Todd McShay's AFC West Draft Rankings

by phantom818 on Apr 29, 2008 8:53 PM MDT

Whether or not you like Todd McShay, here's his recap of the AFC West draft. Before you watch, I'll ruin it for you by posting the grades he gave. If you plan on commenting, please watch the video first and feel free to trash afterwards. I'm not a big fan of grading or rating drafts ten seconds after the fact, but I guess it "must" be done.

McShay's take:

Kansas City
Oakland
Denver
San Diego

Okay Todd, I see where you're going with Oakland at the two, I just think they could've better served their needs. This is for sure though, the Raiders will certainly be much better in the next installment of madden. We've already discussed the draft in plenty of detail, so I'll just close by mentioning that Denver had a good draft, and I'm perfectly comfortable with the new additions going into next season. I think at least two have the ability to start next season, probably three (counting the special teams return positions).

Poll

What would be your draft rankings? Lots of choices :)

KC, DEN, OAK, SD

28 votes

KC, OAK, DEN, SD

5 votes

DEN, KC, OAK, SD

4 votes

DEN, KC, SD, OAK

5 votes

KC, DEN, SD, OAK

11 votes

Other

1 votes

54 votes | Poll has closed

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

bla blah blah

The thing I noticed was Billis laying up a huge block for McFadden during the Oakland segement. :)

My MHR Blog Posts

by Tim Lynch on Apr 29, 2008 9:16 PM MDT reply actions

McShay=Idiot

I dont know how we consider this guy an expert. He never seems to guess anything right…

by Elway4Prez on Apr 29, 2008 10:52 PM MDT reply actions

Name recognition

Name recognition seems to be the main criteria, when the “draft experts” are rating how teams drafted. As for KC, all they did was trade away their best player for a second number 1 pick, and then draft the 2 most commonly accepted “best players” left – and suddenly they had a terrific draft. I could do that!!
There really is no way to rate a draft in a meaningfull way this soon.

by Jeeeeens on Apr 30, 2008 12:37 AM MDT reply actions

I Don't Get It.

KC doesn’t deserve praise because they made obvious value picks, addressed their needs and got the most out of a boatload of picks? You have to give credit where credit is do and the Chiefs deserve praise for their draft.

As for McShay, Run DMc was #1 on his Big Board, so he has to rate Oakland’s draft highly. KC did have a lot of high picks and they targeted widely regarded prospects early, so they’re going to grade out well early. I think the Broncos draft rates right in between those two, with SD lagging behind.

Draft experts do two things: they scout college prospects and talk to front office types to gain inside information about their targets. The reason why Mel Kiper and Todd McShay are on ESPN is because they have good eyes, solid dedication and an expansive network of connections. When it comes down to guessing draft picks with no inside information, everyone looks pretty bad.

Please check out my blog at http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/ , now redesigned and recommited!

by ejruiz on Apr 30, 2008 10:32 AM MDT reply actions

I went the same way myself

Of course it’s to early to tell, but it’s fun grading picks. I don’t think a draft is truly based on one pick, as McShay said when he had Oakland at number two (although Run DMC could certainly be good for them). The Chiefs had a draft that invited draft success after the Allen trade, and they didn’t screw anything up. Kudos for getting lucky and making a good trade, I guess.

What are they (the “experts”) going to do with their lives now? I guess Todd goes back to college. Their analysis and studying is why they’re on ESPN and we’re not. They do great work, but sometimes they take things a little too far.

by phantom818 on Apr 30, 2008 10:42 AM MDT up reply actions

2009...

McShay published a 2009 Mock Draft for giggles already.

Please check out my blog at http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/ , now redesigned and recommited!

by ejruiz on Apr 30, 2008 12:56 PM MDT up reply actions

I saw that

all I have to say is….wow. I’ve seen posts on sites wondering “do these people take themselves seriously?” concerning those that have just published an 09 mock moments after the 08 draft.

by phantom818 on Apr 30, 2008 2:24 PM MDT up reply actions

The mock part I don't get

but it is the assigning of records to teams that I don’t like. As far as projecting the order and rank of prospects, they are going to do that anyways right after every draft, so why not share it?

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by Jeremy Bolander on Apr 30, 2008 5:29 PM MDT up reply actions

Well yes

the rank of prospects in preparation for the next one after a draft is acceptable, but, as you said, the mock might not have been. The mock doesn’t necessarily correctly express the rank order of these prospects, but is a mock “draft,” and so the order represents team needs in part (how can you know what the team truly needs or where it will pick before the season starts though?). Just think if this situation was tried in baseball and the Orioles continued on their run. So much for that top three “projected” pick. Still, I think they do it for fun, and I will admit, it is a little fun to wonder about the possibilities.

by phantom818 on Apr 30, 2008 6:02 PM MDT up reply actions

Regarding KC, all I'm saying is

that you have to rate each teams draft on its own merrits. The chiefs did have a boat load of high picks (notably 2 first rounders), but I don’t think they should get extra credit for that alone. After all, they did give up a pretty penny to get those picks (a known commodity for a bunch of unknowns). Their draft should be graded based on the picks they had.

