Realistically, Palmer is probably the best choice out of what was available to Oakland.

I just don't know how they can dismiss the cost. Think of the criteria you would use to judge a 1st round draft pick. For it to be an A grade, you'd probably expect around 5 years of high level of play. To grade out around a B/C, you'd need a consistent 5 year starter type player, if not necessarily always at the top of his game (think Derrick Johnson). A C/D would probably be getting a few years of decent starter play. Anything less than 2+ years of starter play is probably going to be called an F/bust.

So realistically, Oakland is looking at needing 10 years of very good play from Palmer to grade those draft picks as A, A. A more realistic expectation would be 5 years of very good play, for what would amount to an A, D/F.

I honestly think at best case scenario, one of those draft picks is going to have to grade out as an F, using typical standards. And even more likely, the other pick is going to grade around a C at best.

Raiders fans are quick to say "if we win a Superbowl this year, it's worth it". But if you apply the same standards that you would to two 1st round draft picks, it's clear that it is not worth it. IMO, a 1st round pick should equal 5 years of starter play.

Oakland has sacrificed 10 potential years of starter play for Palmer and I don't think many NFL enthusiasts would argue that the addition puts them ahead of New England, Green Bay, or Baltimore. And may not even put them on the same tier as 2nd level play-off type teams like New Orleans, San Diego, or Pittsburgh.

Yall can go ahead now and start sucking up and I won't be as hard on you later.... Continue to beat those DSL's and the flogging will continue for quite some time

Absolutly reeruned

Raiders pick given up for Palmer is gonna be around 22-28

Do you know what the success rate is for a player picked in that slot?

Less than 39%

So you cant even flip a coin and have a 50% chance

You know how many player drafted in rd 1 actually resigned with the team that drafted them?

15%

Yes, thats right...15% of them

So the odds are that your pick will suck ass or sign with another team after their rookie contract is 85% of those fuggers

You gave up 2 picks for him.

And if you don't get 4-5 good years out of each of those picks, they would be considered busts by most.

I don't blame you for trying to minimize the value of draft picks though, after the way your team has handed them out like candy.

ROFL

ESPN Radio opens with this this morning...

"Just when you thought the Raiders we're getting back on track after years of losing, they go and do something like this."

I'm not trying to minimize the cost

What I'm telling you is simply

The odds on a team hitting on a pro bowl player in the draft is 15%

Those odds suck ass, even to stupid investors

The odds are simply not there. Now, you can find mariginal players at a much higher percentage, but their cost far outweighs what one pays for them

If DT was a position of need, would you have traded the 17th overall pick for Richard Seymour?

If you said no, you're an idiot, and probably thinking in the lines of losing cheap franchises like the Chiefs, Browns etc

I'm amazed by this 2nd draft pick that has suddenly disappeared.

Good points. I think Boller is still the better choice though. He went 8-14 for 100 yards coming off the bench last week and that's probably not a lot less than we could have expected out of Campbell. We probably get another TD with Campbell in but hell, when Campbell was playing the offense only scored 10 points anyway.

I have to wonder if Campbell had hit the wall even before he got injured.

Whatever. Boller should start and finish this one no matter what the outcome is. I wouldn't even have Palmer suited up for this one.

Hmm, thinking as unbiased as I possibly can considering I'm a diehard Chiefs fan and hate the Raiders....acquiring Palmer isn't a bad move. They had 0 chance with Kyle Boller. The problem is, they gave up too much for Palmer imo. It's a high risk/medium reward.

The second pick is a conditional 2nd round that could be a 1st. If that pick becomes a first I would say the trade was worth it, considering what has to be done to make that pick a 1st.

Thats not the point. The AVERAGE at 22-28 is 5 years of starting. As jsp said in his post, thats a C. Average..."success" isn't defined as pro-bowl...

Can Raider fans even read?

They have to make the AFC championship game right? Not win it....Hmmm...What if they make the AFC championship game, lose...and Palmer plays like shit? Don't get me wrong ..I'd love to see my team win a playoff game....I dunno if it would be worth it though.

I don't think reaching the 3rd round round of a single year's play-offs makes it worth it.

Personally, I would expect multiple years of good play from the position to consider it a success. Just like I would from the use of the respective draft picks.

Let me put it this way. If we reached the AFC championship game this year, would that mean drafting Tyson Jackson and Dexter McCluster was worth it?

Brad Johnson won a single Superbowl, is he worth 2 draft picks?

There's just a lot more to it for me. Realistically, Oakland could miss the playoffs for the next five years, but if Palmer played lights out during that span, I'd probably consider it a good trade.

Stupid argument. It would depend on on Jacksons and McClusters roles. Oakland isn't going to make it anywhere without good play from Palmer.

Really?

Because the only reason anyone thinks they are play-off caliber team is by making it somewhere without good play from Black Cassel.

I don't think the Raider's success can unarguably be tied to Palmer playing well.