CaptainHook Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 I'm sure several have seen the spirited debate between Raider's fans Vatican Hitsquad and phenom with me. I suggested in another thread that I thought the seventeenth pick was too high to take a kicker. VH and phenom feel that since the Raiders went to two AFC Championships and a Super Bowl after drafting Janikowski, that it was a good selection. They also feel that considering the large amount of busts in that 2000 draft, it was a "great" selection. For example, such flops as Erik Flowers, Rashard Anderson, R. Jay Soward, Sylvester Morris, and Trung Canidate were all chosen after Janikowski. I feel it was a bad selection due to the fact that Chad Pennington, Ahmed Plummer, Shaun Alexander, Chris McIntosh, Stockar McDougle, and Keith Bullock were all selected after Janikowski in the first round. Not to mention second rounders Mike Brown, Ian Gold, Kenoy Kennedy, Chad Clifton, Marcus Washington, Cosey Coleman, Cornelius Griffin, and Marvel Smith. How much more could those guys have helped the Raiders during their run? Plus, they would have good young talent as they head into their rebuilding phase. Also when you compare kickers taken in that 2000 draft, you don't see much of a difference between Janikowski and sixth round selections Paul Edinger and Neil Rackers: Janikowski 118-146 on FG's. Long: 55 yards. Touchbacks: 67 6th rd. Paul Edinger (Bears): 110/146 on FG's. Long 54 yards. Touchbacks: 11 6th rd. Neil Rackers (Bengals): 75/108 on FG's. Long 55 yards. Touchbacks: 43 Janikowski has had one good year for touchbacks, 2002 when he had 22. His rookie year he had 14. Since then, he has never had more than 12 touchbacks, and as few as 7 (2003). He was also supposed ot excell at long FG's. In his career Janikowski is 7-13 on 50+ yarders. He is 38-55 from 40-49 yards. Is this the type of production the Raiders wanted with the seventeenth selection in 2000? And we haven't even discussed his off the field problems. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 What do you think? 709053[/snapback] Me thinks you are an idiot for wasting a first round draft pick on a kicker. Especially since there are usually some kickers out there that may be a little long in tooth, but can still get the job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Hook, i agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Hook, i agree with you. 709067[/snapback] Me too. Janikowski has been decent, but certainly nothing special. I see the others point as to the fact that there was plenty of other first round busts from that year (as there are always), but I think that by taking a kicker that early you are almost conceding the fact that you're first rounder won't be that impactful to your team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawgTalk Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 A lot of people need to realize, the kicking game is very crucial. Having the best Kicker will win you a few games in the year. It also gives you better field position, and it will allow your team to score more often and appose a threat. Janikowski did not match up to being the great kicker, but how many first rounders are busts. If i was able to draft a great kicker in round one, id take it in a heart beat. They may seem dumb, but they are huge in those times that are so very close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Tights Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 A lot of people need to realize, the kicking game is very crucial. Having the best Kicker will win you a few games in the year. It also gives you better field position, and it will allow your team to score more often and appose a threat. Janikowski did not match up to being the great kicker, but how many first rounders are busts. If i was able to draft a great kicker in round one, id take it in a heart beat. They may seem dumb, but they are huge in those times that are so very close. 709125[/snapback] So I guess your theory works out, because didn't Oakland then draft Shane Lechler in the second round in the same draft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 Lechler was drafted in the fifth round of the same draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 I read a rumor on another message board that Janko is part of the Moss deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Men In Tights Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Lechler was drafted in the fifth round of the same draft. 709257[/snapback] Thanks, for some reason I thought it was earlier than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 As I said in the thread, the opportunity cost of taking a kicker with the 17th overall pick is WAY too high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 Check it out Fatman, I got my own thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 I dunno about a 1st rounder, but Kaeding was certainly part of the Chargers success last year. So drafting a kicker early isn't totally insane. Though, admittedly, I thought the Chargers were nuts last year for drafting a kicker so early. But I was wrong and they were right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 I dunno about a 1st rounder, but Kaeding was certainly part of the Chargers success last year. So drafting a kicker early isn't totally insane. Though, admittedly, I thought the Chargers were nuts last year for drafting a kicker so early. But I was wrong and they were right. 709295[/snapback] But Kaeding was a third rounder. There is a big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 17 Oakland Janikowski, Sebastian K Florida State 18 N.Y. Jets Pennington, Chad QB Marshall 19 Seattle Alexander, Shaun RB Alabama 24 San Francisco Plummer, Ahmed CB Ohio State 30 Tennessee Bulluck, Keith OLB Syracuse Round 2 33 New Orleans Howard, Darren DE Kansas State 40 Denver Gold, Ian OLB Michigan I'd take any one of these bums over Janikowski any day of the week as well as quite a few of the others not mentioned. How can anybody argue that it was a good pick? