 PM
i really have no idea why people think mcfadden was a better prospect coming out of college. change of direction ability, ball security, character issues, and the formation he ran out of in college are all concerns when talking about him. the only negatives you have on peterson were his health and receiving skills.

Raiderz4Life
04-30-2008, 09:22 PM
we dont know if Peterson's wonderous season was a fluke. I wnt to see him do it again and again which i doubt he does. I expect him to be good a top 10 pro bowler maybe but teams will prepare better for him, if his legs take more pounding he will slow down unless he learns to use his pads. I cant see AD matching his rookie year. I will say McFadden has a shot at being just as good or better but I wont say anything about him because the kid still has to play. I would still take McFadden over AD

Number 10
04-30-2008, 09:25 PM
we dont know if Peterson's wonderous season was a fluke. I wnt to see him do it again and again which i doubt he does. I expect him to be good a top 10 pro bowler maybe but teams will prepare better for him, if his legs take more pounding he will slow down unless he learns to use his pads. I cant see AD matching his rookie year. I will say McFadden has a shot at being just as good or better but I wont say anything about him because the kid still has to play. I would still take McFadden over AD

Of course you would.

I really don't see one logical reason why anyone would take McFadden over Peterson right now.

eaglesfan_45
04-30-2008, 09:27 PM
we dont know if Peterson's wonderous season was a fluke. I wnt to see him do it again and again which i doubt he does. I expect him to be good a top 10 pro bowler maybe but teams will prepare better for him, if his legs take more pounding he will slow down unless he learns to use his pads. I cant see AD matching his rookie year. I will say McFadden has a shot at being just as good or better but I wont say anything about him because the kid still has to play. I would still take McFadden over AD


I think that if Adrian Peterson was on the Raiders you would be arguing for him but he isn't so you go with what you got.... McFadden.

Raiderz4Life
04-30-2008, 09:31 PM
Not really...i neve liked AD when he was on oklahoma....when someone told me the raiders should take him which i heard a lot from Raider fans from where i live i thought they were stupid.....i sincerely believe McFadden will be better.

eaglesfan_45
04-30-2008, 09:34 PM
I think AD is the better "true" running back of the two.

RaiderFan
04-30-2008, 09:36 PM
I think that if Adrian Peterson was on the Raiders you would be arguing for him but he isn't so you go with what you got.... McFadden.

McFadden has been more Productive and less injury prone. And he possesses just as much Physical Talent. If McFadden Came out in 2007 he would have been picked before Peterson, because he is a better prospect.

Vision=McFadden
Upper Body Power = Tied
Lower Body Power= Peterson
Speed=McFadden
Acceleration=McFadden
Offensive Line= Peterson
Blocking Scheme= McFadden
College Production= McFadden
Combine measurables = Slight egde too McFadden for the speed

Who is a Better NFL Player= To be detirmined at a later time

PACKmanN
04-30-2008, 10:12 PM
I'll take Peterson's "injury concerns" and fantastic character over someone with some baggage.

I'm sorry, but how can they be "injury concerns" when he did get injured last year?

eaglesfan_45
04-30-2008, 10:13 PM
I'm sorry, but how can they be "injury concerns" when he did get injured last year?

he was injured last year and that is why he didn't win the rushing title I think he missed 2 or 3 games

RaiderFan
04-30-2008, 10:37 PM
After Peterson's injury his Production dropped Tremendously
Pre Injury- the first 11 he had 169 Carries 1081 Yards 6.3 YPC
Post injury- the last 5 games he had 69 Carries for 260 Yards, 3.7 YPC

This guy has big injury concerns

yodabear
04-30-2008, 10:40 PM
This really isn't much of a contest for me, its AD.

gdamac
04-30-2008, 10:41 PM
All things being equal I would have to go with the one year vet over the rookie. Personally I don't care who's better I just hope Dmac helps us gets a few more wins.

yodabear
04-30-2008, 10:46 PM
And just to clarify something, I think Run DMC is a hell of a back and he will be a beast in the NFL, but when u look at the O-Lines of the Vikes and Raiders, thats not even a contest. And a RB can't run anywhere without an O-Line, so thats the reason for the my comment above.

asmitty45
04-30-2008, 10:49 PM
Definitely Peterson, especially if jackson/booty can make the vertical game a threat. teams stacked the box against them all day last year and he still was unstoppable.

I think Dmac will lose some carries to Fargas too.

kmartin575
04-30-2008, 10:50 PM
I hear the Oakland coaching staff wants Fargas to be the starter there and DMca to be the compliment back who can catch out of the backfield, the kind who gets 500 yards or so while Fargas gets 1000+. While that's what they want I think we'll probably see DMac get 1000+ and Fargas get near 1000 like AD/Taylor did in Minnesota last year. But no doubt Peterson is gonna have another 1500+ yard season while splitting carries.

Another 1,500+ yard season? He would have to have one 1,500+ yard season to begin with to have another.

kmartin575
04-30-2008, 10:53 PM
we dont know if Peterson's wonderous season was a fluke. I wnt to see him do it again and again which i doubt he does. I expect him to be good a top 10 pro bowler maybe but teams will prepare better for him, if his legs take more pounding he will slow down unless he learns to use his pads. I cant see AD matching his rookie year. I will say McFadden has a shot at being just as good or better but I wont say anything about him because the kid still has to play. I would still take McFadden over AD

That makes no sense at all. Even with just one season to base Peterson's future off of it is still more than no seasons for McFadden.

619
04-30-2008, 10:54 PM
Unfair comparisons at this point in time. More like AD vs Lynch but that's already been debated far too heavily.

gdamac
04-30-2008, 10:56 PM
And just to clarify something, I think Run DMC is a hell of a back and he will be a beast in the NFL, but when u look at the O-Lines of the Vikes and Raiders, thats not even a contest. And a RB can't run anywhere without an O-Line, so thats the reason for the my comment above.


For the record we can run block, and Harris may be a bum in pass protect, he helped Gore get 1,600 yards. Our line should be OK.

thebow305
05-01-2008, 12:31 AM
AD's line is good, Run-DMC's line sucks, simple as that.

RaiderFan
05-01-2008, 12:36 AM
AD's line is good, Run-DMC's line sucks, simple as that.

didn't this line that sucks put 270 yards Rushing on the Dolphins last year with Fargas? Do you Remember that?

