Dream Draft: This Guy Is An Idiot

[atwater58]

Alright this guy from SI.com put together a mock draft consisting of every player in the league. It makes no sense!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ock/index.html

Here's my top 15 with the "as is" concept -

P Manning
McNabb
Brady
Culpepper
Vick
Palmer
E Manning
LT
R Lewis
R Moss
Rothlisberger
Harrison
D Freeney
J Peppers
Holt

[SoCalBronco]

Palmer? E Manning? Big Ben? Culpecker?

[atwater58]

yea, in theory your starting a team so obviously you want youth and you want upside. If this were to really happen I think this is how it would go down. The only thing I think I might have missed were LT's like Ogden and Pace- who you could probably make a case for.

[Ratboy]

I would still pick DJ Williams.

[bloodsunday]

Hey "Tha Rock", notice that Bailey is the 13th Player in the ENTIRE NFL. Shut your cake hole about how he's worse then Dre Bly. Stupid ass.

[TheNextStep]

Originally Posted by bloodsunday

Hey "Tha Rock", notice that Bailey is the 13th Player in the ENTIRE NFL.

In Michael Silver's opinion. Let's not forget that important distinction there... since Michael Silver has never held any front office position with any NFL franchise and all...

[bloodsunday]

Originally Posted by TheNextStep

In Michael Silver's opinion. Let's not forget that important distinction there... since Michael Silver has never held any front office position with any NFL franchise and all...

That maybe, but the point is he is widely considered one of the, if not the, best corners in the NFL. He is better than Dre Bly and Ricky Manning. Please.

[TheNextStep]

Originally Posted by bloodsunday

That maybe, but the point is he is widely considered one of the, if not the, best corners in the NFL. He is better than Dre Bly and Ricky Manning. Please.

I agree with you that he's better than Dre Bly and Ricky Manning. For all the smack talk that gets thrown around, my top corners in the league list looks like this: Woodson, Bailey.

Ty Law was on that list, back when he could still walk.

After that, you've got guys like McAlister, Surtain, etc. who are damned good cornerbacks but can't play as complete a game as Woodson and Bailey can.

I was merely disputing the "13th best player in the NFL" claim is all...

[bloodsunday]

Originally Posted by TheNextStep

I agree with you that he's better than Dre Bly and Ricky Manning. For all the smack talk that gets thrown around, my top corners in the league list looks like this: Woodson, Bailey.

I like Woodson (I liked him more at Michigan), but there is so much baggage that comes with him (injuries, arrests, attitude) that its tough to put him over Bailey. Woodson can flat out play when he wants to, but he doesn't seem to care anymore. Perhaps if he got out of looney land he could put it together.

Originally Posted by TheNextStep

I was merely disputing the "13th best player in the NFL" claim is all...

Certainly fair.

[missingnumber7]

Michael Vick, Quarterback. Yeah, I know, he's a running quarterback, not a passer... blah blah blah. Unless John Elway's clone enters society after 20 years in a meat freezer, Vick is the most talented player in the draft, and one who has led his team to playoff victories in each of his two healthy seasons as a starter. Even John York can't screw this one up.

[TheNextStep]

Originally Posted by bloodsunday

The guy can play, I'm acknowledging that. He does have baggage though. Perhaps that baggage is part of the perception of what is often a disorganized Oakland locker room. Why is Oakland so desperate to get rid of a 4 time Pro Bowl CB if there are no issues there?

Same reason that the Washington Redskins were rumored to have passed on Kellen Winslow II last year: Kevin and Carl Poston. It isn't Woodson's play but his contract demands. I would also submit to you that franchising a player for two consecutive years isn't really something that would indicate to me that they were "desperate to get rid of him." Were the Seahawks desperate to get rid of Walter Jones? Were the Rams desperate to get rid of Orlando Pace? I'm just sayin'...

Nothing stands out to me as to when he was last "smoked", but I don't watch Oakland's games like Bronco detractors love to do. This is also a tricky subject because I am not knowledgeable about the kinds of schemes Oakland likes to run with Woodson. Denver like to put Bailey man-to-man and that is obviously a high risk/high reward scheme. I do know that Oakland was 22nd in the league in pass defense, 28th in passing TDs allowed, and 29th in pass plays of 20 or more yards (58).

First off, you know I'm not going to let your little personal swipe go unaddressed. I do not love to watch Bronco games because I'm a "Bronco detractor." I don't watch Bronco games because I'm trying to cherry pick one or two bad instances so that I can come back here and talk trash. I do watch Bronco games... when they're not on at the same time as the Raiders... because I enjoy AFC West football. Some people say, "I look at the matchups and see which other game I'm going to watch," but I'm not like that. If I'm watching a game other than the Raiders and I have the choice, I'm going to watch one of the AFC West teams. My personal “hierarchy of football watching” goes like this: Raiders, then AFC West, then AFC, then AFC/NFC match-ups, then NFC.