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 But Kaeding was a third rounder. There is a big difference. 709303[/snapback] Oh, I know Captain. I'm just sayin' that I used to think that drafting a kicker early was stupid. Period. Kaeding's impact made me at least reconsider that blanket statement a little. But a first rounder stirkes me as too steep a price for a kicker, I'd think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Check it out Fatman, I got my own thread! 709275[/snapback] I'm so proud... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Oh, I know Captain. I'm just sayin' that I used to think that drafting a kicker early was stupid. Period. Kaeding's impact made me at least reconsider that blanket statement a little. But a first rounder stirkes me as too steep a price for a kicker, I'd think. 709311[/snapback] In general, I would agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 (edited) How can anybody argue that it was a good pick? 709307[/snapback] Ask phenom or Vatican Hitsquad: 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.705684[/snapback] 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. . . Any fan that has had to watch their team lose multiple games because their kicker sucks understands what I mean........... 706017[/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. 706065[/snapback] Janikowski wasn't the conventional pick but for the Raiders at that time it was the most needed pick. He solidified a major hole on the team. I can see where other people don't like the pick and think the Raiders overreacted and reached for Janikowski. But that year I was overreacting. When I saw Janikowski kicking 50 yarders at Florida state and I watched the Raiders trot out these crappy kickers I wanted him.I don't think you guys understand how bad those kickers were. 1997 Cole Ford 71% FG percentage 1998 Greg Davis had a 63% FG 1999 Michael Husted had 64.5% and Joe Nedney was 71% Do you know how bad that sucks? Thats not kinda bad. That's not average. That's like worst in the NFL type sucking. And that's over a 3 year period. So maybe a little bit of an overreaction but when you have that sort of production you need to address it in a big way............. 706511[/snapback] It was an overreaction pick. It was the result of past frustration with previous kickers. And you know what I'm glad they did. I would do it again. Having a reliable kicker is a secure feeling. He doesn't have to lead the league but just make 80-85% of your kicks and I would be satisfied. 706626[/snapback] Edited February 23, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 A lot of people need to realize, the kicking game is very crucial. Having the best Kicker will win you a few games in the year. It also gives you better field position, and it will allow your team to score more often and appose a threat. It makes no difference what your kicking game is like if you can't move the ball or stop what the other team is doing. IIRC, the year before was a horrible special teams year for the Raiders and Cap'n Al was making a point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Hook, makin a move on next year's "Best Fisherman" award? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Best draft pick of ALL TIME!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 24, 2005 Author Share Posted February 24, 2005 Best draft pick of ALL TIME!! 709548[/snapback] I think we all know what you voted for VH. I declare victory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phenom Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 So what do you think about the Patriots franchising Vinatieri for the second time in 3 years over impact players like Lawyer Milloy? Could it be that maybe having a kicker is a little more important than you imagine? No probably not, you have limited imagination......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawgTalk Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Very ironic that everyone keeps bringing up shaun alexander and chad pennington. Those guys are both great players, and better than janikowski, but stop for a minute. Are you not playin the role of a monday quarterback. Sure you can say things now, but you had no idea that those two guys would be what they are now. Hell, as a Browns fan, we could have had anybody we wanted for three years with the number one pick! But lets face it, at the time, if it looks good, you jump at it. Janikowski kicked 70 yd FGs in practice in college. You tell me you wouldnt find that to be worthy. Thats like finding a WR/RB running a 4.2 40. Lets face it, a kicker does not earn the respect they should. The Pats are doing something right, pretty ironic they keep tagging their KICKER..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 (snip of list)I'd take any one of these bums over Janikowski any day of the week as well as quite a few of the others not mentioned. How can anybody argue that it was a good pick? 709307[/snapback] I think the Raiders would argue they were convinced -- absolutley convinced -- they were one player away from winning the superbowl, and that player was a kicker. It was a go for broke move -- and they at least fractured, if not broke, in that he hasn't been able to distance himself from the 6th round kickers and the Raiders couldn't win it all. Was it a great pick? Nope. Good pick? I like the mentality of plugging the last hole and going for broke -- vinatage Al Davis ... it was worth a gamble, heck, it's only sports ... But then again, what did the Patriots owner say to Bill B about getting out of the game for good if it came to having to employ thugs, etc to win? And the Patriots have won it all since then ... Maybe if you build your house on unstable ground, you shouldn't be surprised when it tips over? 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.