Chavez Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Jury is still out on Thomas Jones, but agree with the rest. 701616[/snapback] The jury has long since returned with the verdict of "minimal contribution to the team that drafted him" and "journeyman" on Jones - of the quartet of Dayne, Lewis, Alexander, and himself, he's the only one who's original team has already cut him loose; even Dayne has stuck with the Giants. Whether he manages to resurrect his career now or not, he's basically going to at best be lumped in with guys like Tyrone Wheatley and Gaston Green - players who managed decent season later in their careers but were draft disappointments for their original team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Yeah I remember this it was unbelievable. I wouldn't call their selections unbelievable however. 705534[/snapback] WHAT? 4 out of 4 were starters, two of them have made the Pro Bowl and Ellis led the team in sacks with 12.5. One just had to be franchised. Just how much better than that did you expect them to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 WHAT? 4 out of 4 were starters, two of them have made the Pro Bowl and Ellis led the team in sacks with 12.5. One just had to be franchised. Just how much better than that did you expect them to do? 705553[/snapback] Cure cancer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 So, what you're saying is that if any first round pick isnt a bust, it's a good pick? Not sure I agree with that, I think when you select a first rounder, you do your best to get an impact player, and hope it pans out. I don't count kickers as impact players......unless you are talking about that guy from New England.... but even then, he would not be an impact player if he wasn't on a very good team, either. 705528[/snapback] I disagree with what you assess the first round to be. Some teams go for an impact player and "hope it pans out". Others grab the best player that fits the needs of the team and would give them the best chance of winning now. Why should a team take a player in a position that isn't lacking and just "hope it pans out"? That's stupid. I'm saying Janikowski wasn't a horrible pick. And he's not just a marginal player. He was a good pick for the Raiders. The biggest hole they had was kicking, it was lousy ( in an 8-8 season, they lost all 8 of those games by 7 pts or under and shanked 11 FGs). They filled that need with a kicker who was good enough to be a 1st rd projection by experts. He's a good kicker and made a huge difference on the team which led them to thier first AFC West Crown in 10 years & AFC Championship game in his first season. They also won the AFC West the following 2 years, lost in the playoffs in the snow job and got crushed in the Super Bowl. He's still on the team today with no danger of losing that job, when a lot of 1st rd picks don't even end up starting (some drop out of the league), despite gigantic signing bonuses. So, you're saying the Colts should have taken Pennington instead of Morris? I'm sure the Browns are really satisfied that Courtney Brown is panning out for them on his yearly IR placement. And Ron Dayne was gangbusters for the Giants. Plexiglass is most likely goign to retire a Steeler, right? And the Raiders should have taken Trung Canidate? I'll pass, I would rather have our 3 AFC West Championships and Super Bowl appearance and keep my roofie kicking, bar fighting, barely legal alien kicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted February 20, 2005 Share Posted February 20, 2005 Why should a team take a player in a position that isn't lacking and just "hope it pans out"? That's stupid. I agree that would be stupid, but that is not quite what I said. By "hope it pans out", I mean there are no sure fire first round picks, some end up as pro bowlers, some don't, despite all the effort these clubs put into evaluating the talent coming out of college. Some can't miss picks do miss....badly. However, getting an impact player is still more likely in the first round than in any other. The Jets took Becht in 2000. Even though he started right away, for a first rounder, he was a disappointment. The other three picks they had did what first round picks are supposed to do.... become dominant play makers on thier team. As far as teams drafting to needs, that is almost an obsolete idea, with the salary cap and player movement the way it is now. Even many of the first round picks are not ready to start in the NFL right away. When they do start right away, they tend to make a lot of mistakes until they learn and acclimate. Yes, in general, a kicker is, or can be the exception to that rule, but ask SD about having a rookie kicker. And (another name I cant spell) Saurbraten didnt work out his first year either. There was still risk in taking a kicker, there was no garantee that he would work out either. I think passing on a potential impact player for a kicker is a mistake. That doesnt make it a bad pick, but I don't think it's a good one either. You make it sound like without Janakowski, (sp) the Raiders would not have won? I think they still would have won, but with another kicker, and possibly another impact player on the squad. Who else was out there in FA as far as kickers go that year? No, they would have found a suitable kicker, in my opinion, and Sebastian turned out to be a decent kicker, but I think they could have upgraded the kickers position without burning a first round pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 Why should a team take a player in a position that isn't lacking and just "hope it pans out"? That's stupid.I agree that would be stupid, but that is not quite what I said. By "hope it pans out", I mean there are no sure fire first round picks, some end up as pro bowlers, some don't, despite all the effort these clubs put into evaluating the talent coming out of college. Some can't miss picks do miss....badly. However, getting