If Crabtree Re-entered the Draft (2010)

I think he'd go early 1st or late 2nd, same as Tebow. There would still be concerns about his speed but somebody would take a chance on him relatively early on.

Originally posted by Gavintech:
Mike Williams was nowhere near the prospect Crabtree was and he sat out what he thought would have been his rookie year, also after only two years in college, and he was still picked #10 overall. Same as Crabtree.

What would that heave meant for Crabtree? Maybe it would have hurt him, given Willaims' failure in the NFL. Or maybe it would have meant that teams are still willing to take that risk? It would only take one GM willing to pull the trigger.

I guess my issue is this draft just seems loaded with talent compared to last year. I haven't done any real analysis, but the buzz seems much greater. Just think of the four OTs, 3 NT, DE/OLB prospects, Berry, Haden, Spiller and on and on.....Man I'm glad we have two high picks!

We would have drafted him at 17th and paid his ass even less lol

I'm guessing late 1st

Originally posted by foreign49er:
I think he'd go early 1st or late 2nd, same as Tebow. There would still be concerns about his speed but somebody would take a chance on him relatively early on.

that doesnt make sense

Originally posted by WestCoast:

Originally posted by foreign49er:
I think he'd go early 1st or late 2nd, same as Tebow. There would still be concerns about his speed but somebody would take a chance on him relatively early on.

that doesnt make sense

Late 1st early 2nd. Thanks for the grammar check.

Originally posted by 5280High:

Originally posted by TonyStarks:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:

Originally posted by valrod33:
Crabtree got drafted by the 49ers

either you didn't get the point of the thread..

or don't realize had he re-entered the draft, we would not have been eligible to re-draft him..

either way, good job.

oh, and I think if Dez Bryant is there he goes to the phins, and then the Ravens snag Crabtree..

he would have been traded before he re-entered the draft, probably to Cleveland, Dallas, or ???? for a 3rd round pick.

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by Gavintech:
Mike Williams was nowhere near the prospect Crabtree was and he sat out what he thought would have been his rookie year, also after only two years in college, and he was still picked #10 overall. Same as Crabtree.

What would that heave meant for Crabtree? Maybe it would have hurt him, given Willaims' failure in the NFL. Or maybe it would have meant that teams are still willing to take that risk? It would only take one GM willing to pull the trigger.

I guess my issue is this draft just seems loaded with talent compared to last year. I haven't done any real analysis, but the buzz seems much greater. Just think of the four OTs, 3 NT, DE/OLB prospects, Berry, Haden, Spiller and on and on.....Man I'm glad we have two high picks!

How many receivers were as highly rated coming out of college in the last 10-15 years? Calvin was Johnson for sure. Edwards wasn't, Holmes wasn't, Fitzgerald maybe, Charles Rodgers wasn't, Andre Johnson wasn't, Stallworth wasn't, Burress might have been close, Holt wasn't, Keyshawn probably was, etc. Crabtree was one of those rare prospects based on his performace, not just his measurables (which are not incredible, neither were Jerry Rice's). Bryant isn't the prospect any of Crabtree, Johnson (Key, Calivin, or Andre), or Burress was.

In only two years Crabtree is possibly the greatest NCAA receiver of all time. I think there's a chance he would have dropped past 10 but he would still be the 1st receiver taken. Bryant may have tested faster on the track but Crabtree is easily the better football player.

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by Gavintech:
Mike Williams was nowhere near the prospect Crabtree was and he sat out what he thought would have been his rookie year, also after only two years in college, and he was still picked #10 overall. Same as Crabtree.

What would that heave meant for Crabtree? Maybe it would have hurt him, given Willaims' failure in the NFL. Or maybe it would have meant that teams are still willing to take that risk? It would only take one GM willing to pull the trigger.

I guess my issue is this draft just seems loaded with talent compared to last year. I haven't done any real analysis, but the buzz seems much greater. Just think of the four OTs, 3 NT, DE/OLB prospects, Berry, Haden, Spiller and on and on.....Man I'm glad we have two high picks!

How many receivers were as highly rated coming out of college in the last 10-15 years? Calvin was Johnson for sure. Edwards wasn't, Holmes wasn't, Fitzgerald maybe, Charles Rodgers wasn't, Andre Johnson wasn't, Stallworth wasn't, Burress might have been close, Holt wasn't, Keyshawn probably was, etc. Crabtree was one of those rare prospects based on his performace, not just his measurables (which are not incredible, neither were Jerry Rice's). Bryant isn't the prospect any of Crabtree, Johnson (Key, Calivin, or Andre), or Burress was.

In only two years Crabtree is possibly the greatest NCAA receiver of all time. I think there's a chance he would have dropped past 10 but he would still be the 1st receiver taken. Bryant may have tested faster on the track but Crabtree is easily the better football player.