As for what kind of schemes the Raiders like to run, they have always, always, ALWAYS run schemes that relied heavily on man coverage. That isn't to say that they play man exclusively (because no team does), but the Raiders have ALWAYS played predominantly man coverage, for as far back as I can remember. The reason the Raiders have such a rich history of defensive backs is for precisely that reason: They play a lot of man, so they place a higher premium on defensive backs than a lot of other teams do. Believe me, when people talk about Skip Thomas or Willie Brown or Michael Haynes or Lester Hayes or Terry McDaniel or Charles Woodson, it isn’t because they were good zone defenders. I can promise you that.

Lastly, I am well aware of where the Raiders ranked statistically. Having watched all of those games, I am also well aware that pinning that on Woodson is ridiculous. Have you seen Philip Buchanon play? SoCalBronco is a Philip Buchanon defender... but even he'll admit that Buchanon hasn't played nearly to the level that one would expect of a starting cornerback. Additionally, the Raiders gambled that Ray Buchanan would be able to be the coverage free safety to take over for Rod Woodson... and that didn't work at all. Do you recall who was covering Rod Smith when he had an 80 yard touchdown against the Raiders? Yeah… consider that gamble lost. Further complicating the issue is the area of pass rush. I know that you Bronco fans know all about that, right? You guys have spent your whole off-season cursing over the lack of Bronco pass rush but guess what? You were better than Oakland in that area last year. What does that say about the kind of pressure we were getting and the amount of time our secondary needed to cover a guy? Tommy Kelly, an undrafted rookie free agent, led all Raider defensive linemen in sacks last year... and he only had 4. We finished at the bottom of the barrel in that regard. If you give a quarterback all day to pick you apart, that's precisely what he's going to do. My team last year was no exception, nor was the result in terms of end-of-year ranking.

That said, applying those team statistics to an argument about Woodson's personal level of play is disingenuous at best. Have good players - great players, even - ever played on bad teams? Of course they have.... and I'm not saying that the Raiders weren't a bad team last year. We were. That doesn't mean, however, that you can really lambaste Woodson for it. Let's put it into concrete examples, okay? The first time the Raiders and Chiefs played last year, the Raider coaching staff told Charles Woodson to cover Tony Gonzalez, as he is their most potent weapon in the passing game. Charles held Gonzalez to 3 catches for 32 yards. Meanwhile, in that same game Eddie Kennison had 8 catches, 149 yards, and a touchdown. Now, I ask you, can you pin that on Woodson? Furthermore, in the second meeting between the two teams, Woodson was out with an injury. The result? Gonzalez had 9 catches, 112 yards, and two touchdowns... IN THE FIRST HALF. Link

So... you take a great cornerback, put a bad corner opposite him, a bad free safety behind him, no pass rush in front of him, and what do you get?

Answer: "22nd in the league in pass defense, 28th in passing TDs allowed, and 29th in pass plays of 20 or more yards (58)."

But, again, do you pin that on Woodson? I don't think so. Let’s look at it another way:

Charles Woodson (2004)
13 games, 73 tackles, 2.5 sacks, 1 INT, 8 PD, 2 FF

Champ Bailey (2004)
16 games, 81 tackles, 0 sacks, 3 INT, 9 PD, 0 FF

You really mean to tell me that because Charles played on a bad team last year that these two aren't comparable?

[bloodsunday]

Let me get this straight before I respond to your points: I am not saying Woodson is a bad player. I am not even saying Bailey is better than him. I am saying that right now I would rather have Bailey because he doesn't come with baggage, IMO.

Originally Posted by TheNextStep

I would also submit to you that franchising a player for two consecutive years isn't really something that would indicate to me that they were "desperate to get rid of him."

I don't think its an indication either way. The Raiders no they have an asset in Woodson and you don't just let that go away for free. Furthermore, its evidence they aren't willing to give him a long term deal. If Woodson were on the open market, he'd be gone pretty quick. But that doesn't mean the Raiders want him around anymore. Of course, that is speculation on my part -- with some evidence from national reporters who may or may not know anything.

Originally Posted by TheNextStep

First off, you know I'm not going to let your little personal swipe go unaddressed. I do not love to watch Bronco games because I'm a "Bronco detractor." I don't watch Bronco games because I'm trying to cherry pick one or two bad instances so that I can come back here and talk trash.

I didn't mean for that to personal to you. You seem pretty objective for a Raider fan But there are clearly instances of those people on this board. You listening "Information Minister"?