an impact player is still more likely in the first round than in any other. The Jets took Becht in 2000. Even though he started right away, for a first rounder, he was a disappointment. The other three picks they had did what first round picks are supposed to do.... become dominant play makers on thier team. As far as teams drafting to needs, that is almost an obsolete idea, with the salary cap and player movement the way it is now. Even many of the first round picks are not ready to start in the NFL right away. When they do start right away, they tend to make a lot of mistakes until they learn and acclimate. Yes, in general, a kicker is, or can be the exception to that rule, but ask SD about having a rookie kicker. And (another name I cant spell) Saurbraten didnt work out his first year either. There was still risk in taking a kicker, there was no garantee that he would work out either. I think passing on a potential impact player for a kicker is a mistake. That doesnt make it a bad pick, but I don't think it's a good one either. You make it sound like without Janakowski, (sp) the Raiders would not have won? I think they still would have won, but with another kicker, and possibly another impact player on the squad. Who else was out there in FA as far as kickers go that year? No, they would have found a suitable kicker, in my opinion, and Sebastian turned out to be a decent kicker, but I think they could have upgraded the kickers position without burning a first round pick. 705727[/snapback] There's no telling for sure if they would have won without him, but the fact is they DID win with him. The season before he got there, all 8 of their losses were by under 7 pts and they missed 11 FGs that season. They draft him and they start winning those close games. He was "A" difference, not "THE" diference. With a kicker they could trust, it changes what you do on 1st down and 3rd down, nevermind where your defense is defending and what 3-points you ARE putting on the board that the previous year you weren't. He was projected 1st rd, they needed a kicker badly and took him. It DID pan out cuz they then went to 3 straight AFC Champshionships and eventually teh SB. In a sense, they DID get an impact player. Just not a sexy, traditional one that gets you on teh cover of SI (Al Davis alsoo drafted Ray Guy in teh first rd, another kicker that panned out for the team). But I do agree with your first paragraph, I did misunderstand what you were saying in your original post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 (edited) So, you're saying the Colts should have taken Pennington instead of Morris?705684[/snapback] That would have been tough to do, considering Pennington was drafted with the eighteenth pick, and the Colts had the twenty-eighth choice. And most draft "experts" had Janikowski going to the Rams at the end of the first round at the earliest. For the Raiders to reach at 17 and take a kicker is just a terrible choice. Just because the guy is a good kicker, doesn't mean it was a good pick. Hell, the Colts could have drafted Vanderjagt with their first round pick instead of picking him up as a free agent. Would that make it a good pick? No. There were much more valuable players available at that slot. Who knows, maybe the Raiders actually win the Super Bowl if they'd drafted Shaun Alexander and picked up a veteran kicker. We'll never know. But the fact that they took a kicker with the SEVENTEENTH pick in the draft still blows my mind. Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 (edited) Oh, and I can readily admit that Morris was a bad choice for the Colts. The Colts needed a middle linebacker badly. Morris was the best available. Unfortunately, he'd never actually played the position at BYU. He didn't even know what "4-3" or "3-4" meant when he came to the Colts. They just dropped him in the middle of the field and said, "Get the ballcarrier" in college. He has been a starter after tearing up his knee his rookie year. He has been in the top 3 in tackles for the Colts every year. And he sucks. Just because he's stuck with the team doesn't mean he was a good pick. Imagine, the Colts could have drafted Keith Bullock. Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 That would have been tough to do, considering Pennington was drafted with the eighteenth pick, and the Colts had the twenty-eighth choice. And most draft "experts" had Janikowski going to the Rams at the end of the first round at the earliest. For the Raiders to reach at 17 and take a kicker is just a terrible choice. Just because the guy is a good kicker, doesn't mean it was a good kick. Hell, the Colts could have drafted Vanderjagt with their first round pick instead of picking him up as a free agent. Would that make it a good pick? No. There were much more valuable players available at that slot. Who knows, maybe the Raiders actually win the Super Bowl if they'd drafted Shaun Alexander and picked up a veteran kicker. We'll never know. But the fact that they took a kicker with the SEVENTEENTH pick in the draft still blows my mind. 705930[/snapback] So... Basicly, every team in the NFL had a horrible 1st rd pick in 2000 except the Patriots... because none of them took Tom Brady, right? I mean, he has won 3 Super Bowls. What other active QB has done that? Draft "experts' have also graded the Raiders draft that year as excellent for those picks. The Raiders "reached" cuz they took him 15 picks earlier than what an "expert" said, but many "experts" also said Ryan Leaf was a better pick than PManning... Oakland needed a kicker, not a RB or a WR or a QB. You are obviously one of the ones who think a team should just take the best player available based off an "experts" list at that exact moment in the draft regardless of whether the team has a need for him or not. Can't help it if a team drafting for what they need and not what an expert like Mel Kiper Jr. projects blows your mind. But