Now the other reason that they are getting praise is that we feel they made obvious value picks. But none of us know that yet – they are being praised because they made the same picks that every fan would have made – and lets face it, that is not a very good indicator of how a pick eventually turns out.

I agree that the Chies should be recognized for making a good trade.

by Jeeeeens on Apr 30, 2008 1:02 PM MDT up reply actions

Draft

Why is no one including Marcus Thomas which our 3rd Rd pick this year was used last year on? He was considered a top ten pick last year before he was kicked off the Gators, so a year later with some experience and possibly starting at DT don’t we deserve a better grade. Even if it doesn’t at least acknowledge that he was part of this draft !!!

by Markus2112 on Apr 30, 2008 12:50 PM MDT reply actions

Marcus Thomas is better

than every DT in this draft except Ellis and Dorsey, IMO. Maybe Sims, but Thomas’ character is like Sims inconsistency, so they both have that knock against them.

Thomas grows up (I’m not saying he hasn’t, just that it is a process) and gets some talent next to him, and he can start turning heads back in his direction.

It breaks my heart that we sacrificed his development to the ‘Bates’ experiment. That is a year he will never get back, that contibuted very little overall to his game.

You bring up a great point that shouldn’t be forgotten.

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by Jeremy Bolander on Apr 30, 2008 5:34 PM MDT up reply actions

SD had a better draft than Oakland

Why?
It started a year ago when the team added Chambers and Waddell. Both of those proved themselves on the field and the Riaders got another RB that can only be a RB. Don’t get me wrong his is a hot prospect but Chambers is a proven WR that has been great. And as much as I hate to admit it, but if Phillip Rivers can open up the passing game the Chargers are going to be really tough. Champ and Dre can play, but that is the only ting missing on that team. Oakland has had success at RB and still were a 4-12 team. So that is my logic on why the Chargers had a better draft than oakland.

by telliemrich on May 1, 2008 1:06 AM MDT reply actions

Welcome to MHR

and I think you will find our own hoosierteacher bangs the Chambers drum very loudly: in short he wants us all to beware, adn frankly it is pretty easy to see the point you guys are making.

I really dislike Phyllis, but it is on the Broncos to revoke his 100% share in ownership of the Broncos at this crucial juncture in Broncos History.

Wasn’t it just two years ago when SD had a hard time getting it doen against Denver? My kingdom to get one from them at home this year. That really doesn’t seem like too much to ask for.

Mountains, forest, sea: these render man fierce, but yet do not destroy the man.

by Jeremy Bolander on May 1, 2008 4:59 AM MDT up reply actions

From a purely game prep angle...

The moment I read that Chambers went to SD I went ballistic. It’s not that Chambers is a good WR (he is), but the match-up problems become very difficult for Denver (and that was demonstrated last year).

Many people would shrug off the signing by pointing out that Champ can handle Chambers. This is true. But they would be forgetting our preference for putting Bailey on Gates in our match-ups. With Bailey tied back to a #1 receiver, Gates at TE becomes a bigger threat, and by implication the running game gets a boost.

Picking up Chambers was the factor (in my book) that boosted SD from very good to being a deep playoff threat in our division.

My kingdom for a front seven that can stop the run so we can have both safeties in pass defense!

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 10:10 AM MDT up reply actions

Look what happened in the playoffs last season too!

The Chargers didn’t have LT on the field, so I guess they weren’t “complete,” but both Jackson and Chambers reached 90 yards receiving (albeit in a loss) against the Patriots. Jackson had topped 90 yards the week before as well and both he and Chambers had caught TDs. Bringing Chambers in obviously seemed to help Jackson get some space at least, and a move like that will certainly create match-up problems with an end like Antonio Gates on the roster. Chris had struggled with the Dolphins during a season in which he was over-hyped coming in, but has now landed in a good situation for himself where he doesn’t have to be “the guy” anymore. I still think the Bolts could be a little tough…Denver still needs to build a solid antidote against LT running up the score on them.

by phantom818 on May 1, 2008 10:16 AM MDT up reply actions

Match-up problems vary from team to team.

NE has a different set of concerns the way they approach SD than we do.

But I think the LT issue has been addressed, though we still aren’t fully loaded.

1. We have clear improvements at LB to better help against LT at the second level. We have 2 new DTs that may help as well. We won’t stop LT, but we won’t get gashed as bad either. And is LT even ready to return 100%?

2. The pass rush improvements might likely keep Gates at scrimmage having to pass block, allowing us totone down the pass game so the run can be focused on.

3. Improvements on offense (the line and an additional power rusher from the draft and another from the recent UdFA) takes the SD offense off the field on the clock.

Good points Phantom.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on May 1, 2008 10:42 AM MDT up reply actions