Raiders don't need McFadden
On-record draft talk by NFL coaches should be taken with an ocean's worth of salt. With that said, Lane Kiffin's comments Tuesday about Darren McFadden are spot on: They don't have a need at running back.
Justin Fargas, Dominic Rhodes, and Michael Bush represent a significant investment at running back. Practically the only thing Oakland did well last year was run block and churn up yards on the ground. They have much bigger needs.
There are reports that Oakland's number four pick will be for sale, but it's unlikely anyone will want to move up that high. Kiffin's comment could be seen as another chapter in the coaches squabble with Al Davis (Davis is rumored to love McFadden), but he's telling the truth. That doesn't mean Davis will listen.
Comments
Gregg - your last sentence is the most important one.
The best move for the Raiders would be to select McFadden and then auction off his rights.
Of course that would take some guile and forethought, which Al Davis lost the aptitude for such some time ago.
Posted by: endzoneview | April 1, 2008 02:31 PM
The key point I saw was that the running game was the only thing Oakland had going for it last year. They've got HUGE needs elsewhere and I'm not yet convinced that Davis is crazy enough to overlook that (I'll give him 3 weeks to prove me wrong, though).
I see two scenarios here: 1) the punditry thinks that Al is too loony to see his team's needs, he'll go in another direction, and everyone will be shocked; or 2) this is all about trying to sell the opportunity to get DMc and the internal strife between Lane and Al has gotten so bad that Kiffin is trying to give away the Raider's strategy on his way out the door, supposing Kiffin is telling the truth (though I doubt its a well kept secret among league GM offices).
My guess: Raiders take whichever of the 4 top linemen who fall to them (the Longs, Dorsey or Ellis). If they get the right guy at 4 (and a WR in the 2nd) and Russell develops, they're likely the second best team in the AFC west.
Posted by: Chad Ferguson | April 1, 2008 03:49 PM
The Raiders do not currently have a 2nd round pick (or a 3rd or a 5th), so trading down and getting more picks seems like the best route. It would give them the chance to get a lineman in the 1st and that WR to help Russell later.
But I think that strategy would change if they get rid of Fabian Washington for some sort of draft pick.
Running Back is not a need, while that defensive line needs to start stopping people.
Posted by: daniel lopez | April 1, 2008 08:18 PM
Hey Greg,
Did the Vikings have a need last April for a RB when they had Chester Taylor coming off a 1200 yard rushing season?? According to your logic, they shouldn't have drafted Adrian Peterson.
Posted by: Abhay | April 1, 2008 09:18 PM
Abhay,
The difference is the Vikings had a top 5 O-line for Peterson to run behind. Its a difficult prospect to bring in a top runner and have him do what AP did behind a rag-tag bunch without a passing game. I don't think Oakland's line can handle 9 in the box all game.
Posted by: Chad Ferguson | April 1, 2008 09:48 PM
The way I see it, the Raiders actually did something right by re-signing Fargas. They have the best running back from last year (Fargas), a veteran presence (Rhodes) and a future back (Bush).
After paying JaMarcus Russell a huge contract and paying monstrous contracts in free agency, I can't imagine Al Davis wanting to add yet another blockbuster contract. It would be a perfect scenario for the Raiders to trade out.
Posted by: endzoneview | April 1, 2008 09:56 PM
Chad,
While the Vikings do have a top 5 O-Line to run behind, the Raiders boasted the number 6 rushing attack last season so I wouldn't call them a rag-tag bunch.
And in terms of a passing game, are you saying Minnesota actually has one with Tavaris Jackson??
Posted by: Abhay | April 2, 2008 12:28 AM