PDA

View Full Version : Is Wide Receiver A Major Need?


D-ReK
03-18-2005, 02:03 AM
I've seen a few discussions on this in random threads, and I think it would be better if we handled all of the WR discussion in a single thread...

IMO, WR is not a tremendous need, and it definitely would not be worth it to reach for a WR in the 1st and 2nd round unless Braylon or Mike Williams falls to us in the 1st or if someone like Roddy White is available in the 2nd (a huge longshot)...

This year's WR class is pretty deep and we could still get good value with our 78th overall pick...It's likely either Jerome Mathis, who impressed at the combine, Roscoe Parrish, who would be a great upgrade over JJ, Reggie Brown, who was overshadowed by Gibson at UGA but has the tools to be a good #2, or Terrence Murphy, who has great speed and can also return kicks, will be there in the late 3rd...We shouldn't take a WR until this point unless we feel there is a can't miss guy...

We have much larger needs including the O-Line, D-Line, LBs, and possibly CB...

Discuss away...

royce1054
03-18-2005, 02:06 AM
I've seen a few discussions on this in random threads, and I think it would be better if we handled all of the WR discussion in a single thread...

IMO, WR is not a tremendous need, and it definitely would not be worth it to reach for a WR in the 1st and 2nd round unless Braylon or Mike Williams falls to us in the 1st or if someone like Roddy White is available in the 2nd (a huge longshot)...

This year's WR class is pretty deep and we could still get good value with our 78th overall pick...It's likely either Jerome Mathis, who impressed at the combine, Roscoe Parrish, who would be a great upgrade over JJ, Reggie Brown, who was overshadowed by Gibson at UGA but has the tools to be a good #2, or Terrence Murphy, who has great speed and can also return kicks, will be there in the late 3rd...We shouldn't take a WR until this point unless we feel there is a can't miss guy...

We have much larger needs including the O-Line, D-Line, LBs, and possibly CB...

Discuss away...

we have handled our defense in free agnecy... OL yes i can c WR yes i can see to... Williamson is the right person for us.... I have seen mocks where williamson goes #7 to Minnesota but all that means is Barron will be our #1 and Gibson might be #2... WR is the biggest need bc of cap #'s. It doesnt makes sense to draft a guy pay him that kind of money and sit him. I hear the arguements but its not gonna happen

Grid
03-18-2005, 02:11 AM
I've seen a few discussions on this in random threads, and I think it would be better if we handled all of the WR discussion in a single thread...

IMO, WR is not a tremendous need, and it definitely would not be worth it to reach for a WR in the 1st and 2nd round unless Braylon or Mike Williams falls to us in the 1st or if someone like Roddy White is available in the 2nd (a huge longshot)...

This year's WR class is pretty deep and we could still get good value with our 78th overall pick...It's likely either Jerome Mathis, who impressed at the combine, Roscoe Parrish, who would be a great upgrade over JJ, Reggie Brown, who was overshadowed by Gibson at UGA but has the tools to be a good #2, or Terrence Murphy, who has great speed and can also return kicks, will be there in the late 3rd...We shouldn't take a WR until this point unless we feel there is a can't miss guy...

We have much larger needs including the O-Line, D-Line, LBs, and possibly CB...

Discuss away...



the way I see it.. unless Edwards or Williams falls to us.. no one we draft will make an immediate impact, nor are they likely to be a big upgrade over Bradford. SO.. next season we will most likely see a setup with the #2 WR duties being shared by Gaffney, Armstrong, and possibly Starling. And also possibly by a rookie WR if we draft one.

But, im with you that it is NOT likely in the 1st round, and honestly I wouldnt even bet on it in the 2nd round. As for return duties.. considering that we have a rather old starting CB in Glenn.. and an almost old starting FS in Coleman.. grabbing a CB that can challenge for a starting spot and also return kicks would be a better move than grabbing a WR to do it.

Antionio Perkins in the 3rd.

D-ReK
03-18-2005, 02:12 AM
The problem with Williamson is that he isn't that great of a route runner and his hands are only ok...These things can be corrected in time, but if we're looking for someone to immediately take pressure off of AJ, Williamson would not be that guy...The only two receivers that would demand attention from the defense are Braylon and Mike Williams...

outofhnd
03-18-2005, 02:29 AM
How can you people say WR is so important? Bradford's #2 role was not an intricate part of our success last year, what makes you think a rookie will this year?

Defense, Id rather have too much defensive talent rather than not enough because Receivers can be picked in later rounds plus you can have undrafted rookies come to camp and tryout.
Many of the NFLs quality recievers were not picked in the first round at all

I think everyone is under the assumption that another reciever means AJ wont be double covered. I dont buy that for a second we already picked our Blue Chip Receiver lucky for us it was Andre Johnson and not Charles Rogers.

