Seattle Seahawks Should/Will Not Take Michael Crabtree in 2009
Michael Crabtree will not, and should not be selected by the Seahawks at No. 4. While several mock draft sites have dubbed this pick a “lock,” were to fall to the Seahawks, I’ll display the complete opposite sentiment.
Now that the premise of this is out of the way, I’d like to preface the reason I’m writing this. In several arenas, I’ve argued with people about the idea of the Seahawks taking Crabtree.
Most often, the response I get after putting in a few hours of new research, and bringing up new information, is something along the lines of, “Good article man, but I disagree,” or “I don’t care, the Seahawks need a receiver and Crabtree is da’ bomb.”
While those comments indisputable in some respects, they don’t offer much insight. I have nothing against Michael Crabtree, and I think he’ll probably be a fine pro. He seems like a good teammate, it seems like the people who know him can hardly contain the praise they have for him.
I would however, as much as is possible, like to attempt to ignore the fact that he is, in fact, Michael Crabtree. Rather, I’d like to think of Michael Crabtree as simply a “Top 10 worthy wide receiver prospect.”
To begin work on this article, I established a hypothesis that wide receivers taken in the top 10 picks of the NFL draft are more risky, and even when they are not “busts,” their value to a team is overstated.
Because this article is geared toward the Seahawks, I chose to prove my hypothesis by comparing receivers to offensive linemen, which is a position that the Seahawks need, and also one where it is likely that an elite prospect will also be available when the Seahawks pick.
Also, because I’ve harped on the Seahawks taking Michael Oher, it felt only fitting to put my proverbial “money where my mouth is.”
I hate to do this, but the tables I used for the article don't format properly for B/R. There is a link at the end of this portion of the article to my own site. Normally I put a link to my own site on the article in an unobtrusive place. I assure readers I will not do this again unless formatting makes it necessary.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?