McFadden's value in Oakland? (1 Viewer)

[Lab]

I've seen a lot of recent mocks putting Darren McFadden in Oakland. What do you think of his FF value in 2008 and beyond if he goes to Oakland? My first thought was that it kills McFadden's value to go to Oakland because Oakland's got a weak offense, defenses will stack the box and force Russell to beat them, and McFadden will face (some) competition from Bush and Fargas. However, I just looked up Oakland's combined RB stats for 2007 and was surprised to see that Oakland RBs totaled 1887 rushing yards (6th best, behind only MN, Jxn, NYG, SD, & Pitt) and 671 receiving yards (9th best). Maybe this just means that Oakland was running the ball a lot because they had no solid QB play, but the totals are still pretty good if one RB can capture a majority of the yards.

What do you think? Would McFadden do well in Oakland?

By the way, I am NOT trying to start another thread about whether McFadden is likely bust or a once-in-a-generation player. I think we've debated that one enough. I am really trying to focus on whether Oakland is a decent spot for a good first-round rookie RB. For purposes of this thread, I am assuming that McFadden will be a very good NFL RB (worthy of a first-round pick), but not a bust and not a once-in-a-lifetime talent.

Thoughts appreciated.

 

[gianmarco]

I think perception-wise, it will hurt his value and may cause him to fall. However, I think IF he gets the starting job there, he can do well with it. But, while Fargas is far from a lock to start, it would be a hurdle I think if Fargas starts off strong again. Just depends on how they intend to use him.

I think the best landing spot for McFadden at this point is the NYJ.

 

[EBF]

Oakland is a volatile situation. Russell could be great or he could be a total flop. The same could be said for the Raider offense as a whole. They could be quite good with Russell/McFadden/Walker/Curry/Higgins/Miller. They could also be terrible. Few of those guys are known quantities at this point.

I think Houston is the best possible landing spot for a rookie RB this year. Whoever steps into that situation has a pretty decent shot of top 10 type numbers.

 

[massraider]

I don't think it's the ideal spot for any player, and I think the reason it is a major risk is because the fate of Kiffin, and the line coach Tom Cable, is unknown. Basically, no one knows what will happen with Kiffin; and if Kiffin goes, does the O-line coach leave as well? No one knows. From a dynasty standpoint, it's a good bet Kiffin doesn't make it beyond next year, there's just been too much smoke for there to be no fire. It pains me to type that. But there is a long, long history of Davis keeping assistant coaches, and if Cable stays for good, it's very good news for whoever is carrying the ball.

Let's say that the coaching staff is staying, or at least the line coach. The Raiders run a zone blocking system, like the one Denver made famous, and the one that made legit starters out of Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Justin Fargas, and Ryan Grant.

Is McFadden a good fit for the ZBS? I don't know, it's a specific skill set that makes a runner great in a ZBS, and I think it is easier to project linemen for the system than runners. Does DMC have the discipline and patience to fit into the system?

As to it being a bad situation because teams will stack the box, I think people need to look at last years team, painful as that is. Fargas ran for 1,000 yards while starting 7 games. Does anyone think Josh McCown and Daunte Culpepper made defenses afraid? Teams were playing the run last year. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see defenses respect Russell more than either of those two. The Raiders had an all-time bad O-line two years ago, and Cable, in one year, made hem above average. It was the coaching job of the year, IMO. Now the players have a year under their belt, are going into camp with a lot more positions sorted out, and trust the scheme. So why would the running game suddenly stall by installing Russell over two QBs that scared no one?

 

[massraider]

Forgot to add, in case anyone hasn't read my numerous posts on this already, I think no way in H-E-double-Hockey-Sticks do the Raiders take McFadden.

 

[kevinallen]

Per Rotoworld:

SI.com's Jim Trotter was told "in passing" by a Raiders employee last year that owner Al Davis is "infatuated" with Darren McFadden.

Of Oakland potentially taking McFadden No. 4 overall, a source familiar with the Raiders' situation said he could "definitely see that happening." The Raiders' offseason investments on defense seemingly make it a bit more likely that they'll use their first-round pick on an offensive player.

 

[Raider Nation]

Forgot to add, I think no way in H-E-double-Hockey-Sticks do the Raiders take McFadden.

I wish I could share your conviction on this matter. Al likes shiny new toys.