the Raiders did get to 2 AFC Championship games and a SuperBowl with SJ's help. No matter how you add it up, horrible pick it aint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phenom Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 I hate saying this but I agree with the Hitsquad. Being a Raiders fan and all the close games we lost and that they had been losing a lot of close games during those years. Plus the kicking game had been unstable for years: 1995 Jeff Jaeger, Cole Ford 1996 Cole Ford 1997 Cole Ford 1998 Greg Davis 1999 Michael Husted, Joe Nedney One thing that is always underestimated is special teams and field position. I never realized how important field position was until Jon Gruden came and showed that winning the field position is key to winning games. When Tampa Bay was winning they played field position, Baltimore plays field position, Philly won the championship game over Atlanta by winning with field position. Having a stable kicking game is critical because you aren't going to blow every team out (I know it's hard for Captain Hook to understand that with the Colts blowing everyone out this year) so you need a kicker who can make FG's. Who is the player who probably should be the MVP behind Tom Brady? I think it's Adam Vinatieri; he beat the Raiders twice in the Tuck game tieing the game and winning it in the snow. He was critical in beating the Rams in the Super Bowl. Even this year the Pat's beat the Eagles by 3 points. Now I know it may be taken for granted that Vinatieri makes those FG's but I don't. Look at Scott Norwood. I think the Raiders solidified their kicking game by not only getting Janikowski but Shane Lechler that year. You can not underestimate the value of a good kicking game. I am curious to see how the Colts react if they do let Vanderjagt go. I think he has been taken for granted because he sometimes has a big mouth but let's not forget that he has the best or one of the best FG %'s of all time. You can't just pick that up off the street. Any fan that has had to watch their team lose multiple games because their kicker sucks understands what I mean........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 (edited) C'mon Hitsquad. Are you honestly going to keep saying that Janikowski was the reason the Raiders were good? You could have plugged just about any veteran kicker in on those teams and the result would have been the same. The Raiders could have been BETTER if they'd used that pick wisely. I am a fan of taking best available player, regardless of position, unless you are have an All-Pro at the same position already on the team. Surely you can see what I'm saying about Vanderjagt. Best kicking percentage ever. Would that have justified taking him in the first round? Hell no. Instead, the Colts do what everybody does with kickers. Draft one late, or go find a free agent. To spend that high a pick on a kicker when other quality players were still on the board. . . Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 (edited) phenom, I know what you are saying about being spoiled as far as kickers go, but as a dome team, the Colts have always had good kicking. Before Vandy it was Cary Blanchard, who made the Pro Bowl. Before him it was Dean Biasucci, who was also a Pro Bowler. And a field postition didn't make much of a difference this year. Yeah, a good kicking game is great, if you have a good team. I think the fact that they did not pick up Pennington, Alexander, or some other impact player is even more glaring 5 years later, when a playmaker is sorely needed. I don't mean to be dumping just on the Raiders. Of course, like I said earlier, hindsight is 20/20. Several teams blew it that year. It's just the simple fact they took a kicker. It's like the guy in your fantasy league who takes a kicker in the first round! Everyone just laughs and laughs. . . Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 When Worlds Collide: Hitsquad and Phenom agree on something. CptHook, You're not reading my posts. I have said he was a good pick for the Raiders. He wasn't a horrible pick, he was a real good pick. I have said there were better players available, but SJ fit their needs and after picking him, they won 3 straight AFC West CHampionships, played in 2 AFC CHmapionship games and a Super Bowl. I said he was "A" difference, not "THE" difference. You say they COULD have been better, but they COULD have been worse. They were about 27 pts short of a Ring, so outside of them also overlooking Tom Brady I say that pick turned out pretty good for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 I wonder if Indi drafted Brady that year and traded away Manning for some Defense, if they would have won a Ring by now? See how easy it is? The Pats are laughing and laughing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 (edited) Trust me, I'm reading all of your posts. You keep falling back on how well the Raiders did the next few years after they drafted SJ. If you think a kicker had that much to do with it, so be it. I think they would have been better served getting a running game (Shaun Alexander), some more defense (Keith Bullock, Mike Brown, or Marcus Washington), a QB for the future (Chad Pennington), or some more depth on the offensive line. I would be interested to see what others besides Raider homers think of the pick of Janikowski. I cannot believe you think it is a "real good pick". At best, it was an average choice. I guess I judge a draft by the scouting the team did. Who did they pass on? Who did they choose? Did they get value at that selection? Could they have gotten similiar production later in the draft? Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 I would be interested to see what others besides Raider homers think of the pick of Janikowski. I cannot believe you think it is a "real good pick". At best, it was an average choice. 