Thread: Your thoughts on the 2007 Draft picks

Hi guys,

I was wondering what people think of the draft picks made in 2007. Now we're a few weeks in to the season, I thought it would be nice for an early review.

(1) What did you think were the requirements before the draft?
(2) Straight after the draft did you feel those requirements had been met?
(3) How do you rate each of the picks now the season has started?
(4) If you could turn back time, are there any players that could have been picked (i.e were available when it was the Vikes turn to pick), and didn't, that you think would actually have been better for the team?

Looking forward to reading what you think.

Oz

"ozfan" wrote:

Hi guys,

I was wondering what people think of the draft picks made in 2007. Now we're a few weeks in to the season, I thought it would be nice for an early review.

(1) What did you think were the requirements before the draft?
(2) Straight after the draft did you feel those requirements had been met?
(3) How do you rate each of the picks now the season has started?
(4) If you could turn back time, are there any players that could have been picked (i.e were available when it was Oakland's turn to pick), and didn't, that you think would actually have been better for the team?

Looking forward to reading what you think.

Oz

I beg your pardon for not following the requested answer format, but it's a tad early in the morning for all that kind of analysis.

LOL.

Anyway -

* AP is a great pick, no need for much discussion

* McCauley looks like a great pick, but we need to see more

* Who knows if Rice is a good pick, he never gets the ball

* Aundrae Allison made the team, at least

* Brian Robison started strong, but hasn't sniffed the QB in 2 weeks - still, a great late pick

And for 2006 -

* Greenway is a stud, it seems, and a real tackler, although he's making mistakes in coverage

* Ced Griffin makes tackles, but he misses some, too - good pick

* Ryan Cook is starting, out of his normal position - I call it a good pick

* Tarvaris - I waver back and forth on Tarvaris a lot - I want to believe, but I want him to throw balls away


rather than toss them D-IAA Alabama State-Style back into coverage across his body.

I think that's about all I got.
I need some breakfast.

=Z=

Very interesting first post my newest purple friend.
Welcome to the site

(1) What did you think were the requirements before the draft?
I thought we needed help at DE, WR, RB and OL

(2) Straight after the draft did you feel those requirements had been met?
In most cases yes with the exception of DE and OL.
The jury is still out on the new DE (I think Robison is a good fit) but am a bit upset of the OL approach to upgrade (or lack thereof.)

(3) How do you rate each of the picks now the season has started?
I won't put marks on them this year, but as with last years draft class they (at least the ones we kept) are all contributing with the exception of Rufus who is out for an injury.


(4) If you could turn back time, are there any players that could have been picked (i.e were available when it was Oakland's turn to pick), and didn't, that you think would actually have been better for the team?
Although I would have like to seen them take a look at an OL in the 4th or 5th round I am happy with the picks we have.
All are/will contribute now and for years to come.

"Marrdro" wrote:

Very interesting first post my newest purple friend.
Welcome to the site

(1) What did you think were the requirements before the draft?
I thought we needed help at DE, WR, RB and OL

(2) Straight after the draft did you feel those requirements had been met?
In most cases yes with the exception of DE and OL.
The jury is still out on the new DE (I think Robison is a good fit) but am a bit upset of the OL approach to upgrade (or lack thereof.)

(3) How do you rate each of the picks now the season has started?
I won't put marks on them this year, but as with last years draft class they (at least the ones we kept) are all contributing with the exception of Rufus who is out for an injury.


(4) If you could turn back time, are there any players that could have been picked (i.e were available when it was Oakland's turn to pick), and didn't, that you think would actually have been better for the team?
Although I would have like to seen them take a look at an OL in the 4th or 5th round I am happy with the picks we have.
All are/will contribute now and for years to come.

"Marrdro" wrote:

Very interesting first post my newest purple friend.
Welcome to the site

(1) What did you think were the requirements before the draft?
I thought we needed help at DE, WR, RB and OL

(2) Straight after the draft did you feel those requirements had been met?
In most cases yes with the exception of DE and OL.
The jury is still out on the new DE (I think Robison is a good fit) but am a bit upset of the OL approach to upgrade (or lack thereof.)

