Just for fun, who do you wish we would have drafted

[b bulldog]

Instead of Harrell, I think now I definitely would have looked at lone of the following, Aaron Ross, Michael Griffin or Leon Hall. I didn't like Hall but he has played better than I thought while all three would have gave us some talent behind the starters and would have given us something to work with in regards to the future. It's a bye week, I'm grasping for something :lol: m

[Him8123]

even though there was no way we could have got him, Peterson is definitely the best player to come out of the draft, I wish we could have got Olsen or Marshawn Lynch. Or how about Randy Moss that would have been nice, but whatever. Can`t do anything about it now, shoulda coulda woulda. oh well

[Carolina_Packer]

Instead of Harrell, I think now I definitely would have looked at lone of the following, Aaron Ross, Michael Griffin or Leon Hall. I didn't like Hall but he has played better than I thought while all three would have gave us some talent behind the starters and would have given us something to work with in regards to the future. It's a bye week, I'm grasping for something :lol: m

What, you think Aaron Ross or Leon Hall would have been a better nickel DB than Jarrett Bush? :) How about Reggie Nelson? He could have possibly pushed Nick Collins, and provided some depth and playmaking.

If they had gone offense, Dwayne Bowe or Olsen would have been nice, but I'm happy with Jones instead of Bowe, at least so far.

[retailguy]

Well, I don't think it's fair to speculate after the fact, so I still wish, as I did draft day, that they'd have traded down and took a WR in the 1st.

Jones has been a great surprise, but a game changing receiver would be nice.

I guess we could've traded way down and taken Olsen, too, that wouldn't have been a bad move, we have a need at TE.

I wasn't a big AP fan, still think the guy will turn out to be injury prone, but holy crap, what a first 7 weeks for that guy... :shock: Because I didn't like him, he'll probably be the next coming of Barry Sanders...<sigh>

[Him8123]

we didnt have to trade down to get Olsen, we passed on him

[Lurker64]

I'm not really sold on any of the guys taken 17-32, so honestly I have no idea. From production so far, Bowe would seem to be a decent pick but it remains to be seen if his production is mostly because he's the only threat the Chiefs have. I was personally hoping Revis would drop to 16 and I would have snapped him up in a second, but the Jets traded up to get him. If they hadn't, he might have been there at 16.

[Bretsky]

To me the two guys on offense that have really looked good and would help us would be Greg Olsen and Dwayne Bowe. The more I watch Olsen the more I detest him, because he's good and a Bear. I could see him being a Wesley Walls like player for many years.

[GBRulz]

I would have to say Greg Olsen. However, I'm happy with the way our TE's have played this year so who knows where he would have been on our depth chart and how much playing time he would have.

[Scott Campbell]

Barry Sanders.

[b bulldog]

Or Deion Sanders :lol:

[Carolina_Packer]

Colonel Sanders and Hand Sanders

[retailguy]

we didnt have to trade down to get Olsen, we passed on him

At the time he wasn't worth the value of the 16th pick. I still think we needed to trade down to get him at a better value, but I get your point.

Truth be told, I'd have been more pissed to take Olsen at 16, rather than I was taking Harrell. With Harrell, I was just disappointed that there wouldn't be any contribution in 2007. I still don't think that there will be, but we'll see towards the end of the year.

[Kak]

The biggest mistake Ted made was not trading with Cleveland for #36 and next year's first. He must have really locked in on Harrell and not realized how much fun he could have in 2008 with 2 first rounders.

It stings even more that frickin' Dallas will have that luxury. And they managed to move back into the first, although it cost them that second plus there own 3rd and 5th.

Bowe, Olsen, Sid Rice, Weddle could all have been targeted.

[Joemailman]

I wanted Bowe at the time, and he's looking pretty good. Right now, I'm concwrned about our lack of depth at CB, so any of the top CB's would look good right now.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Right now, Cleveland would draft around #15 or #16 next year. Somebody has gone over this. According to the board, the offer was a bad trade offer. It looks even worse right now. The offer Dallas got was a good one. This is the NFL. Standings are fluid from one year to another, so you can't assume that a team that drafted in the top 10 one year will do so the next year.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I wanted Bowe at the time, and he's looking pretty good. Right now, I'm concwrned about our lack of depth at CB, so any of the top CB's would look good right now.