 

[Knight who says Ni]

I thought one of the few bright spots on the Raiders last year was the running game - Lamont Jordan ran well in the beginning and Fargas had a great stretch himself before he got injured. If there was a glimmer of FF hope for that team I would say it would be with the starting RB's

Ni

 

[Jedimaster21]

If Kiffin and the coaching staff stays, I think it could be a great situation for a RB. Kiffin/Knapp have shown that they will run the ball often and effectively with Fargas and Lamont Jordan. Even though I am not the biggest fan of McFadden, if the system stays in place, he could go to places that are much worse for a rookie RB.

Having said that, there are questions on whether Kiffin stays, so the volatility of the situation is a little scary.

 

[massraider]

Per Rotoworld:SI.com's Jim Trotter was told "in passing" by a Raiders employee last year that owner Al Davis is "infatuated" with Darren McFadden.Of Oakland potentially taking McFadden No. 4 overall, a source familiar with the Raiders' situation said he could "definitely see that happening." The Raiders' offseason investments on defense seemingly make it a bit more likely that they'll use their first-round pick on an offensive player.

Last season, we were told that no fewer than 3 different players were "locks" for the #1 spot, that the Raiders had contract discussions with Quinn, and that Al Davis could never pass on Calvin Johnson, because Al loves freaky athletes, and that Al would never, ever wait around for a rookie QB.............................I maintained last year that Russell was the pick, and that they had no interest in Peterson. Now, they've added Michael Bush, and Fargas emerges as a 1,000 yard rusher, and the Raiders are gonna pass on a player like Gholston to take a running back, one with even more questions than Peterson? Nah, I don't think so.I think Gholston is the guy, barring some kind of Ryan/J. Long/Dorsey miracle, in which case it'd be Son of Howie. If you look at what Al Davis drafts historically, Gholston fits the mold better than McFadden. Oh, and the Raiders currently have two defensive ends on the roster. It is a crying need, with two elite prospects in this draft. Al Davis likes freaky, speedy athletes? Doesn't get much freakier than Gholston.

 

[IM666]

If Oakland drafted McFadden, I fear it would hurt Bush's value more than McFadden's or Fargas's.

 

[Lab]

I don't think it's the ideal spot for any player, and I think the reason it is a major risk is because the fate of Kiffin, and the line coach Tom Cable, is unknown. Basically, no one knows what will happen with Kiffin; and if Kiffin goes, does the O-line coach leave as well? No one knows. From a dynasty standpoint, it's a good bet Kiffin doesn't make it beyond next year, there's just been too much smoke for there to be no fire. It pains me to type that. But there is a long, long history of Davis keeping assistant coaches, and if Cable stays for good, it's very good news for whoever is carrying the ball.Let's say that the coaching staff is staying, or at least the line coach. The Raiders run a zone blocking system, like the one Denver made famous, and the one that made legit starters out of Olandis Gary, Mike Anderson, Justin Fargas, and Ryan Grant.Is McFadden a good fit for the ZBS? I don't know, it's a specific skill set that makes a runner great in a ZBS, and I think it is easier to project linemen for the system than runners. Does DMC have the discipline and patience to fit into the system? As to it being a bad situation because teams will stack the box, I think people need to look at last years team, painful as that is. Fargas ran for 1,000 yards while starting 7 games. Does anyone think Josh McCown and Daunte Culpepper made defenses afraid? Teams were playing the run last year. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to see defenses respect Russell more than either of those two. The Raiders had an all-time bad O-line two years ago, and Cable, in one year, made hem above average. It was the coaching job of the year, IMO. Now the players have a year under their belt, are going into camp with a lot more positions sorted out, and trust the scheme. So why would the running game suddenly stall by installing Russell over two QBs that scared no one?

Wow. Thanks. This is exactly the sort of in-depth analysis I was hoping for. Also, many thanks to all the others that have responded so far -- these are all insightful comments, and not the sort of "McFadden's a fraud!" stuff that I was afraid of getting. This board continues to impress me. Thanks again.

 

[B Maverick]

I think perception-wise, it will hurt his value and may cause him to fall. However, I think IF he gets the starting job there, he can do well with it. But, while Fargas is far from a lock to start, it would be a hurdle I think if Fargas starts off strong again. Just depends on how they intend to use him.

I think the best landing spot for McFadden at this point is the NYJ.

I have seen this a few times, why do people think that a rookie RB coming in would be better suited to take over for Leon Washington and Thomas Jones then for Fargas, Bush and Rhodes?I would think that perception of the backfield would show Oak has the more immediate need where a rb could establish himself as a starter.