This

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by Gavintech:
Mike Williams was nowhere near the prospect Crabtree was and he sat out what he thought would have been his rookie year, also after only two years in college, and he was still picked #10 overall. Same as Crabtree.

What would that heave meant for Crabtree? Maybe it would have hurt him, given Willaims' failure in the NFL. Or maybe it would have meant that teams are still willing to take that risk? It would only take one GM willing to pull the trigger.

I guess my issue is this draft just seems loaded with talent compared to last year. I haven't done any real analysis, but the buzz seems much greater. Just think of the four OTs, 3 NT, DE/OLB prospects, Berry, Haden, Spiller and on and on.....Man I'm glad we have two high picks!

How many receivers were as highly rated coming out of college in the last 10-15 years? Calvin was Johnson for sure. Edwards wasn't, Holmes wasn't, Fitzgerald maybe, Charles Rodgers wasn't, Andre Johnson wasn't, Stallworth wasn't, Burress might have been close, Holt wasn't, Keyshawn probably was, etc. Crabtree was one of those rare prospects based on his performace, not just his measurables (which are not incredible, neither were Jerry Rice's). Bryant isn't the prospect any of Crabtree, Johnson (Key, Calivin, or Andre), or Burress was.

In only two years Crabtree is possibly the greatest NCAA receiver of all time. I think there's a chance he would have dropped past 10 but he would still be the 1st receiver taken. Bryant may have tested faster on the track but Crabtree is easily the better football player.

Gavintech - You are a football guru.....Seriously. Remind me not to debate you when it comes to specific players.

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by Gavintech:
Mike Williams was nowhere near the prospect Crabtree was and he sat out what he thought would have been his rookie year, also after only two years in college, and he was still picked #10 overall. Same as Crabtree.

What would that heave meant for Crabtree? Maybe it would have hurt him, given Willaims' failure in the NFL. Or maybe it would have meant that teams are still willing to take that risk? It would only take one GM willing to pull the trigger.

I guess my issue is this draft just seems loaded with talent compared to last year. I haven't done any real analysis, but the buzz seems much greater. Just think of the four OTs, 3 NT, DE/OLB prospects, Berry, Haden, Spiller and on and on.....Man I'm glad we have two high picks!

How many receivers were as highly rated coming out of college in the last 10-15 years? Calvin was Johnson for sure. Edwards wasn't, Holmes wasn't, Fitzgerald maybe, Charles Rodgers wasn't, Andre Johnson wasn't, Stallworth wasn't, Burress might have been close, Holt wasn't, Keyshawn probably was, etc. Crabtree was one of those rare prospects based on his performace, not just his measurables (which are not incredible, neither were Jerry Rice's). Bryant isn't the prospect any of Crabtree, Johnson (Key, Calivin, or Andre), or Burress was.

In only two years Crabtree is possibly the greatest NCAA receiver of all time. I think there's a chance he would have dropped past 10 but he would still be the 1st receiver taken. Bryant may have tested faster on the track but Crabtree is easily the better football player.

Crabtree wouldn't have fared any better, maybe 10 through 15 I'd guess.

But what a greedy little schmuck Eugene Parker turned out to be. Doubt he'll learn his lesson though. He'll probably screw up Bryant's production by holding him out as well. When are players going to realize that these types of agents are only looking out for themselves and not their clients?

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by Gavintech:
Mike Williams was nowhere near the prospect Crabtree was and he sat out what he thought would have been his rookie year, also after only two years in college, and he was still picked #10 overall. Same as Crabtree.

What would that heave meant for Crabtree? Maybe it would have hurt him, given Willaims' failure in the NFL. Or maybe it would have meant that teams are still willing to take that risk? It would only take one GM willing to pull the trigger.

I guess my issue is this draft just seems loaded with talent compared to last year. I haven't done any real analysis, but the buzz seems much greater. Just think of the four OTs, 3 NT, DE/OLB prospects, Berry, Haden, Spiller and on and on.....Man I'm glad we have two high picks!

How many receivers were as highly rated coming out of college in the last 10-15 years? Calvin was Johnson for sure. Edwards wasn't, Holmes wasn't, Fitzgerald maybe, Charles Rodgers wasn't, Andre Johnson wasn't, Stallworth wasn't, Burress might have been close, Holt wasn't, Keyshawn probably was, etc. Crabtree was one of those rare prospects based on his performace, not just his measurables (which are not incredible, neither were Jerry Rice's). Bryant isn't the prospect any of Crabtree, Johnson (Key, Calivin, or Andre), or Burress was.

In only two years Crabtree is possibly the greatest NCAA receiver of all time. I think there's a chance he would have dropped past 10 but he would still be the 1st receiver taken. Bryant may have tested faster on the track but Crabtree is easily the better football player.

Terry Donahue had Edwards rated as the best player in the 2005 draft, lol. But seriously, Nolan and McCloughan where considering him along with Antrel Rolle for the first overall pick that year. Good thing we picked Smith, Doh