Blog Entry

DraftTek - Raiders Draft Needs

Posted on: February 7, 2008 4:36 pm
 
As some readers on the message boards may have guessed from my recent posts, I've been working on getting up to speed on some of the details of the Raiders roster - free agents, contract status, possible coaching changes or system changes, etc - trying to get a feel for who the Raiders are today and what their needs are going into the 2008 NFL Draft.

I've been doing similar things for the Lions the past couple of years, but this offseason I started picking up this knowledge of my other favorite NFL team. This has lead me to becoming the Raiders correspondant for DraftTek.com (www.drafttek.com/).

To give you an idea what Draft Tek does I've grabbed the following blurb from their "about" page:
Draft Tek uses a computer model (VBA on MSExcel platform) to generate a 7-round simulation for the 2008 NFL Draft.   As team needs and player rankings change over the months leading up to the draft, Draft Tek will be the first out of the block with updated projections  - on a daily basis if events warrant.

The goal of Draft Tek's simulation is to produce a "reasonable" draft based upon the higher needs of each team getting filled in the earlier rounds based on the players available in the ranked player list.

Draft Teks staff readily admits that they are unable to keep a watchful eye on the ongoings of all 32 teams.  The plan is to set up arrangements with knowledgeable sources for those teams where our understanding is inadequate.  Readers are encouraged to submit positional analyses of their team of choice.  However they should make some effort to use Draft Tek's priority codes found on the Team Needs page.

Basically their plan is to use collected player rank lists (based off averages from a number of credible scouting sources), combine that with knowledge about what each team needs and then let the computer run the draft for them.

So they've got me looking at the needs for the Raiders, and I'll be updating them shortly - but wanted to setup shop here to see if people here had opinions they want to share on position needs and players who do not fit what the Raiders will want to draft.

The Raiders current rating (set by someone other then myself as a baseline) sets up the following priorities, where lower numbers generally indicate a more pressing need.

    * DT(1)
    * WR (2 - Multiple)
    * OT(3), OC(3)
    * OG(4), DE(4), OLB(4), SS(4), FS(4),
    * CB(6),
    * QB(9), RB(9), TE(9), FB(9), ILB(9), K/P(9)

Some of these I agree with - others I don't but I wanted to post here first before updating them, as I wanted feedback as to what the community here felt was the Raiders needs in the coming draft.
Category: NFL
Comments

Since: Aug 30, 2006
Posted on: February 8, 2008 8:01 pm
 

DraftTek - Raiders Draft Needs

Raiders need help in many areas other then QB. Regardless they should draft the best player on their draft board when they make their selection in April. Right now I think the guy is either Sedrick Ellis (DT) from USC or Glenn Dorsey (DT) from LSU if he would to slip this far. With Warren Sapp retiring the raiders defensive line has a big hole to fill and everyone knows that football games are won in the trenches.

Top Raider needs..

  • DT
  • WR - Russell needs a target to get the ball too.
  • RB - Not sure if Fargas is their guy and Lamont Jordan has been a bust since coming over from the Jets
  • Safety

 




Since: Feb 19, 2007
Posted on: February 8, 2008 1:24 am
 

DraftTek - Raiders Draft Needs

DT and WR a big priority.  Safety is next for me, be it moving Huff and getting a strong side guy or finding a FS.  Then offensive linemen, but mostly because the Raiders recent good picks along the line were lower round guys.  RB has the potential to move all over this board depending on what happens with Jordan, Fargas, and Rhodes as well as what the front office really expects from Bush.



Since: Jan 5, 2008
Posted on: February 7, 2008 11:16 pm
 

DraftTek - Raiders Draft Needs

I'd agree with DT as the #1 need - SS as #2- WR as #3 -OT as #4


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com