2009 NFL Mock Draft 7.0

[packers11]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/04/23/mock1/index.html?bcnn=yes



Thoughts ? I don't see us taking Tyson Jackson with Crabtree still on the board... We either trade down and take Maybin / O'sack'po or take Crabtree...

[Waldo]

Crabtree has a personality mix of TO, Moss, MeShawn, and Ocho.

Somehow I don't think that TT is even seriously considering drafting him if he is there. I think that Harvin is the only person in the draft that is further from "Packer People".

Why wouldn't we take Tyson?

A good % of places has a top 5-10 grade on him.

[falco]

i'm starting to get pretty high on tyson.

[Waldo]

i'm starting to get pretty high on tyson.

Good stuff huh.

Gives me the giggles. :lol:

[falco]

i'm starting to get pretty high on tyson.

Good stuff huh.

Gives me the giggles. :lol:

plus it doesn't show up in the drug test at the combine :lol:

[Freak Out]

i'm starting to get pretty high on tyson.

Good stuff huh.

Gives me the giggles. :lol:

ok...now you guys are freaking me out. :lol:

[DonHutson]

Crabtree has a personality mix of TO, Moss, MeShawn, and Ocho.

And factor in that he'll have a big adjustment both the NFL and to a west coast offense. With the talent we already have he could very well be the #4 or #5 WR in Green Bay as a rookie. How would that sit with him?

It'd be hard to pass on that talent, but one of the strengths of this team is the WR corps and one of the strengths of that unit is their teamwork and comeraderie. You'd better have a good feeling about him fitting in with that unit before you picked him.

But I don't think he falls that far anyway.

[pbmax]

If the Browns are trading Edwards and Stallworth is headed to the pokey, don't they HAVE to take Crabtree? Even Winslow is gone. There was one rumor of the Browns asking to get Steve Smith back in trade from the Giants for Edwards, but the Giants offered someone else.

I know Mangenius won in NY with an accurate QB and Coles as his star WR, but is there anything in Cleveland at the position?

[Bretsky]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/04/23/mock1/index.html?bcnn=yes



Thoughts ? I don't see us taking Tyson Jackson with Crabtree still on the board... We either trade down and take Maybin / O'sack'po or take Crabtree...


If TT throws BPA out the window he might take Jackson at 9 over Crabtree
I also think Orakpo is a better player. If you go need maybe TTT takes Jackson

[Lurker64]

I always thought that "best player available" should be gauged in terms of "how much he will help our team" and not "who is objectively the most talented player.

To illustrate this, suppose players have their talent and contribution to the NFL ranked on a 10 point scale; 1 is bad 10 is good.

Suppose you are picking and there are 3 players you are considering, all who play different positions. Player A who plays position x is rated a 9. Player B who plays position y is rated a 5. Player C who plays position z is rated an 8.

I propose 3 models to deal with this (and similar situations).
Model 1(Strict BPA): Take the highest rated player, regardless of position.
Model 2 (Need): Take the player who is the largest improvement over whoever you currently have starting at that position.
Model 3 (BPA): Take the player you are willing to draft at that spot who plays the position that is currently weakest on the roster.
So in our made up scenario, under Model #1 you take player A who is rated as a 9/10 every time, even if the current starter at at position x is an 8/10.

Under Models 2 and 3 you have to look at the roster, suppose the starter at position y is ranked a 4/10 and position z is ranked a 6/10.

Model 2 will take player B since he improves the weakest position on the roster (y), even though it is only a 1 point increase in quality.

Model 3 will take player C since the total improvement at position z as a result of the pick is 3 points (versus a 1 point increase for picking players A and B.)

I think that, if we're going to have a strict draft philosophy, Model 3 is really the only reasonable one. Going by Model 1 is unreasonable, since it will occasionally encourage you to do things like "take quarterback after quarterback", so I have to reject it as a reasonable notion of "BPA".

[TheCheese]

Don't want Crabtree, would rather have Tyson Jackson. If Jackson is gone before pick 9 then I hope we trade down and select English. I'd even be happy as hell with Barwin in the first round too, but the idea of English in Green Bay gets me all giddy. Hes a hell of a player and fills a need. I'm telling you guys wait till you see this guy in the NFL rushing the QB. Dude is a freaking beast.