Think about that or Santana Moss what if our speed burner gets injured we are back to square one and if he is like Rogers and Detroit that was a wasted Pick. In 2 seasons hes played a total of like 8 games. Id be rahter upset at our organization if we picked a speedster who cant stay healthy.

beerlover
03-18-2005, 03:04 AM
WR is a position John McClain champions IF the Texans choose to go that route with Troy Williams. I'm seriously hoping either Cadillac or Cedric is available if they go offense. Defensivly the OLB position is strong @ #13 for the coveted 3-4 OLB in David Pollack. Cornerbacks are deep and two of my favorites should still be ripe for the picking in Carlos Rogers and Justin Miller. Justin is more a cover corner like Dunta and has been compared to Deion Sanders in style plus he led the nation in kick-off returns (double edge sword the type teams covet that eat up dual positions for salary cap reasons). Carlos is bigger & faster than Rolle & very physical I would think that both are options. We'll just have to keep our eyes and ears peeled to see who the Texans bring in to work out over the next three weeks, then maybe we will have a better idea :cool:

outofhnd
03-18-2005, 03:18 AM
The only round 1 offensive need would be OT because if we have the same weak line we did this year our offense with another speedy stud will be like having 2 ferraris at home but taking the bus to work.

D-ReK
03-18-2005, 03:20 AM
The only round 1 offensive need would be OT because if we have the same weak line we did this year our offense with another speedy stud will be like having 2 ferraris at home but taking the bus to work.

I disagree...Upgrading the RG and C play is more vital to this team's success than upgrading the tackles...Our interior line play last year was horrendous, but the tackle play was decent...

Grid
03-18-2005, 03:21 AM
if any of the top 3 RBs fell to us.. that would be a tempting pick to make. Though it would also be tempting to use that as leverage for a nice trade down.

Grid
03-18-2005, 03:23 AM
this is a VERY good draft for interior linemen. I think we will definatly pick one up in the 3rd, maybe 4th.. depending on who is available.

I think we are set at RT.. but I dont think Wands play last year was very good... but he is new.. and no one we could draft this year would be any better than him, so I think we should stick with it.

I wouldnt be against giving Rob Pettit a good long look though.. he could possibly be available in the 4th round. He isnt what you would call an elite prospect.. but he did shutdown Dwight Freeney in college.. so he may be worth that 4th round pick considering we face Dwight twice a year.

D-ReK
03-18-2005, 03:26 AM
Assuming we can't get Baas, the two lineman I'd like to see us draft are Chris Spencer, C, Ole Miss and Marcus Johnson, G/T, Ole Miss...They both could end up being really special players...

threetoedpete
03-18-2005, 07:50 AM
the way I see it.. unless Edwards or Williams falls to us.. no one we draft will make an immediate impact, nor are they likely to be a big upgrade over Bradford. SO.. next season we will most likely see a setup with the #2 WR duties being shared by Gaffney, Armstrong, and possibly Starling. And also possibly by a rookie WR if we draft one.

But, im with you that it is NOT likely in the 1st round, and honestly I wouldnt even bet on it in the 2nd round. As for return duties.. considering that we have a rather old starting CB in Glenn.. and an almost old starting FS in Coleman.. grabbing a CB that can challenge for a starting spot and also return kicks would be a better move than grabbing a WR to do it.

Antionio Perkins in the 3rd.


Agreed. Need a Burner to help stretch the middle of the feild. You need a can opener to crack open some of the two deeps in this division. Whether that WR will be in the form of a guy like Williamson, Perkins, or for that matter Matt Jones at HB or Sproles out of the slot, I don't think it is as critical this year because of the Depeth at WR in this years draft and the developement of Armstrong. While it is true there aren't as many prototypical WR studs in this draft. It is also true that this years draft is a Baskins Robin's for WR's. All shapes and all flavors . If they fill other needs first and came back to WR in Day two I would have no problem with that. Sometimes you gotta roll the dice with the folks on your roster. Whether they pony up a #1 pick or hold they're water untill day two, there should be plenty of tallent to fill the need. There were a lot of great times posted at the combine.
I stand to be corrected but this class might of been the fastest overall, ever. The fact of the matter is that AJ should be getting most of the targets in our passing offense anyway.

royce1054
03-20-2005, 04:57 AM
How can you people say WR is so important? Bradford's #2 role was not an intricate part of our success last year, what makes you think a rookie will this year?


We lost 1 game by 3 points... 2 by a touchdown.. 1 by 8 and 1 by 9 last year.
Imagine what if ... Bradford could draw the could double coverage or we have a solitified #2... i think we were a playoff team..... We could of easily wont 3 other games... thats puts us 10-6 we had Jags #, I think we would made the playoffs and thats the goal.

