First point I want to make is that draft grades this early are absolutely absurd. Its about as accurate as Mock Drafts usually are. If you want to have a fun conversation about the relevance of mock drafts just get our own Mallard Davis going!
Now that I got that disclaimer out of the way I want to say that the draft grades I have been reading and hearing towards this year's draft (Realistically every year immediately after the draft) for the Raiders have really annoyed me. All these so called professionals are grading the Raiders like they had full drafts to work with. Its absurd to grade this year's Raiders draft as if they had first and second round picks when they did not.
The average grade that I have seen is a C grade or lower and I just find that so frustrating. I try to ignore anti-Raider bias and think of it as if it doesn't exist (TRY is the key word) but when things like this come up its really hard to come to a different conclusion.
I mean seriously, we got a possible immediate starter on the line with Tony Bergstrom which also was a position of need with the very last pick of the 3rd round. That pick essentially is a 4th rounder so getting a possible starter on the line is a great pick that late. Then we addressed another position of need with quality depth and somebody who graded highly by most pre draft ratings with Miles Burris. Then we got a player who many are calling one of the major sleepers in the draft with Crawford from Penn State.That is not even mentioning the possible steal of the draft with Juron Criner out of AZ.
Those picks alone are all solid and all have the potential to start games for us eventually. What more could we have done with what we had to work with? We had 6 picks in the draft and we managed to get 3 or 4 possible eventual starters. That is impressive to me. It is not a C draft to me. I am not paid to give my 2 cents on sports so maybe I am the ignorant one though. All I know is that if 50% of the players that you drafted have a real chance to be starters within a couple years then your draft was not a dud, which is exactly what NFL.com once again would have you believe.
I am biased of course as most of you already know. I am one of the most annoyingly optimistic homers on this site, but does that make me wrong on this? Considering the draft picks we had to work with I simply can not be OK with the Raiders being paraded out like we screwed the pooch on this draft. We did almost as good as we could have, minus a nose tackle being included.
To have the Raiders be one of the teams mentioned in the title of an article like "Draft duds? Saints, Rams, Raiders among poorly graded teams"" after this draft is just wrong to me. You can't just look at the players that were taken and not take into account what round they were taken in. I am more mad about being included in a title like that than I am about the C grade itself though. We shouldn't even be in the article, let alone in the title of it.
Luckily, draft grades right now are simply pure speculation! We will see whose draft was really a dud in a few years, and I would bet that the Raiders 2012 draft will not be on that list.