[Gunakor]

We draft Crabtree at #9 and we'll end up with WAY more money tied up in WR's than we'd like once Jennings gets his extension. No to Crabtree. Spend the money elsewhere.

I'd like Raji if he's there. If not, I wouldn't be opposed to Jackson or Oher. Maybe even Smith at OT, questions and all. Combine disaster aside, he's a pretty good football player.

If we don't go in one of those directions with #9, I'd prefer a trade down into the bottom third of the round. Offer say #9 and #109 for #24-#32 and #57-#64 and see if there are any takers.

[PlantPage55]

Crabtree has a personality mix of TO, Moss, MeShawn, and Ocho.

I think that Harvin is the only person in the draft that is further from "Packer People".


Where did you get this idea? Everything I've seen and heard about his attitude has been pretty positive. I mean, I've seen him as humble enough in his interviews.


Character: Crabtree responds well to hard coaching, but is not the type who has a take-charge leadership ability. He is close to his father and has spent a large amount of his time in the offseason working with fellow NFL players on honing his skills. Some might question his entourage, but he has no known off-field issues. What separates him from most elite receivers is his competitiveness and desire to work on every aspect of his game. With his size and athletic ability, he could have swagger in his play, but lets his performance speak for itself. GRADE: 6.8

There is a "nebulous" concern about his character floating around, but no one ever says what it is. No one can get specific. And plenty of coaches/analysts close to him will vouch for his character.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I've heard a ton of chatter about Crabtree's diva attitude. I haven't heard anything about him not willing to work hard.

[cheesner]

I always thought that "best player available" should be gauged in terms of "how much he will help our team" and not "who is objectively the most talented player.

To illustrate this, suppose players have their talent and contribution to the NFL ranked on a 10 point scale; 1 is bad 10 is good.

Suppose you are picking and there are 3 players you are considering, all who play different positions. Player A who plays position x is rated a 9. Player B who plays position y is rated a 5. Player C who plays position z is rated an 8.

I propose 3 models to deal with this (and similar situations).
Model 1(Strict BPA): Take the highest rated player, regardless of position.
Model 2 (Need): Take the player who is the largest improvement over whoever you currently have starting at that position.
Model 3 (BPA): Take the player you are willing to draft at that spot who plays the position that is currently weakest on the roster.
So in our made up scenario, under Model #1 you take player A who is rated as a 9/10 every time, even if the current starter at at position x is an 8/10.

Under Models 2 and 3 you have to look at the roster, suppose the starter at position y is ranked a 4/10 and position z is ranked a 6/10.

Model 2 will take player B since he improves the weakest position on the roster (y), even though it is only a 1 point increase in quality.

Model 3 will take player C since the total improvement at position z as a result of the pick is 3 points (versus a 1 point increase for picking players A and B.)

I think that, if we're going to have a strict draft philosophy, Model 3 is really the only reasonable one. Going by Model 1 is unreasonable, since it will occasionally encourage you to do things like "take quarterback after quarterback", so I have to reject it as a reasonable notion of "BPA".
If you continually draft players that are a point below, because of need, you will end up with a roster that average 5, if you stick strictly with BPA your roster average is 6. Simply put. If you draft inferior players because of need you end up with an inferior team.

As you say, drafting a perceived need may improve your team the most in short run, but almost guarantees you sink into mediocrity in the long run.

Model 1 is the only one.

[Fritz]

Here's another idea: how does one define BPA?

If you define "best player" as strictly the guy with the most talent, okay. Maybe that's Crabtree.

Personally, I know nothing of the guy's character. But for the sake of argument, let's say Waldo's right - he makes TO and Randy Moss look like schoolboys.

So - if he will be a locker room cancer, is he in fact the "best player"? What does it mean to be the best, after all?

[cheesner]

Here's another idea: how does one define BPA?

If you define "best player" as strictly the guy with the most talent, okay. Maybe that's Crabtree.

Personally, I know nothing of the guy's character. But for the sake of argument, let's say Waldo's right - he makes TO and Randy Moss look like schoolboys.

So - if he will be a locker room cancer, is he in fact the "best player"? What does it mean to be the best, after all?
I wouldn't define BPA as having the most talent. Not only talent on the field, but leadership in the locker room, and the other intangibles have to be considered. Was Jerry Rice the most talented player? Not really. There have been many players with better hands/faster/etc. Yet he is arguably the best player ever.