D-ReK
03-20-2005, 07:16 AM
We lost 1 game by 3 points... 2 by a touchdown.. 1 by 8 and 1 by 9 last year.
Imagine what if ... Bradford could draw the could double coverage or we have a solitified #2... i think we were a playoff team..... We could of easily wont 3 other games... thats puts us 10-6 we had Jags #, I think we would made the playoffs and thats the goal.

If you want to get into what ifs, then what if DD didn't have his fumbling problem at the beginning of the year? What if Carr didn't throw 2 INTs against San Diego? What if Babin sacked Peyton and broke his right arm on the first play of our first game against the Dolts? What if we had any pass protection?

Bottom line is Bradford wasn't an impact player and Dom wants to turn the O run-heavy, so we don't need a #2 WR...

The Preacher
03-20-2005, 11:31 AM
If not anything this draft will at least allow us to speculate ad infinitum for the next five weeks maybe we can come to some kind of concensus on where we'll go with #1. Considering we could use a wr,te,ol,maybe rb and that's only offense this could easily turn into a big runaround but we'll see. Since this is a wr topic I'll try not to venture far from that and think realistically what would happen if we did go offense. I have already clamored enough about Clayton over Williamson but is a WR that logical of an option. It seemed to me Armstrong showed a lot of potential last year and since it often takes a few years for a wr to develop he could be our guy. Of course I just noticed he didn't have more than one catch in the last eight games of the year so that likelihood is hardly a lock. I think the Texans will give Joppru one more year before they make another big investment at TE surely not at #13. I think with the depth in o-line we'll hold off until later rounds which leaves wr and rb. DD worries me I feel he could go down anytime but unless one of the big three falls to us and I doubt they will we don't go rb. Steven Jackson fell a lot further than anybody imagined last year so if there was a big surprise in who fell my best guess would be Cadillac. Miami and Arizona will grab a rb but only Chicago and Tampa Bay are other teams who might and they're not incredibly desperate there and could both easily go wr. This scenario is definitely possible but still unlikely which leaves us to wr. It's safe to say another stud wr seems attractive and with the top two gone that leaves us with a couple choices. Considering our #1 needs to be a skill position if we want immediate impact and despite the chances Armstrong and Gaffney can contribute effectively I have to think if and that's a big if we go offense it is at wr and that leaves us at welcome Mark Clayton our newest Texan.

GoBlue
03-20-2005, 05:05 PM
I agree wholeheartedly we shouldn't go WR with our #1 unless Edwards or Williams is there (which they won't be). After them, the second tier is a cr*pshoot so I'd hope CC picks one up in the 3rd or 4th depending on what other defensive talent is available. Bradford's only asset was his speed so if he can't stretch the field maybe that's not what we need. I'd rather have a possession reciever that has hands of glue and a head of steel to catch short passes (instead of DD). Think Stokley, Chrebet, etc.

royce1054
03-20-2005, 09:30 PM
i dont understand DE in 1st.... or LB... we have Payne, Walker, Smith, Wong, Babin, Greenwood, Peek. I see a some 3rd round depth there maybe

S- Earl is there now... He has earned that position.... We will get a 4th round depth here.

OL- we need some depth there i think prob #1 need

WR- #2 need. We have 2 replace bradford. We need some 1 to stretch field and some to take double coverages off of Johnson. It can open up the running game

Te will prob be a late round picl

LBblitz
03-20-2005, 11:38 PM
Drafting a WR in the early rounds doesnt seem to be the solution IMO. If we could improve the interior OL Carr would have more time to go through his reads and bradford(or Armstrong IMO) would get better numbers. I like the idea of getting a tight end but I dont like the tightend prospects in the draft, maybe joppru will contribute this season...fingers crossed on that one

cptnbreakdance
03-20-2005, 11:49 PM
The problem with Williamson is that he isn't that great of a route runner and his hands are only ok...These things can be corrected in time, but if we're looking for someone to immediately take pressure off of AJ, Williamson would not be that guy...The only two receivers that would demand attention from the defense are Braylon and Mike Williams...

Not to mention a TE like a Joppru, or a Heath Miller.

keyfro
03-21-2005, 12:47 AM
i believe that with the first round we will be drafting the BPA no matter what position with the exception of QB, K, or P

i believe second or third round recievers are great quality right now...we have available fred gibson, reggie brown, and matt jones...all three i think would make great additions to our receiving corp...gibson and brown have tons of experience and were very productive...matt jones is one of those physical freaks who probably could be the next drew bennett...tall and athletic...and very impossing redzone threat

D-ReK
03-21-2005, 04:49 AM
We all know most WRs take a year or two to develop and get used to playing in the pros, so if we're looking for immediate impact, why take a WR in the first? This WR class is deep and after Mike Williams and Braylon, then rest of the class are pretty much even...I did a little research and found that, since 1996, such prominent receivers as Amani Toomer, Mushin Muhammad, Terrell Owens, Joe Horn, Derrick Mason, Marcus Robinson, Hines Ward, Peerless Price, Marty Booker, Donald Driver, Jerry Porter, Laverneus Coles, Chad Johnson, Chris Chambers, Steve Smith, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Deion Branch, Anquan Boldin, and Keary Colbert have all been taken after the first round, so I ask the question: Why spend a first round pick on a WR when there are plenty of diamonds in the rough who just need good coaching and experience to become superstars?