I think we had our young corner on the roster, Will Blackmon, and some other intriguing guys. Unfortunately, Blackmon got injured again. I'm not sure how many of those rookie CBs are even doing that well. The Bengals are getting torched like it's no tomorrow. Ross hasn't been overly impressive. Not sure about Michael Griffin. All I know is that he was starting at the beginning of the season.

[3irty1]

I wish they would have dealt the pick for one in this year's draft and make a possible push for McFadden. He seems like a once in a decade prospect.

[Lurker64]

The biggest mistake Ted made was not trading with Cleveland for #36 and next year's first. He must have really locked in on Harrell and not realized how much fun he could have in 2008 with 2 first rounders.

It stings even more that frickin' Dallas will have that luxury. And they managed to move back into the first, although it cost them that second plus there own 3rd and 5th.

I'd like to point to my post in this thread (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=8187&start=20&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=), it's long so I'll use small type.


The math here bears mentioning.

The deal Thompson was purportedly offered
Packers give up: 16, 47, and 78.
Packers total value: 1,560 points.
Browns give up: 36 and 67 (820 points) and future 1st round pick (600 points)
Browns total value: 1,420 points.

Winner: Browns, by 140 points, approximately worth a 3rd round pick.

The deal the Cowboys got
Cowboys give up: 22
Cowboys total value: 800
Browns give up: 36 and future 1st round pick
Browns total value: 1160

Winner: Cowboys, by 360 points, approximately a 2nd round pick.

The Deal the Cowboys got, if it was offered to the Packers
Packers give up: 16
Packers total value: 1000
Browns give up: 36 and future 1st round pick
Browns total value: 1160

Winner: Packers by 160 points, approximately a 3rd round pick.

So if we took the deal Thompson was offered, the points chart says we're approximately losing by a third round pick, this is not a good trade. On the other hand, Dallas basically won by a second round pick, which is a huge trade, I'd do that in a second. Even if the Packers took the deal the Cowboys got we'd win by a third round pick, and I'd take that too. But I would never ever trade a first round pick in a trade that's a net loss. If Thompson took the trade that Cleveland reportedly offered initially, we would have good reason to criticize this year, and we'd have very good reason to criticize him next year if the player he took with the extra first doesn't make an immediate impact, since you'd certainly expect whoever he took at 16 to be making an impact in his second year.

Assuming the swap 2nd and 3rd round picks story is true, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cleveland consistently tried to lowball teams from Green Bay up to Dallas, since the reported offer was clearly a lowball offer. Keep in mind that in response to the lowball offer Thompson has absolutely no leverage, since Cleveland has 5 more teams to offer the same lowball offer to. They have no reason to up the ante if Thompson doesn't want the trade they offer, which is (by the numbers) a trade he loses in. Not everybody uses the same points chart, but the ones that are publicly available are, according to several sources, "pretty good approximations of the real ones".

So in response to my own question, I'm unhappy with deal 1), since it's a loss, but I'd take deal 2) in a second. The Cowboys got away with a fleecing. If we were picking 22 instead of 16, we could have gotten away with a similar fleecing since then we'd have leverage, but picking at 16 we have none as far as Cleveland is concerned.

I would be very unhappy if the GM of my team made any trade that (by the points) they lost by as much as a first day pick, particularly if the trade does not net me a player that I am high on. Since TT making the trade that was apparently offered would result in him netting no additional players this year, I would have been very unhappy with him if he had made that deal.

N.B.
The traditional means for scoring a future pick, is that it's valued at the same position that team is picking in the given round this year, but one round lower. So the Browns future first is graded out as the 3rd pick in the 2nd round next year. There are a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, there's the uncertainty in where the team that's giving up the pick will be selecting next year. Teams traditionally trade up, particularly in the early rounds, to get cogs that they feel will make them much much better. Logically, the team giving up the pick this year would assume that they're right, and in order to protect themselves assume that the team getting their pick will be much better, since the team that gave up the pick will be doing everything in their power to devalue that pick over the course of the season. Plus the future pick does not have any clear value to the team picking in that spot, since they don't know what their needs will be in the future, where they will be picking in the future, or who will be available and/or attractive in the future. Secondly, a team holding a pick is under no compunction to trade it away for picks not in this draft. You get one pick in every round, and you're not entitled to anybody else's. To give up value now, the deal has to be almost certainly in the favor of the team giving up the pick, particularly since most teams which are liable to trade away picks for future picks (particularly in the first round, since bad teams never trade away their first round picks for future considerations) are teams that consider themselves potential contenders for this year, assuming the addition of a cog or two. To sacrifice a pick that might be a cog to help you contend, you need to be clearly a winner in the deal where you lose the pick without receiving commensurate consideration in this draft. Since the season hasn't happened yet, almost all teams will value "impact in this coming season" over "ill-defined impact in the seasons following this one", coaches and GM can lose their jobs in a season, after all, and "I set us up well to win eventually" isn't going to fix a disappointing season.