HEISMANHERSCHEL
05-01-2008, 12:42 AM
All damn day.

kmartin575
05-01-2008, 06:49 AM
For the record we can run block, and Harris may be a bum in pass protect, he helped Gore get 1,600 yards. Our line should be OK.

Saying Harris helped Gore get 1,600 yards is like saying John Welbourn or Casey Wiegmann helped Larry Johnson get 1,789 yards in 2006. And IMO your run blocking last year was an anomally.

kmartin575
05-01-2008, 06:52 AM
didn't this line that sucks put 270 yards Rushing on the Dolphins last year with Fargas? Do you Remember that?

Miami was also dead last in run defense last year. Whoopty freaking doo. Most of Oakland's good games on the ground came against crappy run defenses. I mean, Oakland had 4 games alone against KC and Denver which were 2 of the bottom 5 teams in run defense.

DeathbyStat
05-01-2008, 09:17 AM
AD by far if he can just stay health and that might be a major if.

gdamac
05-01-2008, 09:53 AM
Saying Harris helped Gore get 1,600 yards is like saying John Welbourn or Casey Wiegmann helped Larry Johnson get 1,789 yards in 2006. And IMO your run blocking last year was an anomally.

I am not the only person who thinks that Harris can run block at least some, but you may be right I didn't follow the 9ers that year.

I am not trying to say they were better than they really were and I certainly won't make any predictions, but it's very easy to think they were an anomaly, they've sucked for so long. But I don't think so, I think they were overrated because they played weak comp, but this year the comp gets even weaker and it's the second year in the system. We'll see, I think they will be pretty good at run blocking.

gdamac
05-01-2008, 10:03 AM
Miami was also dead last in run defense last year. Whoopty freaking doo. Most of Oakland's good games on the ground came against crappy run defenses. I mean, Oakland had 4 games alone against KC and Denver which were 2 of the bottom 5 teams in run defense.

You make a great point in '07 we played crap run defenses:

13 games against teams ranked 14th or worse.
9 games against teams ranked 19th or worse.
8 games against teams ranked 23rd or worse.

Average opponent is ranked 19th against the run.

However this is even more in our favor in 2008

14 games against teams ranked 13th or worse
13 games against teams ranked 16th or worse
8 games against teams ranked 25th or worse.

Average opponent is ranked 21st against the run.

The only way it could be better is if we played our own run defense!

Those are their 2007 rankings of course, some of those teams have improved their run defense, but how much and how many have yet to be seen.

I still think Peterson will do better he is a one year vet and McFadden is a rookie, and I still don't care as long as McFadden helps us get wins.

gdamac
05-01-2008, 10:09 AM
For the record, I also crunched the Vikings '08 opponents and their '07 run D ranking:

TEN: 5
NYG: 8
ARI: 9

JAC: 11
NO: 13
GB: 14 (X2)
IND: 15

TB: 17
CAR: 18
HOU: 19

DET: 23 (X2)
CHI: 24 (X2)
ATL: 26

average defense rank vs. the run 16th

Slightly better defenses, but a better OL so it more than evens out and Peterson should still do better. Honestly I don't care, just kind of a geek for numbers.

619
05-01-2008, 10:10 AM
AD's line is good, Run-DMC's line sucks, simple as that.

Trust me our OL is much improved especially run blocking ever since the ZBS was implemented by the new coaching staff.

kmartin575
05-01-2008, 10:12 AM
I am not the only person who thinks that Harris can run block at least some, but you may be right I didn't follow the 9ers that year.

I am not trying to say they were better than they really were and I certainly won't make any predictions, but it's very easy to think they were an anomaly, they've sucked for so long. But I don't think so, I think they were overrated because they played weak comp, but this year the comp gets even weaker and it's the second year in the system. We'll see, I think they will be pretty good at run blocking.

The competition in the division won't be weaker though. I believe KC and Denver both will have better run defenses this year.

And I'm not trying to say Harris isn't a good run blocker. I really don't know. But you can't really credit one player for the performance of Frank Gore in 2006.

gdamac
05-01-2008, 10:38 AM
The competition in the division won't be weaker though. I believe KC and Denver both will have better run defenses this year.

And I'm not trying to say Harris isn't a good run blocker. I really don't know. But you can't really credit one player for the performance of Frank Gore in 2006.

Agreed on both (unfortunately when it comes to division teams). I just hope we play enough weak run defenses that they can win a few more games than last year.

kmartin575
05-01-2008, 10:52 AM
Agreed on both (unfortunately when it comes to division teams). I just hope we play enough weak run defenses that they can win a few more games than last year.

Improving on the ground won't be the determing factor IMO. Even with the 6th ranked rush offense last year you guys were still 4-12. The difference for the Raiders IMO will be the development of Russell. If the passing game doesn't improve then McFadden really won't make much of a difference. But if the passing game does improve then watch out. So of course, as a Chiefs fan, I have to hope for Russell to be a bust. I'm sure you understand :)

Of course, that is also where Kwame Harris becomes the problem. It might be a good thing that Russell is big because if Kwame Harris is starting at left tackle Russell will get hit alot.

gdamac
05-01-2008, 11:17 AM
Improving on the ground won't be the determing factor IMO. Even with the 6th ranked rush offense last year you guys were still 4-12. The difference for the Raiders IMO will be the development of Russell. If the passing game doesn't improve then McFadden really won't make much of a difference. But if the passing game does improve then watch out. So of course, as a Chiefs fan, I have to hope for Russell to be a bust. I'm sure you understand :)

Of course, that is also where Kwame Harris becomes the problem. It might be a good thing that Russell is big because if Kwame Harris is starting at left tackle Russell will get hit alot.

Yep, you're right. And don't worry, I am hoping your SEC stud is a bust too :) for the sake of our run and pass game! But it will all come down to the trenches and what Cable can do with Kwame Harris. We should have hedged our bets by grabbing Tony Hills or some one.

I sort of, kind of hope Croyle works out. Because if he and Russell live up to expectations the AFC west will have 4 good young QBs and that would be pretty fun to watch. But if Croyle busts I am cool with that too. Big vote of confidence that 0/13 picks went to QB.

ChezPower4
05-01-2008, 11:37 AM
Peterson without a doubt!