 

[gianmarco]

I think perception-wise, it will hurt his value and may cause him to fall. However, I think IF he gets the starting job there, he can do well with it. But, while Fargas is far from a lock to start, it would be a hurdle I think if Fargas starts off strong again. Just depends on how they intend to use him.

I think the best landing spot for McFadden at this point is the NYJ.

I have seen this a few times, why do people think that a rookie RB coming in would be better suited to take over for Leon Washington and Thomas Jones then for Fargas, Bush and Rhodes?I would think that perception of the backfield would show Oak has the more immediate need where a rb could establish himself as a starter.

Because of the pieces in NY vs. Oakland. They have Mangold and just signed Faneca and Tony Richardson. I highly doubt they're setting all that up for T. Jones.

 

[KellysHeroes]

I think perception-wise, it will hurt his value and may cause him to fall. However, I think IF he gets the starting job there, he can do well with it. But, while Fargas is far from a lock to start, it would be a hurdle I think if Fargas starts off strong again. Just depends on how they intend to use him.

I think the best landing spot for McFadden at this point is the NYJ.

I have seen this a few times, why do people think that a rookie RB coming in would be better suited to take over for Leon Washington and Thomas Jones then for Fargas, Bush and Rhodes?I would think that perception of the backfield would show Oak has the more immediate need where a rb could establish himself as a starter.

Because of the pieces in NY vs. Oakland. They have Mangold and just signed Faneca and Tony Richardson. I highly doubt they're setting all that up for T. Jones.

I have been saying it for a while now... Jets need to draft RB this yr; and if DMac is there at 6... please take him.TJ will be 30 when the season starts; thats the magic age for RBs... and TJ is not a dogde a bullet... hes a punishing type of back.

Draft DMac... rookies always do better when they have a mentior infront of them; someone to help them along the way and take some pressure off. Then, 2009, its DMac and Leon.

and the signing of 28 yr old Jesse Chatman for the league min means nothing... the guy was #3 or 4 on the fins depth chart last yr; right below smokey.

The Jets are building for a nice little Run; I like TJ.. but I don't want to walk into the season depending on a 30 yr old back w/ Leon and Chatman as his primary back ups.

 

[kremenull]

Oakland is a volatile situation. Russell could be great or he could be a total flop. The same could be said for the Raider offense as a whole. They could be quite good with Russell/McFadden/Walker/Curry/Higgins/Miller. They could also be terrible. Few of those guys are known quantities at this point. I think Houston is the best possible landing spot for a rookie RB this year. Whoever steps into that situation has a pretty decent shot of top 10 type numbers.

Sorry my man, I believe you're pretty sound with most of your takes........but this is not one of them. You're either a player or you're not a player. It doesn't matter where you go, the cream will rise. Now it might not happen on our (fantasy-leaguers) impatient timeframe, but good (and great) players will be good regardless of situation......e.g., Barry Sanders. When Tomlinson went to S.D., and I do recall, their o-line was nothing and the team was crappy. This didn't stop him from succeeding. M.Lynch did well in Buffalo last season....I would not consider the Bills to be world-beaters. Ronnie Brown was lights out this past season before he got hurt. And MIA was horrible along the o-line and overall.....Most everyone was gung-ho about Cedric Benson going to CHI.......and he's turned out to be a bum. If McFadden goes to OAK, NYJ, HOU, DEN, or wherever, it doesn't matter. The end result will be based on McFadden not the situation.

 

[EBF]

Oakland is a volatile situation. Russell could be great or he could be a total flop. The same could be said for the Raider offense as a whole. They could be quite good with Russell/McFadden/Walker/Curry/Higgins/Miller. They could also be terrible. Few of those guys are known quantities at this point. I think Houston is the best possible landing spot for a rookie RB this year. Whoever steps into that situation has a pretty decent shot of top 10 type numbers.

Sorry my man, I believe you're pretty sound with most of your takes........but this is not one of them. You're either a player or you're not a player. It doesn't matter where you go, the cream will rise. Now it might not happen on our (fantasy-leaguers) impatient timeframe, but good (and great) players will be good regardless of situation......e.g., Barry Sanders. When Tomlinson went to S.D., and I do recall, their o-line was nothing and the team was crappy. This didn't stop him from succeeding. M.Lynch did well in Buffalo last season....I would not consider the Bills to be world-beaters. Ronnie Brown was lights out this past season before he got hurt. And MIA was horrible along the o-line and overall.....Most everyone was gung-ho about Cedric Benson going to CHI.......and he's turned out to be a bum. If McFadden goes to OAK, NYJ, HOU, DEN, or wherever, it doesn't matter. The end result will be based on McFadden not the situation.

