I know Ryan Grant and James Starks could form a respectable duo, but Grant is in a contract year and coming off injury. Starks also has durability problems of his own.

I'm very high on Ingram. I think he's the best offensive player in the draft and very undervalued because of his position and lack of lofty workout numbers.

He also seems like a Ted Thompson type personality as well. He's low key and shows tremendous focus. Thompson has a tendency to draft an heir apparent in the first round.

We saw Rodgers for Favre and Harrell for Corey Williams. Last year, we saw Bulaga for Clifton/Tauscher. Ingram would be the ideal replacement for Grant. He also allegedly is falling in this draft. I'm not sure I believe it, but it has gained enough traction to look at the possibility.

I'm curious to what other feels. This would be a luxury over need selection.

---

I think so, cause the kid from Illinois seems like a better prospect. I think the Giants will take him though Porky.

---

He would be a great replacement but if there is a high quality OT or OLB available I think they should go in that direction.

---

I think league history shows that quality RBs can be found in all rounds of the draft, and as unsigned FAs...I would not go with Ingram for that reason, and the fact we are a very pass happy team who needs not much more that decent performance in the running game to make things go.

I like the idea of a DE, OLB, or OT late in the first. But also imagine Uncle Ted may trade down for extra picks and still get the guy he wants. Now, if a JJ Watt starts falling and is within reach, I do not believe Ted Thompson would hesitate to make a move up 4 - 5 spots to land him. Watt is the ultimate Ted Thompson and Packer kind of guy/player. Remember, Barnett or Chillar may be trade bait with a pick to move up.

---

I agree J.J. Watt is the ideal Packer, but hes a top 20 pick. I think reports of his demise are nothing more than smokescreen. You dont go from a top 10 player to No. 32 all of a sudden for no reason. Unless there is a medical concern that has gone unreported, it seems unlikely he falls.

My point is need versus value. The need is DE, OLB, and OT. However, there is not going to be anyone playing those positions holding as much value as Mark Ingram. Maybe Derek Sherrod falls, but I have my doubts about that. I think Akeem Ayers and Justin Houston are a little overrated. Ted Thompson did attend Ayers workout I believe, so he must have some interest. However, Ayers is not on the same level as Ingram.

Ingram is falling for reasons you suggest. RBs can be had anytime in the draft, but if Ingram is the prospect many others and I think he is, the debate inside 1265 is going to be interesting. Remember, just a few weeks ago it would have been absurd to have this discussion. Every year, somebody slips and Ingram would be an example of letting the board fall to you.

Right now, Im guessing if Ingram is available, it is between he, Brooks Reed, and Danny Watkins.

As much as I really like Reed and Watkins, Ingram is tough to pass in that scenario.

Realistically, I doubt whether he'll be there, but as a Packer fan, I'm intrigued.

---

If running back Mark Ingram fell to No. 32, would you want the Packers to take him?
Yes (72%)
No (28%)
Total Responses: 2771

JSOnline readers agree. 

Does that scare you Porky? ::razz:

---

I guess 72% of Packer fans know what they're talking about. :)

You have to take him in my view. Dr. James Andrews reportedly cleared his knee. I see no reason not to take him. Too much value and he's an every down RB. In my top 100, I have him No. 4 overall, which is my top offensive player in the draft.

My fingers are crossed. :thumbleft:

---

Cross your fingers, indeed. It's doubtful that Ingram will make it to 32.

---

UPDATE:
the percents are the same but almost 3000 more voters in 6 hours. Must be porky's family voting to make him look good.

---

Porky, he almost fell to GB. If NO didn't trade up I think he would have been there. That was a good call on your part.

---