703SKINS202
05-01-2008, 11:47 AM
Maybe AP, maybe AD.

the best thing that ever happened to mcfadden was what AP did, he wont come close in my opinion. AP's lower body is a horse, Mcfaddens is a flamingo.

djp
05-01-2008, 12:05 PM
No chance. Peterson by a long shot. McFadden isn't even going to start. The ONLY chance is that Peterson AND Fargas get injured severely.

Crazy_Chris
05-01-2008, 12:46 PM
Peterson has to go up against the Packers twice a year, so definately McFadden...

What does that have to do with it? Against the Packers Adrian carried the ball a total of 23 times for 157 yards and a 6.8 avg.

I don't even know why this is a question obviously barring injury Adrian Peterson will have a better season than Darren McFadden.

MetSox17
05-01-2008, 12:52 PM
What does that have to do with it? Against the Packers Adrian carried the ball a total of 23 times for 157 yards and a 6.8 avg.

I don't even know why this is a question obviously barring injury Adrian Peterson will have a better season than Darren McFadden.

Yeah, just hope Al Harris isn't a dirty little b**** again.

AlexDown
05-01-2008, 12:53 PM
But isn't Run DMC the next great thing? The once in a decade running back.

This talk really annoys me when someone says that about a prospect every year...

djp
05-01-2008, 01:17 PM
Yeah, just hope Al Harris isn't a dirty little b**** again.

As much as I would like to blame Al Harris, I have been in full belief that his hit wasn't meant to be dirty. It was a very awkward tackle. I think it was accidental. I knew his knee was messed up before he even hit the ground. At least he didn't go Chris Gamble on Peterson.

CC.SD
05-01-2008, 02:45 PM
The bottom line: D-Mac could put up 1500 and it still wouldn't justify passing on Glenn Dorsey.

TheGreatEscape
05-01-2008, 03:03 PM
McFadden's disgusting acceleration in a ZBS is a nasty fit. Fargas will start the season as the starter but DMC will wrestle the starting spot quickly.

thebow305
05-01-2008, 03:31 PM
didn't this line that sucks put 270 yards Rushing on the Dolphins last year with Fargas? Do you Remember that?

Going against studs like Steve Fifita, Matt Roth, Donnie Spragan, and Cameron Worrell of our horribly injury-depleted defense last year.

Yeah, good argument smart guy. Especially when Barry Sims, who was probably you're best option at OT, is gone now and you have your #2 overall pick OT playing at guard now. You know what, you're right! Damn that line is BALLIN!

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

RaiderNation
05-01-2008, 03:39 PM
I hope Run DMC does but it will likely be AD if he stays healthy. These 2 are my favorite RB's in the league

The Great Jonathan Vilma
05-01-2008, 04:11 PM
McFadden he is just too explosive.

something Peterson obviously isn't......

CC.SD
05-01-2008, 04:12 PM
something Peterson obviously isn't......

Don't even try and argue with Raider myopia.

RaiderFan
05-01-2008, 04:15 PM
Going against studs like Steve Fifita, Matt Roth, Donnie Spragan, and Cameron Worrell of our horribly injury-depleted defense last year.

Yeah, good argument smart guy. Especially when Barry Sims, who was probably you're best option at OT, is gone now and you have your #2 overall pick OT playing at guard now. You know what, you're right! Damn that line is BALLIN!

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Barry Sims wasn't the best lineman he was the worst, and was the first to get cut when the season ended. And Gallery Played really well at Lg, when we Ran to the Left we Averaged 4.8 Yards per Carry. So maybe you should get more information before you make comments, smart guy.

RaiderFan
05-01-2008, 04:16 PM
Nobody ever Considered Peterson the " The best RB Prospect of the Decade" and there is a good reason for that.

d34ng3l021
05-01-2008, 04:18 PM
Actually, no one considered McFadden that. That term was thrown around the most with Bush, and then Peterson. McFadden wasnt even the number 1 RB in some people's boards.

RaiderFan
05-01-2008, 04:23 PM
Actually, no one considered McFadden that. That term was thrown around the most with Bush, and then Peterson. McFadden wasnt even the number 1 RB in some people's boards.

Plenty of People have said McFadden is the Best RB prospect of the decade.
People never Called bush the best Running back Prospect. The Said he was a great weapon with Versatility. And Peterson was never Considered or called the best RB prospect he was thought to lack Versatility and had injury concerns.

Maybe i am biased, but lets be serious McFadden is a Much better Prospect than Peterson. IMO.

Paranoidmoonduck
05-01-2008, 04:26 PM
Actually, no one considered McFadden that. That term was thrown around the most with Bush, and then Peterson. McFadden wasnt even the number 1 RB in some people's boards.

Neither was Peterson, but that is neither here or there.

People are getting pretty worked up over a pretty simply question. Can McFadden outproduce Peterson this year? Yes, he absolutely can. He's coming into a better running team than Minnesota was when Peterson showed up, he's going to be facing less great run defenses than Peterson will be, and I personally think that Fargas is probably less of a hill for McFadden to climb than Chester Taylor was for Peterson.

Add in the fact that Peterson hasn't played a whole season since his freshman year of college, and I'm not sure why McFadden putting up similar numbers to Peterson is all that hard to imagine.

CC.SD
05-01-2008, 04:42 PM
Maybe i am biased, but lets be serious McFadden is a Much better Prospect than Peterson. IMO.

What a joke. I honestly was prepared to admit to being a little biased, because I might be blinded by my utter dismissal of the Raiders. But this line sealed it for me. Clearly you don't know a lot about the draft or prospect stock status. Everyone and their mom knew how high AD's ceiling was and is. McFadden has a lot of talent but it's not even an even comparison. Production wise who knows, it's all about the situation and I'm not about to bet against the Vikings O-line when held up to the Raiders.

But I can tell you without question who the better prospect was, and so can every other member of this board.

d34ng3l021
05-01-2008, 04:55 PM
Neither was Peterson, but that is neither here or there.

People are getting pretty worked up over a pretty simply question. Can McFadden outproduce Peterson this year? Yes, he absolutely can. He's coming into a better running team than Minnesota was when Peterson showed up, he's going to be facing less great run defenses than Peterson will be, and I personally think that Fargas is probably less of a hill for McFadden to climb than Chester Taylor was for Peterson.

