GRADE YOUR TEAMS DRAFT......

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Oct 31, 2003
4,485
824
0
46
SAN DIEGO
SOUTHEASTSANDIEGO.COM
#1
post up a grade for your teams...and a short explanation as to why u gave that grade....


CHARGERS: C

they didnt draft a "sure pick/sexy pick" in fact they drafted a bunch of no names. Larry English is a stud and i believe could be a solid player. the patriots were ready to draft him so the chargers panicked and took him at 16 which is too early for me. also he plays olb which we happen to have to of the better ones in the league. But it makes since especially with contracts coming up next season....
 
Aug 9, 2006
6,298
56
48
35
#2
larry english will plug in and with merriman still a ? he was decent pick......still a reach but when you got the raiders reaching for thin air at 7 its going to be overshadowed

ill give the titans a b-....dont know much about our first overall but he is graded highly and a few of the gurus think he can come in and make the quickest impact at ROOKIE WR...i liked rounds 3-4 the most......
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#3
First two draft picks were brilliant, AND we stole a 1st round pick from Denver in NEXT year's draft.

The middle rounds were head scratchers to say the least. Deion Butler? Mike TEEL???

However, the 7th round pickups were very good, IMO. Nick Reed, Courtney Greene, and Cameron Morrah (talk about a steal).

Seattle: B-
 
Apr 5, 2003
2,910
20
38
#4
post up a grade for your teams...and a short explanation as to why u gave that grade....


CHARGERS: C

they didnt draft a "sure pick/sexy pick" in fact they drafted a bunch of no names. Larry English is a stud and i believe could be a solid player. the patriots were ready to draft him so the chargers panicked and took him at 16 which is too early for me. also he plays olb which we happen to have to of the better ones in the league. But it makes since especially with contracts coming up next season....
This
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,282
113
#5
ill give the titans a b-....dont know much about our first overall but he is graded highly and a few of the gurus think he can come in and make the quickest impact at ROOKIE WR...i liked rounds 3-4 the most......
Seattle chose Mike Teel in the 6th round, the QB for Ritgers last year. He has been average his whole career, and had Ray Rice to ease the pressure in 2007. IN 2008, he had no Rice, and was called upon to run the offense as a senior. His first 5 games or so were DREADFUL, but had a fantastic run out of the season, emassing 10 TD's and only 1 pick. Why did this happen? Becuase he had one of the best WR duo's in the nation with Britt and Underwood.

Britt is prototype NFL size with soft hands, but lacks real crisp route running. He has a great target like Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson, but isnt as skilled as those two, obviously. It was a decent pick for the Titans, although i think it was a bit early to take Britt.
 
Jan 28, 2005
2,939
7
0
#6
Lions: I've got no fucking clue. Essentially I have to give them A- if only for the fact that ANYBODY THEY DRAFT is an improvement. That tight end Pettigrew is a big dude, and it looks like he can move after the catch. I seen video of Delmas just smashin' on mfkrs in college, but playing S in the NFL is a whole different ball game.

Stafford has always seemed over-rated to me, even at UGA (one of the few things I Pukokeki and I have ever agreed on in this forum). We dont have the pieces to surround him and make him an effective quarterback for next season. It's like starting a chess game with only a queen and a bishop, nothing else.

And tell me why in the fuck Detroit is paying this guy 41.7M as the first pick, and every damn football 'expert' you see on any given channel pretty much agrees Mark Sanchez will assimilate easier into the NFL system than Stafford, and ultimately have a better career?

I know one thing- Stafford isn't as good a QB as Matt Ryan, but he's getting paid a lot more.

With the bread we're giving this kid he should show up and steal the job away from Culpepper and keep us at least at .500, but with Culpepper's RIDICULOUS off-season work outs dropping almost 40lbs, Matthew Stafford is probably gonna hang out on the bench for the next season and collect something like $9,000,000 dollars.

oh yeah, and can someone explain this: Stafford gets 71M if he makes the pro bowl every year of his contract. Is it a season by season basis? Meaning if he sits this year, starts the next, doesn't make the pro bowl, but the 3rd season gets a pro bowl selection- will he just collect like a 6.7M bonus for that pro bowl year?
 
