Draft Countdown Forums

Draft Countdown Forums (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/index.php)
-   Pro Football (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Darren McFadden getting a pass on criticism. (http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36217)

Halsey 10-28-2009 07:21 PM

Darren McFadden getting a pass on criticism.
 
McFadden was supposed to be a better prospect than Adrian Peterson. He hasn't done anything in Oakland. Adrian Peterson would never settle for being a backup averaging 3.1ypc.

EvilNixon 10-28-2009 07:24 PM

He can't stay healthy and is not complemented by a competent passing game.

fenikz 10-28-2009 07:25 PM

...wow did you just say DMC was a better prospect that AD?


no

RaiderNation 10-28-2009 07:27 PM

Seems like a Reggie Bush type of guy right now. Isnt good in between the tackles, but if he gets to the edge he can break it. If he can be completly healthy and have Michael Bush be our work horse, he should be able to get touches in many ways

Halsey 10-28-2009 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilNixon (Post 1856558)
He can't stay healthy and is not complemented by a competent passing game.

I thought about that too. He hasn't been all that productive even when healthy. When a guy is compared to Adrian Peterson it makes me ask myself how they would be doing if they swapped teams. I have a hard time believing Peterson would be a backup in Oakland. I also have a hard time envisioning McFadden as the best back in the league if he played in Minnesota.

Halsey 10-28-2009 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenikz (Post 1856561)
...wow did you just say DMC was a better prospect that AD?


no

Many people considered McFadden the better prospect of the two. If you deny that then you either weren't paying attention or are playing revisionist history.

fenikz 10-28-2009 07:31 PM

This is the only draft site I go to and the AD love trumps everything besides maybe Jordyz, no way anyone who saw both play regularly would think that DMC was a better RB

bored of education 10-28-2009 07:35 PM

I never liked DMC as much as AD. AD was a godly prospect even though I was a moron who likes Marshawn Lynch more. But im hyphy. it does help having a sick offensive line in Oakland. . .

EvilNixon 10-28-2009 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsey (Post 1856569)
I thought about that too. He hasn't been all that productive even when healthy. When a guy is compared to Adrian Peterson it makes me ask myself how they would be doing if they swapped teams. I have a hard time believing Peterson would be a backup in Oakland. I also have a hard time envisioning McFadden as the best back in the league if he played in Minnesota.

I can see why they are compared. Relatively tall running backs with good speed that run high,but Peterson is a far more physical runner. McFadden has proven he can't handle the bulk of the carries.

SchizophrenicBatman 10-28-2009 07:43 PM

iirc most of the smart people on this forum had either j stew or mendenhall or both ranked ahead of mcfadden

anyone who thought AD wasnt a better prospect was a fool. the ONLY thing you couldve said is that AD had injury concerns. of course, mcfadden did too with his skinny ass legs

EvilNixon 10-28-2009 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaiderNation (Post 1856567)
Seems like a Reggie Bush type of guy right now. Isnt good in between the tackles, but if he gets to the edge he can break it. If he can be completly healthy and have Michael Bush be our work horse, he should be able to get touches in many ways

Bush's size indicates he could be a workhorse,but he dances like a 5"10 185 back. Fargas is by far the most consistent runner of the group.

PoopSandwich 10-28-2009 07:45 PM

DMC gets a pass because he's on the raiders...

Shane P. Hallam 10-28-2009 07:46 PM

I don't think McFadden has quite proven that. An inability to stay healthy? yes. I'm still going to give him a bit more time. No one is AD, so he shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread.

EvilNixon 10-28-2009 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane P. Hallam (Post 1856633)
I don't think McFadden has quite proven that. An inability to stay healthy? yes. I'm still going to give him a bit more time. No one is AD, so he shouldn't even be mentioned in this thread.

He's missed 6 games in his career. I think he'll play,but will never be truly healthy. He's tall,slender,and runs high. He's far too easy to tackle to be a true feature back.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) 10-28-2009 08:00 PM

AD was the best RB prospect I've ever seen. McFadden was an excellent prospect, but I didn't have him on AD's level. Plus, Oakland is plain horrible in every way imaginable. Bad OL, no passing game, etc. He should be doing better, but he'd be a solid 4 ypc guy who is a weapon out of the backfield if he had anything close to competence around him. Still a disappointment, but yeah.