Add in the fact that Peterson hasn't played a whole season since his freshman year of college, and I'm not sure why McFadden putting up similar numbers to Peterson is all that hard to imagine.

Eh. That is debatable. Alot of people had thought that Adrian Peterson was one of the best pure runningbacks they had seen.

And I agree with everything else you wrote (if you look on the first page, my post is pretty similar).

661rep
05-01-2008, 05:08 PM
Maybe Iím the only one, but I feel that Run DMC had the better collegiate career of the two and played in the tougher SEC conference. So I would say that Run DMC was the better prospect of the two... I really can see how anyone can say otherwise when you compare their college careers. Also I believe McFadden is 2 years and change younger then AD.

The Raiders coaching staff can say whatever they want to say about Fargas starting until training camp starts. When they see Run DMC & Fargas in training camp Iím sure they will change their mind. Also why is everyone acting like Fargas is great? He had one good year on his contract year so it donít surprise me. He is injury prone and he managed to get hurt at the end of the season.

Rjspartan
05-01-2008, 05:11 PM
i would take mcfadden if i could have another back to complement his explosiveness, but for a every down back i would take peterson.

kmartin575
05-01-2008, 05:14 PM
Plenty of People have said McFadden is the Best RB prospect of the decade.
People never Called bush the best Running back Prospect. The Said he was a great weapon with Versatility. And Peterson was never Considered or called the best RB prospect he was thought to lack Versatility and had injury concerns.

Maybe i am biased, but lets be serious McFadden is a Much better Prospect than Peterson. IMO.

Yes, you are biased.

And No, McFadden is not a much better prospect. It has been proven that guys who are fast but cannot break tackles often will not excel in the NFL.

toonsterwu
05-01-2008, 05:18 PM
It's an interesting question. Probably DMC, because Darren in that scheme could go hogwild.

661rep
05-01-2008, 05:18 PM
i would take mcfadden if i could have another back to complement his explosiveness, but for a every down back i would take peterson.


Thats the thing about AD tho... for some reason he just can't stay healthy. He couldn't stay healthy and he had C.Taylor to help him carry the load. One of the biggest knocks about AD... although I love watching him is that he is just too violent of a runner. A lot of scouts and analyst predicted a short career for AD because of his running style. I just don't think AP could be a every down back with his violent running style.

kmartin575
05-01-2008, 05:26 PM
Maybe Iím the only one, but I feel that Run DMC had the better collegiate career of the two and played in the tougher SEC conference. So I would say that Run DMC was the better prospect of the two... I really can see how anyone can say otherwise when you compare their college careers. Also I believe McFadden is 2 years and change younger then AD.

The Raiders coaching staff can say whatever they want to say about Fargas starting until training camp starts. When they see Run DMC & Fargas in training camp Iím sure they will change their mind. Also why is everyone acting like Fargas is great? He had one good year on his contract year so it donít surprise me. He is injury prone and he managed to get hurt at the end of the season.

Peterson's 1,925 yards as a freshman are more than McFadden ever put up in a season. McFadden only finished his career with roughly 400 more yards than Peterson despite the fact that Peterson missed 7 games over his last 2 years at Oklahoma and missed more than two quarters of action in 3 games in 2005. I would hardly say McFadden had the better career. Peterson's freshman season blew any season of McFadden's out of the water. Peterson also finished with more rushing touchdowns.

It should also be noted that Peterson gained 71% of his yards after contact in college, something McFadden could only dream of doing.

kmartin575
05-01-2008, 05:28 PM
It's an interesting question. Probably DMC, because Darren in that scheme could go hogwild.

Being fast alone does not make a great runningback. Denver runs the same scheme. Tatum Bell is pretty damn fast but had fumbling problems, just like McFadden, and has been a failure for the most part.

I have also heard on several occasions people saying McFadden will run all over people with his nasty stiff arm. Well I would love to see him try that considering the NFL is going to start placing an emphasis on penalizing stiff arms to the face this year.

DragonFireKai
05-01-2008, 05:40 PM
Barry Sims wasn't the best lineman he was the worst, and was the first to get cut when the season ended. And Gallery Played really well at Lg, when we Ran to the Left we Averaged 4.8 Yards per Carry. So maybe you should get more information before you make comments, smart guy.

Maybe you should get correct information before you insult others.

The Raiders averaged 3.71 yards off left end, 4.53 yards off left tackle, and 4.02 yards off guard/center. (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php)

And the fact remains, you're bragging about beating the Dolphins. That means nothing. They were the most God awful team in recent memory.

d34ng3l021
05-01-2008, 05:55 PM
It's an interesting question. Probably DMC, because Darren in that scheme could go hogwild.

yesssss. i have a similar opinion of something as toonsters.

661rep
05-01-2008, 06:48 PM
Peterson's 1,925 yards as a freshman are more than McFadden ever put up in a season. McFadden only finished his career with roughly 400 more yards than Peterson despite the fact that Peterson missed 7 games over his last 2 years at Oklahoma and missed more than two quarters of action in 3 games in 2005. I would hardly say McFadden had the better career. Peterson's freshman season blew any season of McFadden's out of the water. Peterson also finished with more rushing touchdowns.

It should also be noted that Peterson gained 71% of his yards after contact in college, something McFadden could only dream of doing.

Yes, Peterson’s best college year was when he was a freshman. After that his rushing stats decreased every year. McFadden on the other hand his rushing #s increased by about 300 yards a season after his freshman year. I like the fact the McFadden #s were improving every year and well AD #s weren’t. I'm taking the more consistent player in McFadden.

Yes, Peterson`s 1,925 total rushing yards are more then McFadden ever put up, but not by much. McFadden’s 2007 career 325 attempts, 1,830 rushing yards, 5.6 avg, & 16 TD’s. So basically AD ran for 95 more yards with 15 more carries the McFadden, but McFadden had 1 more TD then Peterson. Then if you were to include receiving yards, and passing yards McFadden had more total yards I believe. Then you add the fact that McFadden plays in the SEC conference which most people believe have the best defenses in college football.


It should be noted that McFadden destroyed Glen Dorsey’s #1 rated defense in the country for 206 rushing yards & 3tds.

RaiderFan
05-01-2008, 07:08 PM
Maybe you should get correct information before you insult others.

