clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Oakland Raider Draft News: 2009 NFL Draft Grades: Oakland Raiders

New, comments

I am beginning to laugh at these "so called" experts that rank our draft as an F.

IN fact, our own, Mocking the Draft has the Raiders at a .33 out of 4.0 on their Draft Grades:

 

They took the combination of Three Polls and gave each team a GPA.

USA Today ranked the Raiders as the ONLY "F" in the Draft:

 

• Oakland Raiders: WR Darrius Heyward-Bey seventh? He disappeared for games at a time, is not a well-rounded receiver but boasts the key Raider attribute — straight-line speed. Just a huge reach and not enough value here. Same for S Michael Mitchell, taken in the second round but mostly considered a much later pick, though the Chicago Bears said they liked him two picks after Oakland's. WR Louis Murphy blossomed as a senior, OK pick in fourth. LB Slade Norris nothing special.

 

Anyone who watches tape of Mitchell, unlike Mayock before he opened his trap, has got to see what the Cowboys, Bears and Raiders saw. The kid is a BEAST. He has incredible timing and can force fumbles, incompletions and trips to the Hospital. He is exactly what this team needs in the secondary. IN fact, what team doesn't need a fast thumper with great instincts patroling the defensive backfield?

Louis Murphy, even from the haters was seen as a great value pick, yet he is called OK.

 

CBS Gives The Raiders a "D":

 

  • Best pick: Darius Heyward-Bey. Yes, their first pick. Most think they should have taken Michael Crabtree, but they picked the right guy.
  • Questionable move: Taking safety Mike Mitchell in the second round. He was over-drafted, but maybe all the analysts and scouts missed.
  • Second-day gem: Wide receiver Louis Murphy has good speed and will prove to be a nice value pick in the fifth round.
  •  

    Then There is The ESPN Fan Nation Who Gave The Raiders an "F":

     

    How can the Nation hate so much, when the HATERS even gave us a D?

     

    Fan House Also Gave The Raiders an "F":

     

    It seems that they think that drafting "Raider Types" is a bad thing. How is speed, heart and a great motor a bad thing in a weak draft?

    How is drafting DHB worthy of an F? He is a great system fit and is currently J-Russ's most dynamic weapon?

    How is drafting players who can get to the QB from the LB position and a safety that reminds me of Jack Tatum a bad thing?

    How is taking a 2nd Round talent at WR in the 4th a bad thing?

    How is getting a blocking TE, for once, that will allow Zack Miller to run more routes a bad thing?

    These are the players that we drafted and the holes they will fill, yet DHB should have been passed over for a Kid with an ego the size of Jupiter and a foot that is still mending and the Raiders should have selected Terdell Sands II (Ron Brace) instead of addressing their need for a hard hitting safety?

    Give me a BREAK!?!?

    Ask anyone who was at the Warehouse on Saturday, I was in a daze for hours after DHB was the pick. Then, once I either put on my rose colored glasses and drank the Kool-Aid or watched tape of our two picks and looked at their selections in perspective I started to become a believer in our Top II picks.

    I would grade our draft as a B, because we didn't get a FB or DT, but we did address the rest of our needs and you know that J-Russ now has ample weapons and our defense will be better next year. That is a success, not a failure, as an "F" would indicate.

    Go ahead and say that I'm drinking the Kool-AId, heck, maybe I am, but I think that this draft class will definitely prove the haters wrong and with a couple of key Veteran Pick-ups I expect this draft to help immensely in our pursuit of the AFC West Crown.