Considering that Cleveland is much better than expected this year, the deal that Thompson turned down is looking like a worse and worse deal on our part. If the season ended right now Cleveland would be picking about 16 and trading the 16th pick this year for the 16th pick next year is kind of stupid when you think about it.

[Partial]

I wish they would have dealt the pick for one in this year's draft and make a possible push for McFadden. He seems like a once in a decade prospect.

Not even close. He is the best RB in the country but he is far from a guarantee. AD was a hell of a lot better in college IMO. Slaton is a better college back than McFadden as well.

[mraynrand]

I wanted the Packers to draft Spaeth, the TE from MINN. Big target, good hands, good route runner, fair speed, so-so blocker. Pittsburgh drafted him in the 3rd round just before the Packers, even though they already had a solid starter. One wonders if TT thought Pittsburgh wouldn't draft him and the Packers would get 'em. I have no idea how he's doing with Pittsburgh, but I liked him outta college.

[4and12to12and4]

At this point, Bowe is the obvious choice with Olsen a close second. But, who says Harrell won't end up being better than all these jokers. Did we trade him or something?

[cheesner]

The biggest mistake Ted made was not trading with Cleveland for #36 and next year's first. He must have really locked in on Harrell and not realized how much fun he could have in 2008 with 2 first rounders.

It stings even more that frickin' Dallas will have that luxury. And they managed to move back into the first, although it cost them that second plus there own 3rd and 5th.

I'd like to point to my post in this thread (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=8187&start=20&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=), it's long so I'll use small type.


The math here bears mentioning.

The deal Thompson was purportedly offered
Packers give up: 16, 47, and 78.
Packers total value: 1,560 points.
Browns give up: 36 and 67 (820 points) and future 1st round pick (600 points)
Browns total value: 1,420 points.

Winner: Browns, by 140 points, approximately worth a 3rd round pick.

The deal the Cowboys got
Cowboys give up: 22
Cowboys total value: 800
Browns give up: 36 and future 1st round pick
Browns total value: 1160

Winner: Cowboys, by 360 points, approximately a 2nd round pick.

The Deal the Cowboys got, if it was offered to the Packers
Packers give up: 16
Packers total value: 1000
Browns give up: 36 and future 1st round pick
Browns total value: 1160

Winner: Packers by 160 points, approximately a 3rd round pick.

So if we took the deal Thompson was offered, the points chart says we're approximately losing by a third round pick, this is not a good trade. On the other hand, Dallas basically won by a second round pick, which is a huge trade, I'd do that in a second. Even if the Packers took the deal the Cowboys got we'd win by a third round pick, and I'd take that too. But I would never ever trade a first round pick in a trade that's a net loss. If Thompson took the trade that Cleveland reportedly offered initially, we would have good reason to criticize this year, and we'd have very good reason to criticize him next year if the player he took with the extra first doesn't make an immediate impact, since you'd certainly expect whoever he took at 16 to be making an impact in his second year.

Assuming the swap 2nd and 3rd round picks story is true, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cleveland consistently tried to lowball teams from Green Bay up to Dallas, since the reported offer was clearly a lowball offer. Keep in mind that in response to the lowball offer Thompson has absolutely no leverage, since Cleveland has 5 more teams to offer the same lowball offer to. They have no reason to up the ante if Thompson doesn't want the trade they offer, which is (by the numbers) a trade he loses in. Not everybody uses the same points chart, but the ones that are publicly available are, according to several sources, "pretty good approximations of the real ones".