The Preacher
03-21-2005, 09:41 AM
D-rek you make some solid points and it looks like about 2-3 receivers per year eventually play at a pro bowl level that were later picks. I agree if you think you found a fundamentally sound guy who will be there later hold out on him and since there are many interesting defensive players that will be available to us and that need is apparent we will most likely go defense IMO. For the sake of speculating though a handful of wr's are becoming more of an impact sooner. Last year Roy Williams, Michael Clayton, Lee Evans, and Larry Fitzgerald(in AZ no less) all had significant stats as rookies and considering a great player will ask for 8 mil a year after a few years you can't afford to wait 2 or 3 years just so they can finally come around and hit their payday for another team. That's why if you draft a WR with a high pick it better be a sure thing. Now I guess that leads us to is their a surefire WR after Williams and Edwards? I've already sided with Mark Clayton as a lock to start right away for whoever drafts him. You can still find very solid players at other positions and if you go WR after what I believe to be three immediate impact guys you could land a Reggie Williams, Michael Jenkins or Rashaun Woods, three high picks that could easily languish for years making this position a very risky one to draft. With that I'd be surprised if we went WR before round 4 if we didn't at #13. Also, Armstrong and Gaffney are entering years 3 and 4 respectively, the time a lot of young wr's come around like you mentioned so the FO might want to wait another year before they feel they have to address this area.

TheOgre
03-21-2005, 10:25 AM
I actually want to see us go WR first. I see it as the most blaring weak area of our team. We have someone that can start in every position except WR#2. Wand CAN be our LT. Peek CAN be our ROLB. Glenn and Dunte CAN be our CB's. If we try to start Gaffney, Armstrong or any of the other long-shots at WR2, then it will be a season of double-teaming for AJ. Moreso than last year when Bradford was at least a threat for the long-ball.

The Preacher
03-21-2005, 10:56 AM
It does make sense if we do go offense. Most teams probably felt last year if they could cover AJ they could attack Carr more regularly. If we had two guys who necessitated two cover guys defenses would be more apt to lay back and Carr would get more time and less sacks. It's a situation where if you can't bring in someone to shore up the line immediately you get somebody who keeps defenders from attacking the line because the chances are better they will get burnt otherwise. I know the argument it doesn't matter if there's no time will come up but you have to start somewhere and you know DC would feel more comfortable knowing he had two guys who demanded double teams.

michaelm
03-21-2005, 11:40 AM
the same argument could be made for having a TE that can play on every down/distance. Having personnel who tip the play selection to the def by the substitution (Miller/Bruener and Wand/generic LT) is just inexcusable. I really believe a well rounded TE could make a significant difference in some areas.
For instance, since we all agree that Carr will likely be rushed many times again this season, another dump off option keeps the D a little more honest.
Additionally, having a TE that can actually catch and block opens up some option routes such as when the TE holds at the line to see if a LB is on a Blitz and if not, breaks into his route... Sure any TE can do that, but none currently on or roster (and healthy) have the ability to be effective in both areas.
Max protect is a little more decieving when the TE has the actual ability to block, but doesn't tip the play because he may actually run a pattern...


edited to say ESPECIALLY now with the contact rules being enforced and a premium being realized at the TE position league wide...

Errant Hothy
03-21-2005, 11:47 AM
Is WR a major need? No. Is it possible we draft a wide out in the first round? Sure, and it would probaly be a good pick up; but if we have learned anything from the lst three draft it's that Casserly and Co. have their own ideas on the draft and who will fit into the roster. With all that being said, they'll probably be drafting by their board; and who ever the pick expect to hear that he was the BPA.

Of all the thing Casserly is in control of, I feel the best about his handle on the draft.

TheOgre
03-21-2005, 11:50 AM
I agree that an every-down TE is a necessity. I think Joppru COULD BE that guy. There is nobody at WR that I feel COULD BE our #2 WR effectively. I also think we could draft a good TE in the 3rd or later rounds. A WR in the 1st and TE in the 3rd would probably be higher quality than a TE in the 1st and WR in the 3rd.

D-ReK
03-21-2005, 11:54 AM
I agree that an every-down TE is a necessity. I think Joppru COULD BE that guy. There is nobody at WR that I feel COULD BE our #2 WR effectively. I also think we could draft a good TE in the 3rd or later rounds.