Jun 1, 2002
7,358
14
0
44
#7
B-

HERE'S WHY:

DHB IS AN ADMITTED REACH AT #7 OVERALL, BUT I THINK HE FIT OUR SCHEME MORE THAN CRABTREE. PLUS, CRABTREE OBVIOUSLY DID NOT WANT TO COME TO OAKLAND AND MADE THAT CLEAR, SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BAD IDEA TO DRAFT HIM. ALL IN ALL, I THINK THIS WAS ACTUALLY A SAFE PICK FOR US. WE NEEDED A BIG WIDEOUT WITH ELITE SPEED FOR RUSSELL. WE WENT OUT AND GOT HIM.

MITCHELL WAS GOOD PICK. DUDE IS A FEROCIOUS HITTER AND A HGH CHARACTER GUY. SOMEONE WHO UNBENOWNST TO SOME CATS ON THIS FORUM, WAS MOVING QUICKLY UP IN THE DAYS BEFORE THE DRAFT. WE MIGHT HAVE TAKEN HIM A BIT EARLY BUT CHIGACO WAS POISED TO STRIKE SO WE HAD NO CHOICE.

LOUIS MURPHY WAS ANOTHER SOLID SELECTION AT WIDEOUT. ANOTHER STARTING QUALITY GUY WITH SIZE, SPEED AND PERHAPS BETTER HANDS THAN DHB? (I HOPE NOT.)

BOTH SHAUNESSY AND SULAK WERE SOLID PICKS AT DE. I LIKE HOW WE’RE ADDRESSING OUR LACK OF DEPTH AFTER BURGESS BY SELECTING 2 DE’S IN THE MID ROUNDS. BURGESS AINT GETTING NO YOUNGER AND BESIDES TREVOR SCOTT AS A ROTATIONAL PLAYER, AND JAY RICHARDSON HAVING A DECENT DAY HERE AND THERE WE NEEDED DEPTH AT THIS POSITION.

WE NEEDED DEPTH AT TE TOO. AFTER ZACH MILLER THE DROP-OFF IS PRETTY STEEP.

ONLY REASON I GIVE THIS DRAFT A B- IS THAT WE PROBABLY COULD’VE TRADED BACK AND STILL GRABBED DHB PLUS ANOTHER GOOD PLAYER. I GUESS WE WANTED HIM THAT BAD..
 
Feb 22, 2007
228
3
0
37
#8
C+ Vikings

Wanted Macklin but gay ass philly traded up to take him i don't think Percy Harvin will ever live up to his potential, Only Pick I liked was filling our need at OT
 

Tony

Sicc OG
May 15, 2002
13,165
970
113
46
#11
B-

HERE'S WHY:

DHB IS AN ADMITTED REACH AT #7 OVERALL, BUT I THINK HE FIT OUR SCHEME MORE THAN CRABTREE. PLUS, CRABTREE OBVIOUSLY DID NOT WANT TO COME TO OAKLAND AND MADE THAT CLEAR, SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BAD IDEA TO DRAFT HIM. ALL IN ALL, I THINK THIS WAS ACTUALLY A SAFE PICK FOR US. WE NEEDED A BIG WIDEOUT WITH ELITE SPEED FOR RUSSELL. WE WENT OUT AND GOT HIM.

MITCHELL WAS GOOD PICK. DUDE IS A FEROCIOUS HITTER AND A HGH CHARACTER GUY. SOMEONE WHO UNBENOWNST TO SOME CATS ON THIS FORUM, WAS MOVING QUICKLY UP IN THE DAYS BEFORE THE DRAFT. WE MIGHT HAVE TAKEN HIM A BIT EARLY BUT CHIGACO WAS POISED TO STRIKE SO WE HAD NO CHOICE.

LOUIS MURPHY WAS ANOTHER SOLID SELECTION AT WIDEOUT. ANOTHER STARTING QUALITY GUY WITH SIZE, SPEED AND PERHAPS BETTER HANDS THAN DHB? (I HOPE NOT.)

