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.
Does anybody really think Mike Williams would be a better red zone target than Marcus Robinson (for the 2005 season)? I mean Marcus was outstanding when called upon last year to make red zone catches, so I personally fail to see the value Mike Williams brings to the Vikings in terms of red zone potential, meaning minimal impact.
Reg, where'd you find that? Where does that leave us ranked, as far as TD %, scoring percentage, and points per red zone trip?
He gives us one more legitimate threat. Nate is a decent receiver, and did get a red zone TD or two last year, but he doesn't present the size mismatch that Williams would. If we go spread near the goal like as we do freqently, we'd have two large receivers the defense would have to account for. That's always better than one.
I like MRob in the Red Zone as well...if he can stay healthy.Just think of it this way. a Three WR set on the 5. Would you rather it was MRob, Buerleson, and Taylor (or worse Campbell) or MRob, KB and Williams? How about a 4 WR spread with a single back? I think those are everybody's thoughts.
http://apps.footballguys.com/04teamredzone.cfm (it's free right now).TD% = 12th
Do we have a bigger need than adding a red zone threat this year? Of course, but three of the five players listed are not long term Vikings most likely (Moe, MRob, and Wiggins). We also don't have another long term receiver on the roster. MRob is an injury waiting to happen. I'm not sold on Taylor's abilities. Campbell will never be a starter.
3. Travis Taylor and Kelly Campbell. Aren't the Vikings still going to run a lot of three-WR sets anyway? Couldn't Campbell or MAYBE Taylor help to stretch the field? I'll plead ignorance on Taylor's 40 time, but Campbell is very fast (if he's not wearing an orange jump suit this season). 
I guess I could live with Williamson as our top pick...although I'd much-rather see us work out a deal where we can move down a bit and still get him. We probably couldn't drop behind San Diego at #12, but maybe Washington (#9) or Dallas (#11) might bite.
Well, they didn't miss a field goal under 30 all year, so missed field goals doesn't account for the no points. I would attribute that to poor coaching decisions, moreso than lack of talent.
If they want him that bad they can have him. I was thinking the Bucs would be the first ones that might consider him (besides the Vikes) with their third rounder.Speculation is that the Jets will use one of their 2nd rounders on Nugent and he won't be there for even the Vikes 2nd rounder.
Possibly Tennessee.If they want him that bad they can have him. I was thinking the Bucs would be the first ones that might consider him (besides the Vikes) with their third rounder.Speculation is that the Jets will use one of their 2nd rounders on Nugent and he won't be there for even the Vikes 2nd rounder.
Hey Dozier,I'm of the opinion that anytime a team can add a legit red zone thread, they shouldn't hesitate. That said, Marcus Robinson has been a solid red zone threat as a Viking.
We can debate wether or not the Vikes should draft Williams, and wether or not it is worth it to draft a red zone target at #7 overall. However, I don't think one can reasonably argue the Vikes should take Williams at 7 because they have trouble scoring TDs in the red zone. I believe the numbers bear that out.
I started all this, and maybe it was my perception of the past few years. As it seemed the Vikes could easily march up and down the field but then stalled when we got inside the 20-30 range...In any event, I still like Williams as he would make more sense as a chain mover instead of a quick strike guy. But maybe they want a quick strike guy to keep the safeties honest and open up the run.
I agree, didn't mean to suggest I didn't.
Just throwing some data behind the discussion to show that, in fact, MRob IS a good red zone receiver. But whether the Vikes should draft Mike Williams goes far beyond that, if he's a potential Pro Bowl receiver, a real difference maker in their eyes, it makes sense to grab him at 7, otherwise, take another position and don't look back.
Please God, no!
Right, I didn't mean to suggest you didn't either, I was just clarifying the thrust of my argument.I agree, didn't mean to suggest I didn't.
Here is my take on this, and I have heard very few experts share my opinion, so I could be wrong.Lets imagine you are a safety whose first requirement is to cover the deep left side of the field and your not a burner, but your not slow either. Lets say you are about a 4.5x guy. Culpepper is the quarterback and you know he can zing the ball 70 yards and put the ball right on the money for 6 if you get beat.
Outside of the fact that hardly any S's in the NFL are going to give away that they have deep responsiblity PREsnap, I agree. Mainly what it comes down to is that Williamson, or the faster/better deep threat will force the DB to cheat in his backpeddle. Start it too early, maybe line up deeper than he should, move to fast in it rather than slowly and read, come out of it later, a worse case sinerio... turn his hips and run too early. All of this little mistakes can become huge ones in coverage and rushing lane responsiblity. Simply put, is it easier to cover a 25 yd area with 11 guys or to cover a 50 yd area with 11 guys? The answer should be obvious. D's want shortened fields where O's want open ones.
I cannot think of one that did not. I will grant you that most of the Super Bowl champions could do additional things other than throw deep.But I think the deep threat concept is very real. Its like Nuclear Weapons, just because you don't see it, you know it is there and it is a deterrent for safeties sneaking up to the line of scrimmage.
Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but the winners on the SB list really don't seem to have that many WRs that could be considered deep threats.New England 24, Philadelphia 21
I call that bad defense.You're not seriously saying that Rice, at any time in his career, was considered a deep threat in the vein that we're talking about here, are you?
Yes I am. Name the names.You can't really be serious about this.
THAT'S ENTIRELY THE POINT!Sure Rice made lots of deep plays, but not because he was a "deep threat" like we're talking about Williamson being.Ummm, Jerry Rice in his prime most certianly was a deep threat. Just because he had a lack luster 40 time doens't mean that the man was incapable of plays down the field. It was quite the opposite as a matter of fact IIRC.
Hey Blueonion,First, let me say kudos on a thoughtful and unique approach to the debate.
Carter? Largent? Tim Brown? Owens? Irvin? Moss and Harrison fit the bill, but it's pretty clear that sprinter speed ranks way down in the criteria for "How to Build A Great WR."
Hey Blueonion,
First, let me say kudos on a thoughtful and unique approach to the debate.
That said, I'm not sure I see the relevance.
Teams don't make a habit of throwing 50+ yard bombs for TDs on a regular basis.
When teams DO score on deep bombs, it's rarely because a WR literally blew by the CB/S coverage on sheer speed. When teams throw deep for a score, it's usually blown coverage...and that favors neither Williams nor Williamson. But where you see the deep ball used most effectively these days, is to engender pass interference calls or through your WR winning a jump ball situation. In that situation, give me the WR with a rare combination of height, hands and STRENGTH. It's much easier to envision Williams getting downfield and winning a jump ball while fighting for position; which (if not caught) could also lead to a PI call.
Putting all that aside for a second. I want the COMPLETE receiver. Who's more likely to factor into the red zone? Who's more likely to take a quick hitch and turn it into a long gain after the catch? Who's more likely to find a soft spot in the middle and muscle by a linebacker to make the key 1st down catch? THAT'S what an elite 1st round receiver should bring to the table.
So, while I see your point in the specific instance you put forth, I still don't see how Williams isn't the better option for the entirety of the offense more often than not.
My $0.02
P.S. How many of the league's all-time great WRs were speed demons? Rice?
x 10 
THAT'S ENTIRELY THE POINT!Sure Rice made lots of deep plays, but not because he was a "deep threat" like we're talking about Williamson being.Ummm, Jerry Rice in his prime most certianly was a deep threat. Just because he had a lack luster 40 time doens't mean that the man was incapable of plays down the field. It was quite the opposite as a matter of fact IIRC.
I have to disagree with most of this. Just about EVERY single passing play in the world has at LEAST one deep option. 1 is enough to make ANY D in the NFL account for it! Several WRs who face man to man coverage simply run defenders off, or run DEEP. This is even on RUNNING plays! Plus on top of both of those things, the O does not know the play before it is in progress. Every single D is going to have at least a few palyers designed to have deep responsibitly. Only when they are SURE that they play is going elsewhere can they react and abandon that DEEP responsibility. This is why football is a team game. So while teams may not throw 50 yd bombs on every play, the D HAS GOT TO PLAN AS IF THEY WILL ON EVERY PLAY! THEY DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL OR NOT UNTILL THE PLAY IS OVER.On top of that, speed is not the only prerequisite for being a good deep threat. Nearly all of the guys you listed did have sub par deep speed, but were able to recover from that with other aspects. Aspects that we can not say any WR in this draft has on an NFL level just yet.Hey Blueonion,
First, let me say kudos on a thoughtful and unique approach to the debate.
That said, I'm not sure I see the relevance.
Teams don't make a habit of throwing 50+ yard bombs for TDs on a regular basis.
When teams DO score on deep bombs, it's rarely because a WR literally blew by the CB/S coverage on sheer speed. When teams throw deep for a score, it's usually blown coverage...and that favors neither Williams or Williamson. But where you see the deep ball used most effectively these days, is to engender pass interference calls or through your WR winning a jump ball situation. In that situation, give me the WR with a rare combination of height, hands and STRENGTH. It's much easier to envision Williams getting downfield and winning a jump ball while fighting for position; which (if not caught) could also lead to a PI call.
Putting all that aside for a second. I want the COMPLETE receiver. Who's more likely to factor into the red zone? Who's more likely to take a quick hitch and turn it into a long gain after the catch? Who's more likely to find a soft spot in the middle and muscle by a linebacker to make the key 1st down catch? THAT'S what an elite 1st round receiver should bring to the table.
So, while I see your point in the specific instance you put forth, I still don't see how Williams isn't the better option for the entirety of the offense more often than not.
My $0.02
P.S. How many of the league's all-time great WRs were speed demons? Rice?
No, Jerry Rice WAS a deep threat. He just never had TRADITIONAL deep speed.THAT'S ENTIRELY THE POINT!Sure Rice made lots of deep plays, but not because he was a "deep threat" like we're talking about Williamson being.Ummm, Jerry Rice in his prime most certianly was a deep threat. Just because he had a lack luster 40 time doens't mean that the man was incapable of plays down the field. It was quite the opposite as a matter of fact IIRC.
I've been bamboozeled!