706051[/snapback] So i've already got you to move from horrible and terrible pick to average. Few more days of this, you'll not only agree with me but you'll trade that Leave it to Beaver era uniform for the Silver and Black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 So i've already got you to move from horrible and terrible pick to average. Few more days of this, you'll not only agree with me but you'll trade that Leave it to Beaver era uniform for the Silver and Black. 706057[/snapback] No, I still think it's a horrible selection. At best, I think you might find a neutral party to say it was average. I think it was terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phenom Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 I know what you are saying about being spoiled as far as kickers go, but as a dome team, 706023[/snapback] That's another key point is that teams that play outdoors in inclement weather (not that the Raiders play in snow but it rains and get's fairly cold in the winter) have more of a need for a good kicker than dome teams. I agree with Vatican on assessing a teams #1 pick in the draft; if the guy is still a starter on your team 4 years later and you don't need to worry about that position during the draft then I think it was a successful pick. I mean look at who the Colts took in 2000; Rob Morris and didn't you say he wasn't going to be missed. I think that shows you who had a better pick.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 (edited) I agree with Vatican on assessing a teams #1 pick in the draft; if the guy is still a starter on your team 4 years later and you don't need to worry about that position during the draft then I think it was a successful pick.706065[/snapback] Exactly my point. Morris has been a 4 year starter. He's been a top 3 tackler on defense every year except when he hurt his knee his rookie year. Yet, I don't think he was good choice. Even though he's been solid. There were better players available when the Colts chose him. He's never been "first-round good". Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 (edited) I mean look at who the Colts took in 2000; Rob Morris and didn't you say he wasn't going to be missed. I think that shows you who had a better pick.......... 706065[/snapback] He won't be missed 'cause he's a free agent. I wouldn't be upset if he had another year on his contract and was coming back. And I would much rather have drafted Rob Morris than have drafted Sebastian Janikowski. And we haven't even touched on SJ weight problems/drug problems/legal problems... Edited February 21, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phenom Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 He's never been "first-round good". 706070[/snapback] To me the only difference between a 1st round pick and any other pick is the money you have to pay for them. Other than that the players determine how good they are going to be and if they were worth even drafting at all. It doesn't matter what position you play; all that matters is if you can help the team win. That's whats worthy of being first round good............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phenom Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 He won't be missed 'cause he's a free agent. I wouldn't be upset if he had another year on his contract and was coming back. And I would much rather have drafted Rob Morris than have drafted Sebastian Janikowski. And we haven't even touched on SJ weight problems/drug problems/legal problems... 706076[/snapback] What do you mean he won't be missed because he is a free agent? Will Edge not be missed because he is a free agent? Would Shaun Alexander not be missed because he is a free agent? Would all those players franchised not be missed because they are free agents? Rob Morris won't be missed because they realize he wasn't going to make the Colts D any better. If you want to go on about the extracurricular's fine whatever. But I really don't care what he does as long as he makes FG's and kicks the ball far on kickoff's. But I think there were tangible results from Janikowski. The Raiders won 4 games of 6 points or less in 2000. A change from losing 6 games of 6 points or less in 1999. I think you can point that out as a direct cause and effect.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 So the Colts should have drafted Vanderjagt in the first round? He's a great kicker. He helps the team win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 What do you mean he won't be missed because he is a free agent? Will Edge not be missed because he is a free agent? Would Shaun Alexander not be missed because he is a free agent? Would all those players franchised not be missed because they are free agents? Rob Morris won't be missed because they realize he wasn't going to make the Colts D any better. He won't be missed because the Colts can find someone to fill his spot and do the things Morris did for a cheaper price. Re-signing Morris would have required a veteran signing bonus and contract. The same is not true of Edge. I don't think you can just plug in a rook or second year player and get the same type of production. Morris has never been spectacular. He's never even been above average. And I expect that out of a first round pick. That being said, he is a solid, average LB. I would not be upset if he had another year remaining on his contract. But he doesn't. He won't be missed. Get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 "Great" pick??? Well, check this out: Janikowski 118-146 on FG's. Long: 55 yards. Touchbacks: 67 In the same draft: 6th round Paul Edinger (Bears): 110/146 on FG's. Long 54 yards. Touchbacks: 11 6th round Neil Rackers (Bengals): 75/108 on FG's. Long 55 yards. Touchbacks: 43 701712[/snapback] Did you catch this from earlier? Janikowski's not exactly dominating the other kickers taken in that draft. And they were taken 5 rounds later. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.