So in response to my own question, I'm unhappy with deal 1), since it's a loss, but I'd take deal 2) in a second. The Cowboys got away with a fleecing. If we were picking 22 instead of 16, we could have gotten away with a similar fleecing since then we'd have leverage, but picking at 16 we have none as far as Cleveland is concerned.

I would be very unhappy if the GM of my team made any trade that (by the points) they lost by as much as a first day pick, particularly if the trade does not net me a player that I am high on. Since TT making the trade that was apparently offered would result in him netting no additional players this year, I would have been very unhappy with him if he had made that deal.

N.B.
The traditional means for scoring a future pick, is that it's valued at the same position that team is picking in the given round this year, but one round lower. So the Browns future first is graded out as the 3rd pick in the 2nd round next year. There are a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, there's the uncertainty in where the team that's giving up the pick will be selecting next year. Teams traditionally trade up, particularly in the early rounds, to get cogs that they feel will make them much much better. Logically, the team giving up the pick this year would assume that they're right, and in order to protect themselves assume that the team getting their pick will be much better, since the team that gave up the pick will be doing everything in their power to devalue that pick over the course of the season. Plus the future pick does not have any clear value to the team picking in that spot, since they don't know what their needs will be in the future, where they will be picking in the future, or who will be available and/or attractive in the future. Secondly, a team holding a pick is under no compunction to trade it away for picks not in this draft. You get one pick in every round, and you're not entitled to anybody else's. To give up value now, the deal has to be almost certainly in the favor of the team giving up the pick, particularly since most teams which are liable to trade away picks for future picks (particularly in the first round, since bad teams never trade away their first round picks for future considerations) are teams that consider themselves potential contenders for this year, assuming the addition of a cog or two. To sacrifice a pick that might be a cog to help you contend, you need to be clearly a winner in the deal where you lose the pick without receiving commensurate consideration in this draft. Since the season hasn't happened yet, almost all teams will value "impact in this coming season" over "ill-defined impact in the seasons following this one", coaches and GM can lose their jobs in a season, after all, and "I set us up well to win eventually" isn't going to fix a disappointing season.

Considering that Cleveland is much better than expected this year, the deal that Thompson turned down is looking like a worse and worse deal on our part. If the season ended right now Cleveland would be picking about 16 and trading the 16th pick this year for the 16th pick next year is kind of stupid when you think about it.So you are saying a chart tells you if you are improving your team or not?

Next years draft is likely to be much deeper. And, deeper in positions that the Packers are weak. I think that TT should have done the deal, regardless of what some chart, someone posted on the internet says.

[Lurker64]

So you are saying a chart tells you if you are improving your team or not?

Next years draft is likely to be much deeper. And, deeper in positions that the Packers are weak. I think that TT should have done the deal, regardless of what some chart, someone posted on the internet says.

The chart simply measures value, I trust that the Packers scouting department will do their best to improve the team the most with that value. I'm simply saying that the deal Cleveland offered to us was poor value. A first round pick right now is always more valuable to you than a first round pick at some point in the future, because nobody can see the future and the guys you draft in the future don't help you right now. The chart isn't just "something some guy posted on the internet" it's, according to NFL GMs, a close approximation of the actual valuation system general managers use to weigh the respective value of points which derived from a metric handed down by the NFL a while back.

Also, it's way, way too early to really have a picture of what the 2008 draft is going to look like. The small amount of research I've done shows me that this draft is particularly strong at Tackle and Defensive Tackle, two positions the Packers don't need. It looks pretty weak at RB IMO, but neither of us are going to know until at least after the combine. Guys regularly rocket into the top 10 or fall out of the first round/first day based simply on offseason evaluation.

Simply put, the deal offered to Thompson by Cleveland was a poor value. Thompson thought so, but so did the five teams that drafted after us but before Dallas. It's not like Denver or Jacksonville couldn't find something to do with an extra first round pick next year, is it?

[3irty1]

I don't like going by the chart values for draft picks. Supposedly the charts we have aren't even the ones GMs really use. The reason I don't like it is because you are using estimated values on positions of players with estimated potential in the NFL. Thats like a double estimation. I realize of course why its done that way but my point is that a GM doesn't care about whether or not he comes out ahead in the chart... they just want to get all their guys!