I'd be all for Jerome Collins out of Notre Dame in the 5th or 6th...

michaelm
03-21-2005, 12:03 PM
I also think we could draft a good TE in the 3rd or later rounds. A WR in the 1st and TE in the 3rd would probably be higher quality than a TE in the 1st and WR in the 3rd.

Agreed for the most part, but could the 3rd rnd TE step in any make a difference right away? I think we need one that can.

The Preacher
03-21-2005, 12:08 PM
Do you guys think there is any way we draft Heath Miller? Not much talk about it here. I've never seen him play but he's apparently the best TE available. If he was like Shockey without the talk it would be a nice quick option and considering DC might not have much time a quality TE could be as valuable as another quality wr. The Texans might want to give Joppru a chance before they invest such a high pick in another TE but it seems like a possibility.

D-ReK
03-21-2005, 12:16 PM
Heath Miller is more Todd Heap than he is Shockey...He's not really a great blocker, but I'd take him over Miller and Breuner...

beerlover
03-21-2005, 12:48 PM
i've watched Heath play & he is a very good all around TE but not spectacular in any one department, imo late 1st to 2nd rd talent.

also he suffered a groin injury and has been unable to work out for teams, do we really want to draft another TE with this type of injury?

royce1054
03-21-2005, 03:22 PM
It does make sense if we do go offense. Most teams probably felt last year if they could cover AJ they could attack Carr more regularly. If we had two guys who necessitated two cover guys defenses would be more apt to lay back and Carr would get more time and less sacks. It's a situation where if you can't bring in someone to shore up the line immediately you get somebody who keeps defenders from attacking the line because the chances are better they will get burnt otherwise. I know the argument it doesn't matter if there's no time will come up but you have to start somewhere and you know DC would feel more comfortable knowing he had two guys who demanded double teams.

I think its the other way around. It doesnt make sense to draft defense til 3rd round. I think if Barron doesnt get drafted #10 to Detriot we will take him. #2 on our board has to williamson. #3 on our board is Kaliff Baliff Barnes he is looking like a stud and maybe possibly are pick. #4 Clayton i have heard alot about us taking him. Our offense studdered to much last year. We need get and WR to replace Bradford... People dont understand the need for 2 good WR's. We need to take emphasis on Johnson. I dont think Gaffney, Armstrong can do this.

Mr Shush
03-22-2005, 12:02 PM
Let's remember that we're not drafting a guy for one year. In the long run, BPA is almost always the best policy, and it doesn't seem very likely to me that BPA at 13 is going to be a wideout. What really matters is not how we do next year, when at best we're looking at 10-6 and a wild card behind Indy, but what we can do in a couple of years' time after Manning's supporting cast gets blown up by the cap.

Of course, if we really think Clayton (say) is a genuine stud prospect who everyone else is under-rating, that's another story.

Grid
03-22-2005, 05:10 PM
In a power running offense.. you do not need two star WRs.

we are trying to field a power running offense.

D-ReK
03-22-2005, 05:25 PM
In a power running offense.. you do not need two star WRs.

we are trying to field a power running offense.

That's the same thing I thought when I read the Capers quote where he said he wanted our run offense to be more like the Steelers', but cak pretty much oWn3d me by telling me that all he meant was he wanted an offense that was able to convert short yardage situations and control the clock, not an offense that ran the ball 50 times a game...Looks like my theory was flawed...

Still, I'n not sold that we absolutely need a speed guy to distract the defense from AJ...Honestly, if all we need is a speedy guy, why don't we sign an Olympic sprinter for the minimum and use our first on something else? I think either Gaff or Armstrong could develop into a good #2 receiver...

TheOgre
03-22-2005, 05:34 PM
I thought we wanted an offense that ran the ball then exploited play-action downfield for big plays (80's Redskins and Raiders style). If that is the case, I would think we would prefer long-ball threat receivers to possession ones.

Grid
03-22-2005, 06:53 PM
Well I thought we wanted an offense that controlled the clock and converted on third downs.. and that would mean a powerful running game and talented possession receivers.. the running game is in the works, but we already have the talented possession receivers.. and AJ to boot.

TheOgre
03-22-2005, 07:32 PM
but we already have the talented possession receivers

I think I differ on your definition of the word "talented".

royce1054
03-22-2005, 07:36 PM
I think I differ on your definition of the word "talented".