Also no one talks about him because, well... no one talks about the Raiders and he isn't holding them back or anything.

LonghornsLegend 10-28-2009 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsey (Post 1856569)
I thought about that too. He hasn't been all that productive even when healthy. When a guy is compared to Adrian Peterson it makes me ask myself how they would be doing if they swapped teams. I have a hard time believing Peterson would be a backup in Oakland. I also have a hard time envisioning McFadden as the best back in the league if he played in Minnesota.

Technically speaking McFadden isn't a back-up, he had already taken that starting job when he was healthy just prior to injury, so I don't know if I'd call him that anymore. He had overtaken Fargas and Bush at one point this year and it was obvious he was their most talented back.


Still, it looks way worse when you realize what type of back he is, and know that you can get guys like CJ and Felix Jones to do what he does much later without spending a top 10 pick. Still, I don't really give any 1st round pick by Oakland much of a chance, when they continually draft bust in the top 10 it makes me think it's more to do with the situation so much the player.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH 10-28-2009 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend (Post 1856676)
Technically speaking McFadden isn't a back-up, he had already taken that starting job when he was healthy just prior to injury, so I don't know if I'd call him that anymore. He had overtaken Fargas and Bush at one point this year and it was obvious he was their most talented back.


Still, it looks way worse when you realize what type of back he is, and know that you can get guys like CJ and Felix Jones to do what he does much later without spending a top 10 pick. Still, I don't really give any 1st round pick by Oakland much of a chance, when they continually draft bust in the top 10 it makes me think it's more to do with the situation so much the player.

Now this begs the question that if Crabtree was drafted by the Raiders, would he have been a bust? He's shown with limited practice that he's a very good player and even with JaMarcus Russell at QB, I think Crabtree would've succeeded there.

EvilNixon 10-28-2009 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffSamardzijaIRISH (Post 1856682)
Now this begs the question that if Crabtree was drafted by the Raiders, would he have been a bust? He's shown with limited practice that he's a very good player and even with JaMarcus Russell at QB, I think Crabtree would've succeeded there.

A 5 yard throw is an adventure with JaWalrus.

Paranoidmoonduck 10-28-2009 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsey (Post 1856544)
Adrian Peterson would never settle for being a backup averaging 3.1ypc.

We'll likely never know what Peterson would "settle" for unless the Vikings offense starts playing like Oakland's.

McFadden is still easily the most dangerous player on that offense. He just can't stay healthy.

Thecollegedropout 10-28-2009 08:40 PM

Hutchinson alone is a better O-Line than what the Raiders have put out the past 2 years......

A RB can only go as far as the O-Line will let them and if the O-Line isn't doing anything.....than you can't expect the RB to make much happen.

brat316 10-28-2009 08:44 PM

the raiders just suck so much as a franchise.

Halsey 10-28-2009 08:46 PM

If a RB was only as good as his line then that means any back could run as well behind Minnesota's line as Peterson does. Do you really believe any RB in the league would be as good as Peterson if they played for Minnesota? Conversely, If Peterson ran behind Oakland's line, do you really believe Peterson would average 3.1ypc? Really? Come on now.

EvilNixon 10-28-2009 08:51 PM

Chester Taylor ran for 1200 yards before Peterson was drafted,and he's little more than a good third down back.

Thecollegedropout 10-28-2009 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halsey (Post 1856762)
If a RB was only as good as his line then that means any back could run as well behind Minnesota's line as Peterson does. Do you really believe any RB in the league would be as good as Peterson if they played for Minnesota? Conversely, If Peterson ran behind Oakland's line, do you really believe Peterson would average 3.1ypc? Really? Come on now.

Obviously there is talent involved in regards to RBs but you see systems like Denver where the likes of Ron Dayne and Reuben Droughns can get themselves good seasons.

I do think that a lot of RBs can run well behind the Vikings O-Line but just won't produce what All Day has done. I don't think that many RBs can have good seasons under the crippled and weak Raiders O-Line however though......Maybe even Peterson.

Halsey 10-28-2009 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilNixon (Post 1856774)
Chester Taylor ran for 1200 yards before Peterson was drafted,and he's little more than a good third down back.

Peterson ran for 1,760 yards last year.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.