The Cleveland trade was a total judgment call. I probobly wouldn't have taken it either but next year if that pick would have given us McFadden then it obviously would have been a great move. I'm not going to blame TT for not having a crystal ball.

[Carolina_Packer]

I wanted the Packers to draft Spaeth, the TE from MINN. Big target, good hands, good route runner, fair speed, so-so blocker. Pittsburgh drafted him in the 3rd round just before the Packers, even though they already had a solid starter. One wonders if TT thought Pittsburgh wouldn't draft him and the Packers would get 'em. I have no idea how he's doing with Pittsburgh, but I liked him outta college.

REC
4
YDS
28
AVG
7.0
TDS
3

Yeah, he would be looking pretty good right about now!

[cheesner]

So you are saying a chart tells you if you are improving your team or not?

Next years draft is likely to be much deeper. And, deeper in positions that the Packers are weak. I think that TT should have done the deal, regardless of what some chart, someone posted on the internet says.

The chart simply measures value, I trust that the Packers scouting department will do their best to improve the team the most with that value. I'm simply saying that the deal Cleveland offered to us was poor value. A first round pick right now is always more valuable to you than a first round pick at some point in the future, because nobody can see the future and the guys you draft in the future don't help you right now. The chart isn't just "something some guy posted on the internet" it's, according to NFL GMs, a close approximation of the actual valuation system general managers use to weigh the respective value of points which derived from a metric handed down by the NFL a while back.

Also, it's way, way too early to really have a picture of what the 2008 draft is going to look like. The small amount of research I've done shows me that this draft is particularly strong at Tackle and Defensive Tackle, two positions the Packers don't need. It looks pretty weak at RB IMO, but neither of us are going to know until at least after the combine. Guys regularly rocket into the top 10 or fall out of the first round/first day based simply on offseason evaluation.

Simply put, the deal offered to Thompson by Cleveland was a poor value. Thompson thought so, but so did the five teams that drafted after us but before Dallas. It's not like Denver or Jacksonville couldn't find something to do with an extra first round pick next year, is it?
I don't think we will agree on this. But just think about this: is the #4 player every year the same amount of being 'better' than the #5 player? Of course not. Is this chart updated every year to reflect differences in talent? No, it is the same one posted year after year.

Most teams (Packers included) use a tiered system of ranking players. There is no way to tell the difference between #37 and #38 player with any degree of certainty. So teams clump draft prospects together in tiers. When TT trades down, there are usually several players available in the current 'tier'. He knows that even going down 15 spots, he will still likely get a player that has the value of the current spot anyway.

Next year's draft should be good for RBs. If it is good for DTs, all the more reason to trade out this year and get an even better player with the pick next year.

[swede]

The lingering, gnawing draft day regret that won't leave me alone is the fact that we were bad enough to warrant getting a #5 pick and all we got was a decent linebacker. A great kid and all, and the best player available in that draft at that time, but hawk ain't wowin' the crowds yet and the clock has about ticked out the "wait 'til he gets his feet under him" thing. He is what he is--a very good linebacker.

Minnesota has the #7 pick this year and out of sheer luck--which may be the best kind--one of the most exciting young running backs I've ever seen falls into their lap.

Golldammed purple lucky stiffs.

[RashanGary]

You have some VERY solid points, Cheesner.

I like the Harrell pick, because there is usually only one player of his size, body type and power that comes out every year. He's a rare player with great impact potential. We also didn't need him, so it says to me, Ted Thompson truely thought he was better than anyone else. I'm a big believer in taking impact over need.

That said, I had an issue with how unprepared Ted Thompson seemed with that move. He didn't really know how to approach it. If I ever had the oppertunity to ask Ted Thompson a couple questions, one would be "You said last year that you were not prepared for the Harrell trade offer including next years picks. Would you say you are more prepared now for such a situation and would you consider future picks in deals down the road?"

I'm hoping he says that he's more prepared because I just wasn't impressed with how he dealt with the situation last year.

[The Leaper]

I still like Reggie Nelson...although Bigby's play certainly helped fill that void. Still, Nelson and Bigby might be a better safety combo than Bigby and Collins. I just have the feeling Nelson will be a great player for a long time.

[Lurker64]

I don't think we will agree on this. But just think about this: is the #4 player every year the same amount of being 'better' than the #5 player? Of course not. Is this chart updated every year to reflect differences in talent? No, it is the same one posted year after year.