(3) How do you rate each of the picks now the season has started?
I won't put marks on them this year, but as with last years draft class they (at least the ones we kept) are all contributing with the exception of Rufus who is out for an injury.


(4) If you could turn back time, are there any players that could have been picked (i.e were available when it was Oakland's turn to pick), and didn't, that you think would actually have been better for the team?
Although I would have like to seen them take a look at an OL in the 4th or 5th round I am happy with the picks we have.
All are/will contribute now and for years to come.

I'm not sure I understand what the two dick cakes have to do with anything.

=Z=

"ozfan" wrote:

Hi guys,

I was wondering what people think of the draft picks made in 2007. Now we're a few weeks in to the season, I thought it would be nice for an early review.

(1) What did you think were the requirements before the draft?
(2) Straight after the draft did you feel those requirements had been met?
(3) How do you rate each of the picks now the season has started?
(4) If you could turn back time, are there any players that could have been picked (i.e were available when it was Oakland's turn to pick), and didn't, that you think would actually have been better for the team?

Looking forward to reading what you think.

Oz

1) Requirements for sure were WR or a gamebreaker on offense, which is why I was screaming for AD once the order came out.
I actually said to my brother, "with our offensive plan and AD is there, if we don't take him, we'll be sorry for years"
2) I believe so, when we got Robison and Rice, I was happy with everything.
3) Grade "A", McCrauley is showing flashes of a big play corner once Winfield shows him how to square up his tackles, AD is on pace for Rookie of the Year, Robison is able to burst around the tackles, Rice is playing which will speed up his career and is already better than Williamson(most WR's won't hit their stride until year 3)
4) All in all I think we were fine this year, only thing is I woulda liked to see us take a stab at Troy Smith instead of Tyler Thigpen

"Zeus" wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what the two dick cakes have to do with anything.

=Z=

LMFAO!

"SnoBumMN" wrote:

"Zeus" wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what the two dick cakes have to do with anything.

=Z=

LMFAO!

It must have something to do with the 'New Marrdro', I don't understand it either.

"BadlandsViking" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

Very interesting first post my newest purple friend.
Welcome to the site

(1) What did you think were the requirements before the draft?
I thought we needed help at DE, WR, RB and OL

(2) Straight after the draft did you feel those requirements had been met?
In most cases yes with the exception of DE and OL.
The jury is still out on the new DE (I think Robison is a good fit) but am a bit upset of the OL approach to upgrade (or lack thereof.)

(3) How do you rate each of the picks now the season has started?
I won't put marks on them this year, but as with last years draft class they (at least the ones we kept) are all contributing with the exception of Rufus who is out for an injury.


(4) If you could turn back time, are there any players that could have been picked (i.e were available when it was Oakland's turn to pick), and didn't, that you think would actually have been better for the team?
Although I would have like to seen them take a look at an OL in the 4th or 5th round I am happy with the picks we have.
All are/will contribute now and for years to come.

Now how did those get in there.
Sorry, I deleted them.
;D

Overall, it is starting to seem that we simply had more needs than picks in the draft. This is why some have voiced complaints of our FA strategy. However, this thread is about the draft:

We addressed several needs, we need a big play weapon on offense and a guy who could carry the offense when Taylor wears down. AD is the best guy possible for that role.

We needed upgrades at WR, CB, and DE. I think Rice was a good pick, but they need to involve him much more in the offense. McCauley has already surpassed expectations IMO. So has Robison.

We also needed an OL, but by the time round 5 rolls around, you are looking for players with unique talents rather than filling needs.

As far 2006. I have said it all along, mainly because I'm a Vandy alum, but I would have loved me some Jay Cutler. We would have had to trade up to get him, which means we would have had to overpay. So it was a good decision not to go after him, but unfortunate he didn't end up in purple. Besides, everybody loves Greenway. Everybody. Also, any 2nd round pick who unseats a vet in his first year should be considered a success. That applies to Griffin, Cook, Edwards, and TJ. A very nice draft.