The Raiders averaged 3.71 yards off left end, 4.53 yards off left tackle, and 4.02 yards off guard/center. (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol.php)

And the fact remains, you're bragging about beating the Dolphins. That means nothing. They were the most God awful team in recent memory.

THE RAIDERS AVERAGED 4.8YPC running BEHIND GALLERY
You want the stats Here they are
Maybe that comment wasn't for you Smart guy.......

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/stats/2007/team_offensive_line/0_byRUSH_MDL_YDS.html

RaiderFan
05-01-2008, 07:32 PM
Greg Knapp, who has 21 years of coaching experience, including 12 at the NFL level, is in his first year as offensive coordinator for The Oakland Raiders. The 43-year old Knapp has served as an offensive coordinator at the NFL level for the past six seasons - from 2004-06 for the Atlanta Falcons and from 2001-03 for the San Francisco 49ers.
In seven of the past 10 years, Knapp has coached three different quarterbacks to the Pro Bowl: Michael Vick in 2004 and 2005; Jeff Garcia in 2000, 2001, and 2002; and Steve Young in 1997 and 1998.
Knapp has coached a quarterback to the Pro Bowl in seven out of his 12 years in the NFL-Michael Vick, 2004 and 2005; Jeff Garcia, 2000, 2001, 2002; and Steve Young, 1997 and 1998.
Under Knapp's direction, the Falcons led the NFL in rushing for the past three seasons. His influence enabled the Falcons to produce two 1,000-yard rushers in 2006 while averaging 183.7 yards per game.
With Knapp as coordinator, the Falcons led the league in rushing in 2005, averaging 159.1 yards per game and producing a 1,000-yard rusher and three Pro Bowlers on offense. In 2004, Knapp's first season in Atlanta, the Falcons averaged 167.0 yards per game while advancing to the NFC Championship Game, had two Pro Bowlers and a 1,000-yard rusher.
Under Knapp's direction in 2003, the 49ers finished in the top five in total offense (355.4 yards per game) and rushing offense (142.4 yards per game). The 49ers also finished in the top 10 in passing offense (213.0 yards per game), scoring offense (24.0 points per game) and fewest sacks allowed (28).
In 2002, Knapp was the architect of a 49ers offense that ranked eighth in the NFL in total offense, produced a 3,000-yard passer, a 100-catch receiver and set an NFL mark for a 16-game season in third down conversion rate percentage (52.3), while allowing only 22 sacks. In his first season as an NFL coordinator in 2001, Knapp directed a 49ers offense that ranked fourth in total offense, second in the league in rushing and produced five Pro Bowlers.
Knapp began his professional coaching career with the San Francisco 49ers in 1995, serving as quality control assistant from 1995-97 before being promoted to quarterbacks coach in 1998 and then offensive coordinator in 2001.
Knapp enjoyed a distinguished college career as a quarterback at Sacramento State. He still ranks as one of the school's all-time leaders with more than 3,800 passing yards and 32 touchdown passes. He went to training camps with the Kansas City Chiefs in 1986, the Los Angeles Raiders in 1987-1990 and the San Francisco 49ers in 1992-1994.
The Seal Beach, California native began his coaching career as an assistant at his alma mater handling running backs from 1986-89. He also coached wide receivers from 1989-90 and was offensive coordinator/assistant head coach at Sacramento State from 1991-1994.
Knapp and his wife Starla, have a daughter, Jordan.

gdamac
05-01-2008, 09:09 PM
The bottom line: D-Mac could put up 1500 and it still wouldn't justify passing on Glenn Dorsey.

Well, we passed on Dorsey the moment we gave Kelly $18 million guaranteed and committed to him at 3 technique.

DragonFireKai
05-01-2008, 09:40 PM
THE RAIDERS AVERAGED 4.8YPC running BEHIND GALLERY
You want the stats Here they are
Maybe that comment wasn't for you Smart guy.......

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/stats/2007/team_offensive_line/0_byRUSH_MDL_YDS.html

You need to have some familiarity with the metadata you're using. SI doesn't chart every play, unlike FO. So there are runs that weren't charted there. They also don't make any adjustments, so an O-line that has a Running Back lacking in breakaway speed get penalized. Also, SI uses a three phase breakdown. Runs off end or tackle are classified as left or right, depending on the direction. Runs off guard or center are classified as middle runs. Once again, make sure your info's correct.

DragonFireKai
05-01-2008, 09:52 PM
In seven of the past 10 years, Knapp has coached three different quarterbacks to the Pro Bowl: Michael Vick in 2004 and 2005; Jeff Garcia in 2000, 2001, and 2002; and Steve Young in 1997 and 1998.
Knapp has coached a quarterback to the Pro Bowl in seven out of his 12 years in the NFL-Michael Vick, 2004 and 2005; Jeff Garcia, 2000, 2001, 2002; and Steve Young, 1997 and 1998.

What do those three QBs have in common?

BTW, plagurism's against the rules here.

tom
05-01-2008, 09:59 PM
This is ridiculous... What about Rashard Mendenhall... he's going to run for 1500 yards, and Willie Parker is going to run for 1500 more..

Kurve
05-01-2008, 10:48 PM
im a raider fan and right now you have to pick Peterson he is just a beast and honeslty his last season peterson showed how he is the most explosive back since bo jackson. Very similar in skill set but the style of running can destroy a back in the future thats the biggest problem with AD.

As for better prospects coming in the draft i think Mcfadden is slightly higher not because of his skill set which is elite status already but mainly has to do with the concerns of ADs health and if he can stay healthy with his style of running. While Peterson is stronger, tougher, and can run between the tackles better , Peterson is faster and more explosive overall not by much.

Mcfadden will do great in the raiders offense 1000+ yards this year is very easily obtainable for him. People knock on the raiders offensive of line but you have to remember most people have a tainted opinion of the raiders offensive live due to art shell and walsh's era which was horrendous. I do have to say since we have gone to ZBS and Cable as our OLINE couch we have improved in strides and our offensive of line which did an amazing job in the running game doesnt get the credit it deserves comparatively to what it was just a year before. It also will improve ZBS is a proven scheme in the nfl and it will show in the raiders running this year.