Originally Posted by TheNextStep

Lastly, I am well aware of where the Raiders ranked statistically. Having watched all of those games, I am also well aware that pinning that on Woodson is ridiculous. Have you seen Philip Buchanon play?

I realize that its not all on Woodson. My point was that at some point buried in all those stats I am sure Woodson had a bad game or two, at least some bad plays. I only raise this in response to your point that Bailey was obviously beaten several times last year and in concession that I didn't see enough of Oakland to know of particular instances when Woodson was beaten.

Originally Posted by TheNextStep

The first time the Raiders and Chiefs played last year, the Raider coaching staff told Charles Woodson to cover Tony Gonzalez, as he is their most potent weapon in the passing game. Charles held Gonzalez to 3 catches for 32 yards. Meanwhile, in that same game Eddie Kennison had 8 catches, 149 yards, and a touchdown.

Yeah we used this strategy as well -- with similar results. Then Chiefs fans start thinking Kennison is the second coming of Jerry Rice, which I guess is okay by me

Originally Posted by TheNextStep

Charles Woodson (2004)
13 games, 73 tackles, 2.5 sacks, 1 INT, 8 PD, 2 FF

Champ Bailey (2004)
16 games, 81 tackles, 0 sacks, 3 INT, 9 PD, 0 FF

These stats are great, but I think we both would both agree on two things: 1) their both good CBs and 2) that these stats don't begin to tell the tale. As for the last point, a shutdown corner shouldn't see much action by definition. In fact, two of Bailey's three picks game when we wasn't even in the play. The two things I find of interest there would be PD and tackles.

[TheNextStep]

Originally Posted by bloodsunday

Let me get this straight before I respond to your points: I am not saying Woodson is a bad player. I am not even saying Bailey is better than him. I am saying that right now I would rather have Bailey because he doesn't come with baggage, IMO.

That's fair enough. Personally, I rate them "1a and 1b." On the one hand, I think Charles is more consistent... but, on the other, I think Champ has a better injury history and is a year younger. I'd take either and be happy as I think that they are the two best at their position... and nobody else can do what they do.

I didn't mean for that to personal to you. You seem pretty objective for a Raider fan But there are clearly instances of those people on this board. You listening "Information Minister"?

I appreciate that and I wasn't bristling or anything. You're new to the board, so I figured you'd see that I was an opposing fan and kind of paint me with a stereotypical brush (which is natural in this type of environment). I was just trying to clarify where I was coming from.

I realize that its not all on Woodson. My point was that at some point buried in all those stats I am sure Woodson had a bad game or two, at least some bad plays. I only raise this in response to your point that Bailey was obviously beaten several times last year and in concession that I didn't see enough of Oakland to know of particular instances when Woodson was beaten.

And I'm not going to say that he was NEVER beaten but, seriously, it was few and far between. It's funny, actually, that ever since the 2002 season there have been national sportswriters who have fallen in love calling him overrated. Ever since his comments about Callahan (which, it turned out, were completely founded), they've talked about him having a bad attitude. In the time since then, however, the guy has really played some outstanding football.

These stats are great, but I think we both would both agree on two things: 1) their both good CBs and 2) that these stats don't begin to tell the tale. As for the last point, a shutdown corner shouldn't see much action by definition. In fact, two of Bailey's three picks game when we wasn't even in the play. The two things I find of interest there would be PD and tackles.

Those two items of interest are mitigated by the fact that Bailey had three more games than Charles. In three more games, Champ got 8 more tackles and 1 more PD. Like I said, these two guys had VERY comparable seasons.

[bloodsunday]

Originally Posted by TheNextStep

It's funny, actually, that ever since the 2002 season there have been national sportswriters who have fallen in love calling him overrated. Ever since his comments about Callahan (which, it turned out, were completely founded), they've talked about him having a bad attitude. In the time since then, however, the guy has really played some outstanding football.

Well, not being a Raiders fan, that's obviously were I get a lot of my knowledge about Woodson. Perhaps these reports are unfair. Like I said before, the Raiders organization has a tendency to be so mysterious/chaotic that perhaps this is just a perception problem. But when you hear things about his attitude or that he needs to move to safety, that sends some funny vibes out. Seems to me that national perception has hurt Woodson, IMO. I mean who wouldn't trade for a guy like Woodson if he is as good as you suggest and wasn't considered to have baggage?

Originally Posted by TheNextStep

Those two items of interest are mitigated by the fact that Bailey had three more games than Charles. In three more games, Champ got 8 more tackles and 1 more PD. Like I said, these two guys had VERY comparable seasons.

Well, I am more interested in his impact on the game than the actual stats as shutdown corner. Nonetheless, your point is well taken, the stat lines are equivalent.