BOTH SHAUNESSY AND SULAK WERE SOLID PICKS AT DE. I LIKE HOW WE’RE ADDRESSING OUR LACK OF DEPTH AFTER BURGESS BY SELECTING 2 DE’S IN THE MID ROUNDS. BURGESS AINT GETTING NO YOUNGER AND BESIDES TREVOR SCOTT AS A ROTATIONAL PLAYER, AND JAY RICHARDSON HAVING A DECENT DAY HERE AND THERE WE NEEDED DEPTH AT THIS POSITION.

WE NEEDED DEPTH AT TE TOO. AFTER ZACH MILLER THE DROP-OFF IS PRETTY STEEP.

ONLY REASON I GIVE THIS DRAFT A B- IS THAT WE PROBABLY COULD’VE TRADED BACK AND STILL GRABBED DHB PLUS ANOTHER GOOD PLAYER. I GUESS WE WANTED HIM THAT BAD..
I'll give us a B+! I thought we should have drafted an offensive lineman in the 3rd round, hopefully we still don't get beat up in the trenches. I agree, DHB is a reach at 7 but I think the Raiders didn't want to take any chances since he was the dude they really wanted.
 
Apr 10, 2006
513
0
0
38
#13
You raiders fans are as delusional as Al Davis. Your first 2 picks were the laughing stock of every fan. If you guys wanted DHB so bad you guys should have at least traded down. Mitchell as 2nd rounder was bad because there were better players out there at the time and he was expected to go in the later rounds
 
Jun 18, 2005
2,398
44
0
#14
I'll give us a B+! I thought we should have drafted an offensive lineman in the 3rd round, hopefully we still don't get beat up in the trenches. I agree, DHB is a reach at 7 but I think the Raiders didn't want to take any chances since he was the dude they really wanted.
DAMN 'TONY' I FINALLY AGREED WITH U ON $OMETHING.........NOT THE GRADE BUT THE NECE$$ITY OF O-LINEMAN. IMO BOTH BAY TEAM$ $HOULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ELITE LINEMAN 2 HELP PROTECT THE QB.........
 
Jun 1, 2002
7,358
14
0
44
#17
You raiders fans are as delusional as Al Davis. Your first 2 picks were the laughing stock of every fan. If you guys wanted DHB so bad you guys should have at least traded down. Mitchell as 2nd rounder was bad because there were better players out there at the time and he was expected to go in the later rounds

YOU'RE A NINER FAN PROBABLY SO WE CAN'T EVEN EXPECT YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE RAIDERS IN A LOGICAL WAY.

ALSO: TEAMS WERE AFTER MITCHEL. DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE YOU SPEAK.
 
Jun 1, 2002
7,358
14
0
44
#20
lol at the raiders and cowboys being anything but [email protected] had him rated in the 3rd...no one said they would take him in the 3rd...raiders had one of the worst drafts in recent memory
Bears targeted S Mitchell before Raiders nabbed him

The Raiders created quite a stir Saturday when they drafted Ohio safety Michael Mitchell in the second round, drawing criticism from numerous television pundits and journalists alike. But there was a method to the Raiders’ perceived madness.

Outsiders might have been surprised by Mitchell’s selection, but he was rapidly moving up draft boards. Raiders coach Tom Cable said Mitchell had visited as many as 15 teams during the past three weeks.

The Bears told Mitchell to wait by the phone because they planned to take him with the No. 49 overall selection (the same pick that the Bears dangled to the Cardinals in a trade offer for WR Anquan Boldin.) Mitchell told the media he believed he would be a Bear (via the Raiders’ official Web site):

“I was thinking about going to Chicago, because they told me to stay close to my phone. Oakland was able to get to 47 and thought there was still a chance there. It’s just so amazing how this happened and worked out, I’m just pumped.”
Bears general manager Jerry Angelo told the Chicago Tribune that after Ohio State WR Brian Robiskie (another player whom the Bears had targeted) went to the Browns and Mitchell was taken by the Raiders, it was time to move out of the second round:

“Unfortunately the players we targeted at 49 did not fall to us and we weren’t in a position that we were able to move up we just didn’t have enough,” Angelo said