So as i said before do i think Mcfadden will out produce AD's rookie year highly doubt it, or will he out due Peterson's year this year highly doubt it unless peterson's get injured which is still a possibility due to his injury concerns. I do think mcfadden will have a stellar rookie season and possibly get a chance to obtain OROY due to the raiders running scheme. We also cant really assume who will be better overall in the nfl until few years have passed just to early to say but Peterson has put the mark up very high.

kmartin575
05-01-2008, 11:50 PM
Yes, Petersonís best college year was when he was a freshman. After that his rushing stats decreased every year. McFadden on the other hand his rushing #s increased by about 300 yards a season after his freshman year. I like the fact the McFadden #s were improving every year and well AD #s werenít. I'm taking the more consistent player in McFadden.

Yes, Peterson`s 1,925 total rushing yards are more then McFadden ever put up, but not by much. McFaddenís 2007 career 325 attempts, 1,830 rushing yards, 5.6 avg, & 16 TDís. So basically AD ran for 95 more yards with 15 more carries the McFadden, but McFadden had 1 more TD then Peterson. Then if you were to include receiving yards, and passing yards McFadden had more total yards I believe. Then you add the fact that McFadden plays in the SEC conference which most people believe have the best defenses in college football.


It should be noted that McFadden destroyed Glen Dorseyís #1 rated defense in the country for 206 rushing yards & 3tds.


How is McFadden more consistent? If Peterson had not been injured he would have easily surpassed McFadden's numbers in every season.

Yeah, McFadden destroyed the LSU defense, only to end his career against Missouri when him and Felix Jones got completely shutdown by what would best be described as a slightly above average Missouri defense. But Tony Temple put up 280+ yards that game so I guess he is going to be an all star or something, considering success in college translates to success in the NFL in your opinion.

If you want to go strictly off of numbers then Chiefs 3rd round pick Jamaal Charles had as good of if not a better season than McFadden running the ball. I suppose he is the better player then.

CC.SD
05-02-2008, 12:08 AM
Well, we passed on Dorsey the moment we gave Kelly $18 million guaranteed and committed to him at 3 technique.

Two wrongs don't make a right though.

661rep
05-02-2008, 12:23 AM
How is McFadden more consistent? If Peterson had not been injured he would have easily surpassed McFadden's numbers in every season.

Yeah, McFadden destroyed the LSU defense, only to end his career against Missouri when him and Felix Jones got completely shutdown by what would best be described as a slightly above average Missouri defense. But Tony Temple put up 280+ yards that game so I guess he is going to be an all star or something, considering success in college translates to success in the NFL in your opinion.

If you want to go strictly off of numbers then Chiefs 3rd round pick Jamaal Charles had as good of if not a better season than McFadden running the ball. I suppose he is the better player then.

Lets see... he is more consistent because every year he put up bigger #s then the next. While AD had a big dropoff after his freshman year he went from 1,925 rushing yards in 04 to 1,108 rushing yards in 05. Thats 800 rushing yards less, and 06 his #s dropped again. AD just can't stay healthy to save his life. With the freak injuries and his running style hes not going to last very long in the league. Also how do you know if he wasn`t injured he would get more yards then McFadden? Seems like all guess work to me.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think McFadden played in the tougher conference? What do you think when you hear people saying that SEC has the best defenses in the country?

661rep
05-02-2008, 12:25 AM
Two wrongs don't make a right though.

I think someone is a little nervous that the Raiders took McFadden.

Kurve
05-02-2008, 01:19 AM
How is McFadden more consistent? If Peterson had not been injured he would have easily surpassed McFadden's numbers in every season.

Yeah, McFadden destroyed the LSU defense, only to end his career against Missouri when him and Felix Jones got completely shutdown by what would best be described as a slightly above average Missouri defense. But Tony Temple put up 280+ yards that game so I guess he is going to be an all star or something, considering success in college translates to success in the NFL in your opinion.

If you want to go strictly off of numbers then Chiefs 3rd round pick Jamaal Charles had as good of if not a better season than McFadden running the ball. I suppose he is the better player then.



in mcfadden defense, i will have to say mcfadden was much more consistent then Peterson.... injuries are calculated into consistency thus on that principle he was more productive and more consistent. Secondly while peterson was alone in the backfield for the most part, mcfadden had to share carries with felix jones and also was under the center being the QB at times. Also Mcfadden was in a much tougher division then Peterson not by much. With all said and done is a big reason why coming out of college mcfadden was a better prospect then Peterson. Not taking anything away from Peterson's college career but injuries and being suspended for grades never allowed him to truely show what kind of numbers he could of put out, with that said would of , should of, could of i guess u can say consistency was peterson's biggest problem in college even though he still put up great numbers. BTW Reggie Bush was a bigger prospect coming out then both of them but it doesnt always translates to the nfl field.

Iamcanadian
05-02-2008, 08:21 AM
AD slipped to the 6th pick because of injury concerns. In his rookie season, he was great for 9 games then guess what, injuries sidelined him for 2 games and made him pretty ineffective for 5 others, costing Minny a playoff spot.
Until AD puts together an injury free season, I'll take McFadden to have the greater impact. Love AD as a runner but face it folks, he cannot stay healthy the last 3 football seasons.

duckseason
05-02-2008, 08:42 AM
AD slipped to the 6th pick because of injury concerns. In his rookie season, he was great for 9 games then guess what, injuries sidelined him for 2 games and made him pretty ineffective for 5 others, costing Minny a playoff spot.
Until AD puts together an injury free season, I'll take McFadden to have the greater impact. Love AD as a runner but face it folks, he cannot stay healthy the last 3 football seasons.
I agree that his violent running style invites more than his share of injuries, but what you're blaming for Minny's falling short of the playoffs is the very thing that had them in contention in the first place.

Considering that all men bleed, I'll take my chances with the record-holding proven commodity.

RaiderFan
05-03-2008, 08:53 AM
I agree that his violent running style invites more than his share of injuries, but what you're blaming for Minny's falling short of the playoffs is the very thing that had them in contention in the first place.

Considering that all men bleed, I'll take my chances with the record-holding proven commodity.

The only thing AD has proven is that he can Play great for a Few Games then is Guaranteed to get injured.

eaglesfan_45
05-03-2008, 10:53 AM
This is ridiculous... What about Rashard Mendenhall... he's going to run for 1500 yards, and Willie Parker is going to run for 1500 more..

your ridiculous if you really think thats going to happen

Bruce
05-03-2008, 12:20 PM
I just don't think DMC will ever be on AD's level. Ever.