Likewise, I don't think we're going to agree, but the way the points chart is constructed considers "average production from that draft position over time", so "the difference between the #5 and #6 picks is greater in 1991 than 1996" is irrelevant when you're in fact considering many years. On average, the difference in production between various draft positions is fairly constant. You do see the chart updated from time to time, but one year doesn't really do much to affect the average.


Next year's draft should be good for RBs. If it is good for DTs, all the more reason to trade out this year and get an even better player with the pick next year.

Honestly, I disagree. Other than the three juniors I don't see much at RB in this draft, and it's questionable whether Slaton can really continue to be a playmaker at the next level. Likewise, considering that almost without exception all DTs drafted, no matter how good they were in college, struggle in their first year or two in the NFL before eventually realizing their potential and considering that Pickett isn't going to be with the team forever, picking a DT in 2007 is a lot more valuable to the Packers than picking a DT in 2008, particularly because the Packers war room thought that Harrell was a top 10 talent. DT (like QB) is a position that you draft, not because you need one this upcoming year but because you anticipate needing one in a couple of years down the road.

[b bulldog]

Agree but when the DT you draft plays with little heart and shows up out of shape and has a hard time completing the Dline drills?? He needs to win me over. I was OK with TT's decision but I'm very iffy on Harrell's desire.

[Guiness]

The thing changes everything is that Cleveland's draft position has moved so much. It wouldn't have been a reach to think a top 10, or even top 5 pick would've been had for Cleveland's first rounder. It was pure speculation.

So, at this point, it looks like TT made the right move. Trading this year's 16th pick for next year's 15-20th pick is a bad trade. Had it been #8 or something, it would've been good.

[retailguy]

The thing changes everything is that Cleveland's draft position has moved so much. It wouldn't have been a reach to think a top 10, or even top 5 pick would've been had for Cleveland's first rounder. It was pure speculation.

So, at this point, it looks like TT made the right move. Trading this year's 16th pick for next year's 15-20th pick is a bad trade. Had it been #8 or something, it would've been good.


While I agree with you, as I am glad that he did not make the trade, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that in addition to the 2008 1st rounder, they also would have received the Browns 2007 2nd rounder which was the 36th pick in the last draft. That pick netted Kevin Kolb (QB) for the Philadelphia Eagles who got the pick from Dallas.

Who knows who Ted would have taken, but there was more to the trade than just Cleveland's 2008 1st rounder.

[Lurker64]

While I agree with you, as I am glad that he did not make the trade, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that in addition to the 2008 1st rounder, they also would have received the Browns 2007 2nd rounder which was the 36th pick in the last draft. That pick netted Kevin Kolb (QB) for the Philadelphia Eagles who got the pick from Dallas.

That was the deal Dallas got, but the word out of several of the teams who were drafting ahead of Dallas (including Green Bay) was that the deal the Browns were offering didn't contain any additional picks, simply a swap of second and third round picks.

I don't know if that's true, but suffice to say that Dallas had much more leverage in getting a deal out of Cleveland than Green Bay did. Green Bay, Denver, Cincinnati, Tennessee, the Giants, and Jacksonville were very unlikely to draft a QB. Kansas City came out and said "If Quinn is there, we will take him." So if Cleveland wanted Quinn, they needed to trade up ahead of KC. The last team picking before KC? Dallas. I don't know what really happens on the red phones on draft day, but Cleveland really had no incentive to "up their offer" to Green Bay considering that there were six more teams picking before KC they can try to work with, and those picks will come cheaper than #16.

So could Thompson have maybe talked Cleveland into the deal that Dallas got? Maybe, who can say? Did Dallas have a significantly easier time getting a good deal out of Cleveland than we could? Absolutely.

Regardless, I hope Cleveland wins 11 games this year, and right now I'm glad that Thompson didn't pull the trigger on that trade. I'm still cautiously optimistic but not sold on Harrell, but I'm glad I don't have to cheer against Cleveland every week.

[Deputy Nutz]

I hated the fact that the 2007 draft was very top heavy there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the 16th ranked player and 32nd ranked player. I would have traded down if Cleveland would have worked a little bit.

Other than that I would have selected Reggie Nelson.
Olsen would have been a decent pick a little high for him but read above.