I would like to see up pick Williamson #13
then trade Sharper and our #2 to maybe Steelers and then draft Blackstock

D-ReK
03-22-2005, 07:42 PM
I would like to see up pick Williamson #13
then trade Sharper and our #2 to maybe Steelers and then draft Blackstock

Ok, so you want us to pick a horrible route runner with bad hands at 13 (sounds exactly like Bradford), and then trade Sharper and our #2 for Antwan Peek, Jr...Can't say I agree with your draft "strategy"...

royce1054
03-22-2005, 07:46 PM
Ok, so you want us to pick a horrible route runner with bad hands at 13 (sounds exactly like Bradford), and then trade Sharper and our #2 for Antwan Peek, Jr...Can't say I agree with your draft "strategy"...

I think Williamson wil be much better than Bradford was. What i am hearing is his routes are defined but that can be teached.... As of hands i have only heard good things except on this site.

D-ReK
03-22-2005, 07:55 PM
I think Williamson wil be much better than Bradford was. What i am hearing is his routes are defined but that can be teached.... As of hands i have only heard good things except on this site.

LINK (http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/2005/williamson_troy)
Negatives: Will position block to seal off, but lacks aggression and is not the type who will use his strength to shock and control the defender Has very good speed, but is a bit of a long strider rather than a receiver that has short quick feet Not as quick in short routes as the smaller receivers and is best when having space to operate Has adequate hands, but struggles to adjust to the over-the-shoulder tosses Can come back for the ball, but does not show great stop-and-go action (momentum sometimes takes him out of the play, as he overruns the ball) Sometimes takes soft angles, especially on upfield routes.

Sorry, he doesn't had bad hands, he has average hands...He still runs bad routes though...

royce1054
03-22-2005, 09:51 PM
well you can polish him on those routes which if they take him other than learning plays will be his big thing to learn.

D-ReK
03-22-2005, 11:48 PM
True...If I remember correctly, route running and hands were the knock on AJ coming out of college, but he turned out ok...

The thing is, if I had my druthers, I'd want us to take a more finished product and not leave as much to chance...

royce1054
03-22-2005, 11:53 PM
True...If I remember correctly, route running and hands were the knock on AJ coming out of college, but he turned out ok...

The thing is, if I had my druthers, I'd want us to take a more finished product and not leave as much to chance...

dont we all wish all the players coming into the NFL were pollished

outofhnd
03-23-2005, 12:14 AM
I just don't think Williamson is worth our #1 pick at 13 maybe if we were at like 15 or lower.
We need more playmaking on defense than we do in our WR corps, and more stability on O-Line, and an everydown tight-end.

No amount of speed is going to help AJ break the double team. What Carr needs is a receiver that moves the chains. We Don't need to score on the first play of every drive. Hands and the ability to read the coverage is paramount in our scheme.

If we give Carr a short range target WR that has hands Carr will improve dramatically, bringing a young rookie in that take 2 years before he becomes an equal threat, will only add to Carrs Interception total until then.

royce1054
03-23-2005, 12:18 AM
this is why we get Williamson trade Sharper and a #2 to say Pittsburg (who needs to replace Kendrell Bell) and draft Darryl Blackstock. Their is your defense. Thats 2 birds in 1 round.

D-ReK
03-23-2005, 12:26 AM
this is why we get Williamson trade Sharper and a #2 to say Pittsburg (who needs to replace Kendrell Bell) and draft Darryl Blackstock. Their is your defense. Thats 2 birds in 1 round.

I like Blackstock, but he has no coverage skills and he can't stop the run...That is a high price to pay for a situational pass rusher...

royce1054
03-23-2005, 12:35 AM
Well their is problems with every player. I am sure being an OLB he has some coverage skills. He will just have to cover TE and a LB out of the backfield. He has the speed to play the position... but obcourse all draft picks are considered "projects" just not to same degree. I think we are tryin to improve the pass rush coming off the outside. They are gonna keep babin on the weak side arent they. That would make Blackstock the Strong side to stand up the tight end. I think it definitely gonna be a project but i think he can refine those skills and learn the 3-4

outofhnd
03-23-2005, 12:46 AM
I dont think they will bite in a draft full of project LB s this year.

royce1054
03-23-2005, 01:27 AM
I dont think they will bite in a draft full of project LB s this year.

only 3 people can answer that question... Owner, GM, Coach i cant, u cant, no 1 on this site. They will have to take 1 eventually.

Since they havent release Sharper that tells me he is going to be traded. I havent heard of any deals that dont involved picks... It seems like a good idea to trade up and get a player that can help and grow with the team. We dont actually give up a pick bc of Sharper talent.. we just excahange that's what ceals the deal for me

outofhnd
03-23-2005, 02:46 AM
I really don't see us drafting a receiver with our top pick. Its just like another forum when casserly was asked why he didnt pursue Mason in FA.