CC.SD
05-03-2008, 02:19 PM
I think someone is a little nervous that the Raiders took McFadden.

It's not me. LT gashes the Raiders every year and they passed on the best D-Tackle prospect in half a decade for another runner.

doingthisinsteadofwork
05-03-2008, 02:36 PM
In terms of rushing yards AD will probably have more. Fargas will probably be the starter going into the season.McFadden will still get alot of carries but not near enough to compete with AD.Unless Fargas gets injured AD will get alot more rushing yards.
In terms of all purpose yards McFadden could get more.He may be returning kicks and punts for us this year.As well as lining up at WR.

Dr. Gonzo
05-03-2008, 02:39 PM
In terms of rushing yards AD will probably have more. Fargas will probably be the starter going into the season.McFadden will still get alot of carries but not near enough to compete with AD.Unless Fargas gets injured AD will get alot more rushing yards.
In terms of all purpose yards McFadden could get more.He may be returning kicks and punts for us this year.As well as lining up at WR.

You forget that that the Vikins also have Taylor. Peterson won't have many more yards then McFadden but he will b much more productive. That is if he doesn't get injured. I will give him one more yar before I call him injury prone.

doingthisinsteadofwork
05-03-2008, 02:39 PM
It's not me. LT gashes the Raiders every year and they passed on the best D-Tackle prospect in half a decade for another runner.
Although Dorsey was a great prospect he wasnt the run stuffer we wanted.We already have Tommy Kelly playing UT we dont need another UT.

doingthisinsteadofwork
05-03-2008, 02:42 PM
You forget that that the Vikins also have Taylor. Peterson won't have many more yards then McFadden but he will b much more productive. That is if he doesn't get injured. I will give him one more yar before I call him injury prone.
The difference between Taylor and Fargas is that Fargas will start over McFadden where as AD will start over Taylor.

doingthisinsteadofwork
05-03-2008, 02:49 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right though.
Unless of course Terdell Sands actually plays well this season which makes your theory absolute crap.

Dr. Gonzo
05-03-2008, 02:50 PM
The difference between Taylor and Fargas is that Fargas will start over McFadden where as AD will start over Taylor.

Fair point. If you look at it though last year Taylor started over AD for the first few games and AD was getting benched a lot in the 2nd and yet he still put up monster numbers. This thread is about who will have a better year this year though so I guess that is irrelevant.

661rep
05-03-2008, 03:09 PM
It's not me. LT gashes the Raiders every year and they passed on the best D-Tackle prospect in half a decade for another runner.

Dorsey couldn't even stop McFadden in college. What makes you think he is going to stop LT and others in the NFL?

Geo
05-03-2008, 03:16 PM
The difference between Taylor and Fargas is that Fargas will start over McFadden where as AD will start over Taylor.
I do believe Taylor started the season as a starter, but eventually Peterson just won it outright with his play. Either way, it doesn't matter who starts, McFadden or Peterson could come off the bench and touch the ball more.

kmartin575
05-03-2008, 03:35 PM
Dorsey couldn't even stop McFadden in college. What makes you think he is going to stop LT and others in the NFL?

That's a bullcrap argument. So because the LSU defense couldn't stop McFadden that means Dorsey is responsible for the entire defenses lack of success and that he won't be able to stop the run in the NFL? Well I guess since McFadden was pretty much shutdown (compared to his other games) in his final game against Missouri that means Missouri's Lorenzo Williams and Ziggy Hood are going to be amazing run stoppers in the NFL. And I guess since Tony Temple put up over 280 yards on Arkansas that DT Marcus Harrison will never be able to stop the run in the NFL.

PackerLegend
05-03-2008, 08:14 PM
Neither, Ryan Grant will out rush both combined. Ok maybe not but I can hope. Peterson will likely have a better year, the Vikings O-line is better and he has a year under his belt. Although I hope McFadden has a better year because he isnt in the NFC North. Both teams have good backups who should take away some of their carries.

CC.SD
05-03-2008, 09:41 PM
Unless of course Terdell Sands actually plays well this season which makes your theory absolute crap.

Yes...yes that's true. Do you think that's gonna happen?

My only point so far in this thread is that Tommy Kelly's contract (already ridiculously bloated and ridiculous) shouldn't have prevented them from drafting unquestionably the best player on the board. Instead, Al chose a running back when his stable was actually pretty solid, not to mention Michael Bush's recovery. Picking a running back so high in a ZBS is inefficient drafting IMO anyway.

I get that they're stuck with TK but honestly move him back to end for a year or two, or god forbid have a legitimate DT rotation in a division with LT, LJ, and the never-dead-for-long Denver running game.

When they signed Deangelo Hall I knew Al wasn't gonna be able to pass on instant offense with Darren McFadden. Too much money got spent not to try and make a burst for contention. It's not a bad idea but when you are weak and pudgy in the heart of your defense it's insane to pass on a prospect like Dorsey. That's not how you win a championship in the NFL.


Of course, yes, it is POSSIBLE that is all crap, if Terdell Sands plays extremely well. That's a monster if.

RaiderFan
05-03-2008, 10:30 PM
Yes...yes that's true. Do you think that's gonna happen?

My only point so far in this thread is that Tommy Kelly's contract (already ridiculously bloated and ridiculous) shouldn't have prevented them from drafting unquestionably the best player on the board. Instead, Al chose a running back when his stable was actually pretty solid, not to mention Michael Bush's recovery. Picking a running back so high in a ZBS is inefficient drafting IMO anyway.

I get that they're stuck with TK but honestly move him back to end for a year or two, or god forbid have a legitimate DT rotation in a division with LT, LJ, and the never-dead-for-long Denver running game.

When they signed Deangelo Hall I knew Al wasn't gonna be able to pass on instant offense with Darren McFadden. Too much money got spent not to try and make a burst for contention. It's not a bad idea but when you are weak and pudgy in the heart of your defense it's insane to pass on a prospect like Dorsey. That's not how you win a championship in the NFL.


Of course, yes, it is POSSIBLE that is all crap, if Terdell Sands plays extremely well. That's a monster if.

What the hell does a charger Fan know about winning a Championship?