Few backs have the talent to completely transcend their situation. For the most part, you can expect a runner's performance to mirror his situation. Look at Larry Johnson. He was a stud back when KC had Green and a dominant OL. Now he's mediocre. How about Portis? Godly in Denver. Good, but not great in Washington. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Willis McGahee and Jamal Lewis. Both backs are supremely talented, yet neither has been able to achieve consistent FF superstardom. I would chalk that up to the anemic offenses these guys have usually been stuck in. Unless you're talking about a godly talent, situation is an important factor. A good back on a good team can outperform a great back on a marginal team. Your examples aren't very good. Barry Sanders was arguably the most talented runner ever. Tomlinson isn't far behind and even he didn't reach his plateau until after San Diego had surrounded him with a good team. Lynch? Mediocre so far. Ronnie? Half a good season. Two years of junk.

 

[kremenull]

Oakland is a volatile situation. Russell could be great or he could be a total flop. The same could be said for the Raider offense as a whole. They could be quite good with Russell/McFadden/Walker/Curry/Higgins/Miller. They could also be terrible. Few of those guys are known quantities at this point. I think Houston is the best possible landing spot for a rookie RB this year. Whoever steps into that situation has a pretty decent shot of top 10 type numbers.

Sorry my man, I believe you're pretty sound with most of your takes........but this is not one of them. You're either a player or you're not a player. It doesn't matter where you go, the cream will rise. Now it might not happen on our (fantasy-leaguers) impatient timeframe, but good (and great) players will be good regardless of situation......e.g., Barry Sanders. When Tomlinson went to S.D., and I do recall, their o-line was nothing and the team was crappy. This didn't stop him from succeeding. M.Lynch did well in Buffalo last season....I would not consider the Bills to be world-beaters. Ronnie Brown was lights out this past season before he got hurt. And MIA was horrible along the o-line and overall.....Most everyone was gung-ho about Cedric Benson going to CHI.......and he's turned out to be a bum. If McFadden goes to OAK, NYJ, HOU, DEN, or wherever, it doesn't matter. The end result will be based on McFadden not the situation.

Few backs have the talent to completely transcend their situation. For the most part, you can expect a runner's performance to mirror his situation. Look at Larry Johnson. He was a stud back when KC had Green and a dominant OL. Now he's mediocre. How about Portis? Godly in Denver. Good, but not great in Washington. On the opposite end of the spectrum you have Willis McGahee and Jamal Lewis. Both backs are supremely talented, yet neither has been able to achieve consistent FF superstardom. I would chalk that up to the anemic offenses these guys have usually been stuck in. Unless you're talking about a godly talent, situation is an important factor. A good back on a good team can outperform a great back on a marginal team. Your examples aren't very good. Barry Sanders was arguably the most talented runner ever. Tomlinson isn't far behind and even he didn't reach his plateau until after San Diego had surrounded him with a good team. Lynch? Mediocre so far. Ronnie? Half a good season. Two years of junk.

No, my examples validate my argument. Situation primarily impacts mediocre talents, not very good to great talents. Like Chester Taylor, a mediocre talent. Without the great blocking of Minnesota, this guy would be very pedestrian. To say that LJ is nothing without a HOF o-line is very inconclusive, and I would strongly argue against this line of thinking. For one, the Chiefs overused him the season before, thus he already was probably headed for a letdown season. But give him just a decent o-line, which is what anyone should expect, and I don't see where you're going with labeling him mediocre. This guy is still a stud, and so is Portis. And further using your analysis, you would conclude that Marshall Faulk was nothing before he went to St. Louis. But no, he was a stud already in Indy. So my point is that talent succeeds no matter the situation, and of course, even the most talented players would have varying levels of success in different situations, ala Faulk going from Indy to St. Louis. But the guys I mentioned are certainly players. Lynch, R.Brown, McFadden...these types of talents succeed no matter where they go......

 

[Spike]

Oakland is a volatile situation. Russell could be great or he could be a total flop. The same could be said for the Raider offense as a whole. They could be quite good with Russell/McFadden/Walker/Curry/Higgins/Miller. They could also be terrible. Few of those guys are known quantities at this point.

I think Houston is the best possible landing spot for a rookie RB this year. Whoever steps into that situation has a pretty decent shot of top 10 type numbers.

Exactly.

