Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Why would they ever take Williamson at 7 if he would/could be available at 18? That's a move the Bengals would do.As to the other posters idea of taking Pac Man at 7, why draft for depth at 7 when there are a number of players that can make a bigger impact? While there doesn't appear to be any franchise cornerstones in this draft there are definite immediate, or close to immediate, starters that improve the starting lineup.
Because I think the whole concept of 'maximizing your value' in the draft is so overblown. Media-moguls and couch potatoes have overblown this concept. There must have been a handful of teams who were high on Kevin Williams and deemed him 'over-valued' to be drafted in the top-10. I am sure those teams would trade their 'value pick' for Kevin Williams now.It is important to draft the best player available, regardless if you think you can get him later; there are no guarantees. This is an unspoken rule in the NFL and more teams fall victim to it than is actually publicized. I have never once heard a team say, "We really wanted player X, but thought we could trade down and still get him. Team Y suprised us and took our player that we thought would slip, so even though nobody out there can see it, we really have a lot of egg on our face."
Are you talking about Marty Wexler III, the guy on with Barreiro yesterday, who said they can tell a player is an "E-9" future Hall of Famer based on a combination of the letters in his name and his date of birth, and that they are actively pursuing implanting computer chips into college kids to track their whereabouts? Uhh, I don't want to be the one to tell you this, but you may want to consider that guy is a play character a la Gerbshmidt. But no, that small detail aside I do not believe Williamson makes it past 1.14.From what I have heard lately Williamson might not be around @ 18. Listened to some Wetzler guy who runs some scouting service. He said that three teams above the Vikings (@7) are looking at him.
Ahhh he sounded like quite the quack, but I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.Are you talking about Marty Wexler III, the guy on with Barreiro yesterday, who said they can tell a player is an "E-9" future Hall of Famer based on a combination of the letters in his name and his date of birth, and that they are actively pursuing implanting computer chips into college kids to track their whereabouts? Uhh, I don't want to be the one to tell you this, but you may want to consider that guy is a play character a la Gerbshmidt. But no, that small detail aside I do not believe Williamson makes it past 1.14.From what I have heard lately Williamson might not be around @ 18. Listened to some Wetzler guy who runs some scouting service. He said that three teams above the Vikings (@7
Well, if I theoretically think Williamson doesn't provide value picking him at #7, it means that there are better players left on the board, and thus, it doesn't make sense to pick him if you're going with a BPA drafting theory.Plus, if you think that Williamson will be drafted top 10 (as you have posted recently) it doesn't make sense to mock it out as the Vikes pick him at 18. Might as well mock the Vikes going Braylon Edwards at 7 and Ronnie Brown at 18. You can't have it both ways.
Concur.
Truthfully, I don't know what is going to happen and it sounds like I am in the minority when it comes to Williamson's stock. If Williamson slips to #18, then obviously I would not consider it a value pick as much as a steal pick.It makes you feel better, I will had Clayton as an either or in those scenarios.
What flavor?
Agreed on both counts. I just don't think that given recent rumourings that it make much sense to mock Williamson out at 18. Otherwise,
Depends. Are any of the big 3-4 receivers the real deal (we know what a crap shoot they can be)? If they are, I wouldn't be surprised to see one we ended up with beating out the motivationally impaired Marcus Robinson in camp. Obviously a couple of the RBs could start over who we have now. And I think a couple of the DE-LB hybrids could make a big impact, if not by starting, then by getting a lot of situational PT (moreso than a rookie nickleback).
Maybe this year, but not next.. Also I could easily see once of them being the #2 before we reach the Half way point of this season.. I'm not sold on Robinson as our #2. If Luck plays any part in it he "Might" play in 12 games this year. I'm guessing the over/under to be 10.
Personally, I think Mike Williams will be at best a #2 wide receiver in the NFL. Truthfully, that is what I believe.Williamson, although not as refined as Williams has a higher ceiling and more immediate impact. Minnesota traded Moss and will probably drop Campbell; Williamson at least brings deep threat speed to the team.
I think the lesson we've all learned during this entire debate is that for the 2005 draft, the #7 spot was a really crappy spot to be. Just out of reach of what you really want, but too high to take the other guys.
1) "In all likelyhood somebody will drop to #7 that another team desperately wants." - I can't image who that would be.2) "Or maybe a guy we really covet slips to us at #7." - The only guy that fits this category is Edwards. And he will NOT be there at #7.
If we still had Moss, and needed a receiver, I'd agree with you, Williams appears to be the safest pick. With Burleson on the other side, Williams doesn't open up the offense. Now, if the rumors are true that they are going to a conservative offensive gameplan, things are different, but with their offensive talent level, I don't see any logic to that rumor.
If you are going with a strong running game, why couple that with a slow possession receiver? Both scenarios invite the safeties to play closer to the line of scrimmage and impede each other.Good running teams need speed on the outside to keep the safeties out of the 'box'.
Trading down is the best option, IMO. Good luck with that, though. I'd be fine moving down a couple spots, taking someone like Williamson/Ware/Merriman a couple spots later and targeting Clayton with the #18.
Good take Onion. I really worry suddenly about Washington. I think the only thing that would prevent them from taking Williamson is if either Rolle or Pac Man falls in their laps, and something tells me with Rogers possible free fall that neither guy will be around for Washington.
I agree, if Tice and Co. want a ball control 12 minute dirve type of team it makes sense to get a guy like Mike Williams, NOT Troy Williamson.We've had difficulty in the Red-Zone getting touchdowns - Not with BMW, Fade to Mike with a 5 ft. 9 180 lbs. DB on him = 6
I couldn't find any red zone stats, but have we had problems? That hasn't been my impression of late.
To really add new 'value' to this thread, we should open the thread up to our second round 'wish list'.