661rep
05-04-2008, 01:20 AM
That's a bullcrap argument. So because the LSU defense couldn't stop McFadden that means Dorsey is responsible for the entire defenses lack of success and that he won't be able to stop the run in the NFL? Well I guess since McFadden was pretty much shutdown (compared to his other games) in his final game against Missouri that means Missouri's Lorenzo Williams and Ziggy Hood are going to be amazing run stoppers in the NFL. And I guess since Tony Temple put up over 280 yards on Arkansas that DT Marcus Harrison will never be able to stop the run in the NFL.

No i'm not blaming it on Dorsey. I'm just suggesting to Mr. Charger fan that Dorsey might not be that great at stopping the run. Also McFadden killed Dorsey`s defense twice which both were very talented defenses.

661rep
05-04-2008, 01:22 AM
What the hell does a charger Fan know about winning a Championship?

LoL. ChargerCohen you might want to go give your own team your excellent advice buddy.

gdamac
05-04-2008, 03:28 AM
Sands lost multiple family members in the '06 off season, to think he can be better this year after coming into camp in shape and with a clear head. But this isn't a case of a guy getting paid then dogging it, anyway he only got $4 million guaranteed.

doingthisinsteadofwork
05-04-2008, 03:46 AM
My only point so far in this thread is that Tommy Kelly's contract (already ridiculously bloated and ridiculous) shouldn't have prevented them from drafting unquestionably the best player on the board. Instead, Al chose a running back when his stable was actually pretty solid, not to mention Michael Bush's recovery. Picking a running back so high in a ZBS is inefficient drafting IMO anyway.your right on the last part.I just hope were able to use McFadden efficiently in the passing game and return game.
Its quite clear from Kiffin that the Raiders just didnt think Dorsey was a good fit at NT.Picking a guy at #4 to play the same position as a guy your paying 55 million doesnt make sense.

I get that they're stuck with TK but honestly move him back to end for a year or two, or god forbid have a legitimate DT rotation in a division with LT, LJ, and the never-dead-for-long Denver running game.Maybe if we werent paying him 55 million we could do that but not now.Paying him to play end where he has no pass rush ability doesnt make sense.Especially when you could have him play the UT role and maybe get 7-10 sacks.
We already have Jay Richardson to play end.He does pretty well against the run to.No need to put Kelly there to do the same job as Richardson.

CC.SD
05-04-2008, 11:52 AM
Thanks for actually reading my post DTIOW. It's nice that all Raider fans aren't age 12, spending their Saturday nights trying to be "witty" on a message board.

661rep
05-05-2008, 10:55 AM
My only point so far in this thread is that Tommy Kelly's contract (already ridiculously bloated and ridiculous) shouldn't have prevented them from drafting unquestionably the best player on the board.

Unquestionably??? How do you figure Dorsey was the best player on the Raiders board???? I know Kiper had Dorsey 1, and McFadden 2 I believe. I think Scott Wright had McFadden 1 and Dorsey 3, 0r 4. I've seen many draft sites that had McFadden as the best player in the draft or above Dorsey at least. I've seen sites that had Dorsey above McFadden. Point being the Raiders probably or could have had McFadden as the higher rated prospect on their big board. Coach Kiffin even stated that they had a deal in place to move up if someone tried to jump them for McFadden. That should show you whats the Raiders thought of McFadden.

CC.SD
05-05-2008, 12:06 PM
Unquestionably??? How do you figure Dorsey was the best player on the Raiders board???? I know Kiper had Dorsey 1, and McFadden 2 I believe. I think Scott Wright had McFadden 1 and Dorsey 3, 0r 4. I've seen many draft sites that had McFadden as the best player in the draft or above Dorsey at least. I've seen sites that had Dorsey above McFadden. Point being the Raiders probably or could have had McFadden as the higher rated prospect on their big board. Coach Kiffin even stated that they had a deal in place to move up if someone tried to jump them for McFadden. That should show you whats the Raiders thought of McFadden.

The point you are trying to make is that the Raiders liked McFadden. I actually already knew that, because they freaking drafted him.

I think you will find that most draftniks had Glenn Dorsey rated as a better prospect, possibly the only elite talent in this draft. Yes, D-Mac's got speed and I like his style a lot, but running backs aren't exactly difficult to find, especially for ZBS, whereas dominating defensive tackles are very rare and valuable.

kmartin575
05-05-2008, 12:12 PM
Sands lost multiple family members in the '06 off season, to think he can be better this year after coming into camp in shape and with a clear head. But this isn't a case of a guy getting paid then dogging it, anyway he only got $4 million guaranteed.

Big freaking deal. Brett Favre lost his dad before a game against the Raiders a couple of years ago and he still smoked them. Trent Green lost his dad a couple of years ago and he did just fine afterwards. I would think a clear head is much more important for a QB.

kmartin575
05-05-2008, 12:15 PM
your right on the last part.I just hope were able to use McFadden efficiently in the passing game and return game.
Its quite clear from Kiffin that the Raiders just didnt think Dorsey was a good fit at NT.Picking a guy at #4 to play the same position as a guy your paying 55 million doesnt make sense.

Maybe if we werent paying him 55 million we could do that but not now.Paying him to play end where he has no pass rush ability doesnt make sense.Especially when you could have him play the UT role and maybe get 7-10 sacks.
We already have Jay Richardson to play end.He does pretty well against the run to.No need to put Kelly there to do the same job as Richardson.

I seriously doubt Kelly gets 7-10 sacks as a DT. Especially when except for Derrick Burgess and maybe Gerrard Warren once every few weeks there is nobody else on your roster capable of rushing the passer.

661rep
05-05-2008, 12:41 PM
The point you are trying to make is that the Raiders liked McFadden. I actually already knew that, because they freaking drafted him.

I think you will find that most draftniks had Glenn Dorsey rated as a better prospect, possibly the only elite talent in this draft. Yes, D-Mac's got speed and I like his style a lot, but running backs aren't exactly difficult to find, especially for ZBS, whereas dominating defensive tackles are very rare and valuable.

No, the point I made was some people had McFadden rated higher then Dorsey.

Draftniks ehhh? Your post have no substance whatsoever. I just looked at many draft websites which had McFadden rated higher, but let me guess they are not draftniks huh?

d34ng3l021
05-05-2008, 01:16 PM
Actually Schefter or Mayock reported a majority of teams had Dorsey as their number 1 player, and the next most amount of number 1 votes received was McFadden.