 

[kremenull]

Oakland is a volatile situation. Russell could be great or he could be a total flop. The same could be said for the Raider offense as a whole. They could be quite good with Russell/McFadden/Walker/Curry/Higgins/Miller. They could also be terrible. Few of those guys are known quantities at this point.

I think Houston is the best possible landing spot for a rookie RB this year. Whoever steps into that situation has a pretty decent shot of top 10 type numbers.

Exactly.

You all make sure you keep this post! I sure will........

 

[Interseptopus]

I'm really not surprised that Al Davis is "infatuated" with him... he seems like someone who would be attracted to new shiney things. I would be interested to see if he's easily entertained as well... perhaps while Oakland is losing he's sitting in his luxury box playing "ball in a cup"...

To the issue at hand. Oakland isn't a very good fit for McFadden, but it is exactly where he'll end up. Oakland has so many holes ,who knows where to start. Judging by their offseason moves, such as trading for Hall, I could definately see them drafting McFadden. Why not make some more noise and draft the most electrifying offensive player in the draft. It only fits. Sucks for McFadden, but looks like he'll be sharing the stage with Fargas and spinning his tires for 4 years.

However, it could work out great for OAK. They could find themselves with a very scarey offense. Who knows, but that's not where I'd want to go if I were Mcfadden

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Per Rotoworld:

SI.com's Jim Trotter was told "in passing" by a Raiders employee last year that owner Al Davis is "infatuated" with Darren McFadden.

Of Oakland potentially taking McFadden No. 4 overall, a source familiar with the Raiders' situation said he could "definitely see that happening." The Raiders' offseason investments on defense seemingly make it a bit more likely that they'll use their first-round pick on an offensive player.

Last season, we were told that no fewer than 3 different players were "locks" for the #1 spot, that the Raiders had contract discussions with Quinn, and that Al Davis could never pass on Calvin Johnson, because Al loves freaky athletes, and that Al would never, ever wait around for a rookie QB.............................I maintained last year that Russell was the pick, and that they had no interest in Peterson. Now, they've added Michael Bush, and Fargas emerges as a 1,000 yard rusher, and the Raiders are gonna pass on a player like Gholston to take a running back, one with even more questions than Peterson? Nah, I don't think so.

I think Gholston is the guy, barring some kind of Ryan/J. Long/Dorsey miracle, in which case it'd be Son of Howie. If you look at what Al Davis drafts historically, Gholston fits the mold better than McFadden. Oh, and the Raiders currently have two defensive ends on the roster. It is a crying need, with two elite prospects in this draft. Al Davis likes freaky, speedy athletes? Doesn't get much freakier than Gholston.

i agree with this & still want just what i wanted last year. TRADE DOWN!!!!

 

[massraider]

I'm really not surprised that Al Davis is "infatuated" with him...

Two things:1. Notice this comment from Trotter said "last year". This isn't exactly fresh info, if true at all.2. Trotter is also the guy that said the deal could die on the bargaining table. He barely had time to post this scoop, and a deal was announced. Trotter=Not In The Loop.

 

[Raider Nation]

Forgot to add, I think no way in H-E-double-Hockey-Sticks do the Raiders take McFadden.

I wish I could share your conviction on this matter. Al likes shiny new toys.

 

[massraider]

Forgot to add, I think no way in H-E-double-Hockey-Sticks do the Raiders take McFadden.

I wish I could share your conviction on this matter. Al likes shiny new toys.

Geez, I'd expect a bump from a Chargers fan or Chiefs fan to show how wrong I was, but a Raider fan?Ouch.

 

[Raider Nation]

Forgot to add, I think no way in H-E-double-Hockey-Sticks do the Raiders take McFadden.

I wish I could share your conviction on this matter. Al likes shiny new toys.

Geez, I'd expect a bump from a Chargers fan or Chiefs fan to show how wrong I was, but a Raider fan?Ouch.

It's all good -- just messin' with ya.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Forgot to add, in case anyone hasn't read my numerous posts on this already, I think no way in H-E-double-Hockey-Sticks do the Raiders take McFadden.

 

[Raider Nation]

McFadden and Dorsey will be linked for YEARS, much like Manning/Leaf and Williams/Bush.

Oakland had a decision to make, and whichever player they don't choose goes to a division rival. If McFadden becomes a Pro Bowl player and Dorsey has a pedestrian 8-year career, Al will look like a genius. But if McFadden doesn't fulfill his potential, while Dorsey is the second coming of Mean Joe Greene.....