"in this league it costs too much to have 2 number 1 caliber guys on the same team"

WR is not a major need period. Atleast in my opinion not major enough to warrant our first round pick. It can be addressed in later rounds . Plus, I just get an eerie feeling we may just trade down in the first round. Though call it a gut feeling.

royce1054
03-23-2005, 03:02 AM
From the sources i hear it will happen. I seriously doubt it wont. Mason wanted too much money.. thats the reason he didnt come here. I think the texans perfer to build through the draft anyways. I have my gut feeling too that says #13 Williamson and trade up to get Blackstock.

outofhnd
03-23-2005, 03:28 AM
I have looked at 15 different mock drafts.

Of the 15

Barron - 5
Benson - 1
Brown - 1
Pac man - 2
J.Brown - 1 - I think this guy smoked a ricky Bag before he did this
T. Davis - 1
D. Ware - 1
M Spears - 1
T Johnson - 1

T Williamson - 0 the highest he went was to SD at 12 in a lot though he was 16 and down. A couple did not even have him going in round 1. Of course in a couple of those Antrelle Rolle was the 3rd overall pick.

But the majority of the mocks say

40% OT

20% DL

15% CB

15% RB

10% S/LB

Mr Shush
03-23-2005, 06:48 AM
And that is the difference between NFL GMs (at least the good ones) and the plonkers who do mock drafts. Position may have some influence over where on our draft board a player is - we certainly won't have any QBs anywhere near the top, and it's a way to split players of similar ability, but it won't be the principle deciding factor. The top end of Casserly's draft board might look something like this:

Braylon Edwards
Derrick Johnson
Mike Williams
****below this point it would not be worth trading up****
Ronnie Brown
Cedric Benson
Carnell Williams
Antrel Rolle
Adam Jones
David Pollack
Shaun Cody
Mark Clayton
Carlos Rodgers
Alex Barron

There is very little doubt over who the first ten players taken will be: Rodgers, Smith, Brown, Benson, C. Williams, Edwards, M. Williams, Rolle, Jones, Johnson. The order, however, is highly questionable and depends on a lot of things. If any of these players other than the QBs fell to 13, we would be daft not to take them.

More realistically, there is a very good chance that at least one of Mike Williams and DJ could still be available when the Vikes get to the board at 7. If they stay there, they would take one of those two, but given the depth of this draft at WR, they might well be prepared to trade down.

Arizona at 8 will most likely take whichever RB is left (assuming one is) or the second corner (Tennessee having taken the first). They could also go for DJ or for the second QB if one's still on the board.

Washington would like the second corner, but if he's gone to Arizona, they would take DJ or Mike Williams if either was still available.

Any of these three teams would be willing to consider a trade proposal involving Sharper - Arizona are weak and inexperienced at LB, Washington just lost Pierce, and Minnesota still want help on their defense and will be aware of the availability of good wideouts lower down. Detroit at 10, on the other hand, will not be interested in trading down at any reasonable price, being already in the right place to grab the last top player in the class (unless it turns out to be a QB - not likely).

There is no way it is worth our while trading into the top 5 for any reason - we need depth. Trading to 6 would be a waste of effort, since Tennessee will take a corner anyway. If we are looking to trade up, our goal is probably to get Johnson, since Edwards will be gone too early and Williams is too similar to AJ. What this means is that 1. We have to pick ahead of Detroit (who could also look to move up a place or two to get him), 2. The Browns have not to pick him (I expect them to go QB, but it is a possibility) and 3. The Bears have to stay where they are, not trade with someone who really wants him. If Johnson is still on the board at 7, we should probably at least start thinking about a trade up.

Otherwise, it is very likely that most if not all of Pollack, Cody, Clayton, C. Rodgers and Barron will be available at 13, and I would not complain about selecting any of those. Williamson, as far as I'm concerned, can go hang, and I hope CC agrees with me. The only way he's interesting is if Carolina really do like him and are prepared to cough something up to swap picks. If we do pick at 13, Sharper will most likely be used to upgrade our 2nd rounder into a low 1st or top 2nd. Trading down our 1st for two lower 1sts would also be fine by me. What we neither are nor should be doing is thinking, "Our biggest need is OLT and Barron is the best available: let's draft Barron." That's Madden thinking. Then again, so is trading 2, 3 and 4 for a 1, so who knows.

Wait, what am I talking about? No way would Madden let you get a 1 just for a 2, 3 and 4. Three 2s all the way.

D-ReK
03-23-2005, 07:11 AM
Well their is problems with every player. I am sure being an OLB he has some coverage skills. He will just have to cover TE and a LB out of the backfield. He has the speed to play the position... but obcourse all draft picks are considered "projects" just not to same degree. I think we are tryin to improve the pass rush coming off the outside. They are gonna keep babin on the weak side arent they. That would make Blackstock the Strong side to stand up the tight end. I think it definitely gonna be a project but i think he can refine those skills and learn the 3-4

I agree with you to an extent...Yes every player has a problem or two, but I think the degree of Blackstock's weaknesses may overweigh his strengths...He is an amazing pass rusher, but he can't stop the run...He's exactly like Peek...Oh, and for the record, Blackstock already knows the 3-4...He played in a 3-4 scheme in college...

