Crabtree declares--Should the Packers consider moving up?

[Fritz]

I am neutral...if the Packers draft him at number 9...I would be fine with it. If the Packers don't draft him or even trade down to a team that does...I would be fine with it. The only thing that would piss me off is if TT traded up to get this guy. That would be stupid.

I'm kinda with you on this one.

[rbaloha1]

Currently how many players that may be available are worthy of the #9 pick?

[BooHoo]

TT wouldn't trade up if his life depended on it. Better chance of trading down.

[Zool]

Currently how many players that may be available are worthy of the #9 pick?

(shaking magic 8ball) ask again in 4 years.

[Lurker64]

Currently how many players that may be available are worthy of the #9 pick?

At least nine, which is convenient.

[sheepshead]

I hate the first round, get out now TT.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

You must get some good grass in hawaii rbaloha. To think the Packers would ever even consider picking Crabtree at # 9 is foolish, or you're just really really stoned. The Packers have too many other needs at positions in which there will be good players when they pick. As many have already pointed out, we don't have Matt Millen as team president.

[Zool]

You must get some good grass in hawaii rbaloha. To think the Packers would ever even consider picking Crabtree at # 9 is foolish, or you're just really really stoned. The Packers have too many other needs at positions in which there will be good players when they pick. As many have already pointed out, we don't have Matt Millen as team president.

Well I guess we're getting Crabtree then.

[wist43]

Actually, I could see that pick...

DD is on the downside, and Nelson and Jones are both #2/3 WR's, at least at this point... don't see stardom in their future.

The Packers have holes all over the place, so it doesn't really matter where the 1st pick goes... although, I'm with most of you as I would prefer to see the pick be on defense or OT.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Well even with my initial skepticisim, the fact remains Crabtree still has to make it past Seattle and Oakland. Two teams who have very glaring needs at WR. Oaklands #1 reciever last year after the Walker bust? Ronald Curry. Seattle's WR corps could easily be on par with the 2005 Packer class where we started such gems as Taco Wallace.

[DonHutson]

No way Crabtree falls to #9. No reason to move up for anyone, as it would appear that several players who fit our needs should be available right where we are.

[rbaloha1]

You must get some good grass in hawaii rbaloha. To think the Packers would ever even consider picking Crabtree at # 9 is foolish, or you're just really really stoned. The Packers have too many other needs at positions in which there will be good players when they pick. As many have already pointed out, we don't have Matt Millen as team president.

Only posed the question. No Maui wowie here.

Crabtree is a big time difference maker similar to Fitzgerald. Given that the draft is light on big time playmakers and the Packers have 4 picks in the top 100 is it a good move to attempt to acquire Crabtree?

Again, what players likely to be available at #9 warrant the pick?

Maybe trading down is the best course of action.

[rbaloha1]

No way Crabtree falls to #9. No reason to move up for anyone, as it would appear that several players who fit our needs should be available right where we are.

Agreed. Who are the several players?

[rbaloha1]

Well even with my initial skepticisim, the fact remains Crabtree still has to make it past Seattle and Oakland. Two teams who have very glaring needs at WR. Oaklands #1 reciever last year after the Walker bust? Ronald Curry. Seattle's WR corps could easily be on par with the 2005 Packer class where we started such gems as Taco Wallace.

This is why the question is posed. Crabtree more than likely is unavailable at #9.

[rbaloha1]

Actually, I could see that pick...

DD is on the downside, and Nelson and Jones are both #2/3 WR's, at least at this point... don't see stardom in their future.

The Packers have holes all over the place, so it doesn't really matter where the 1st pick goes... although, I'm with most of you as I would prefer to see the pick be on defense or OT.

Which defensive player or OT most likely to be a #9 pick deserve to be picked at #9. Please suggest names.