The Preacher
03-23-2005, 09:18 AM
Nice debating Mr. Shush I'll assume you think Merriman and Spears are going to Dallas and San Diego respectively since they weren't on your possibly available to us list. I kind of hope the Williamson hype can jump him into the top ten but unlikely. The Vikes could take him especially if the other two are gone and he has athleticism somewhat similar to Moss. They have to be thinking receiver after everything they have done to their defense and if you check out the difference in Culpepper's stats with and w/o Moss it was something like 100 yds/gm and 1.5 td's game difference. Chicago and/or Tennessee/Tampa Bay most likely Mcnair wanting a big target makes this a legitimate possibility. I mean it would be hard to pass on Mike Williams even if your defense was in shambles. That said I also hope Detroit picks Barron meaning we'll take a playmaker no matter what happens. This is wishful thinking but it allows us to get a primetime player and I think the Texans do a great job of evaluating 1st round talent so we can probably rest assure knowing we're going to be vastly improved in 05' and beyond. With that said I remember when the Titans had the 13th pick and I was surprised when Kearse fell to them. Does history repeat and a freak like Merriman fall to us? I don't think I would be disappointed.

Mr Shush
03-23-2005, 11:08 AM
"I'll assume you think Merriman and Spears are going to Dallas and San Diego respectively since they weren't on your possibly available to us list"

Nope, I just don't like them as much (for us) as the guys I listed. My list was intended to include every player who could (even theoretically) be available at 13 - you could continue it to include up to 300+ players if you really wanted, but I included only those I regard as the 13 best (not counting QBs because we have no possible interest in taking one) - because obviously a list of 13 is enough to guarantee that at least one guy on it will still be there. But the point was more a matter of principle - what matters is that there is an ordered list and you take the highest player left on it. If you think Merriman's the daddy, put him in ahead of Pollack or somewhere. Let's face it, Casserly has access to a lot more reports and game-film than we do anyway, so his list won't be the same as either of ours. And yes, recent history does give me a lot of faith in his ability to make good high round choices (although, much as I like Babin, I still think that was a bad trade).

wildcat45
03-23-2005, 11:18 AM
we were last in the NFL in sacks so i think that our #1 concern should be how to put some presure on the quarterback. With Spears, Dan Cody, Sean Cody, and polack. thats where we need to go.

cadahnic
03-23-2005, 11:23 AM
I like the Codys', Spears will create pressure, and pollack is a work hard kinda guy, but our pass rushers will likely come from later picks in the draft. Our main focus should be Spears, or some NTs, in a post somewhere else someone brought up the possibility of us trading down picking up more picks and grabbing someone like D. Ware, D. Pollack, J. Brown, or Blackstock. What do you all think of that. More picks would guarantee we fill some of our depth issues

Mr Shush
03-23-2005, 11:27 AM
I don't think we can really go too far wrong in terms of trades, (barring something daft like sacrificing a load of picks to get into the top 5), but I do think drafting for need is almost always a mistake.

That said, we clearly have at least as much need on our O-line as we do in terms of pass-rush - Babin will continue to progress and Peek will probably be reasonably effective in this respect too.

D-ReK
03-23-2005, 12:24 PM
I like the Codys', Spears will create pressure, and pollack is a work hard kinda guy, but our pass rushers will likely come from later picks in the draft. Our main focus should be Spears, or some NTs, in a post somewhere else someone brought up the possibility of us trading down picking up more picks and grabbing someone like D. Ware, D. Pollack, J. Brown, or Blackstock. What do you all think of that. More picks would guarantee we fill some of our depth issues

I agree with most of this...The problem is that I doubt there will be many teams that want to move up in this draft, so we may be forced to reach for someone like Pollack at 13...As for the D-Line, I think there are a few good prospects that will be available in the 2nd, namely Chris Canty and Luis Castillo, both of which would make good DEs...As for NT, I'm all for Anthony Bryant out of Alabama...

cadahnic
03-23-2005, 12:27 PM
What about Albert Means. He is Huge

D-ReK
03-23-2005, 12:42 PM
Means is huge and would be a great NT IMO...He should be available in the 5th or maybe even 6th...There are major concerns about his stamina, his ability to maintain his weight, and people have questioned if he always give 100%, but he is definitely a big body that would keep Payne fresh...

Xman
03-23-2005, 01:31 PM
Means is projected to ginthe 5th on several sites and magazines - so if we want him, we could get him at the bottom of the 4th.

I like the idea of getting him, he would be what we need at the nose - a big mountain of meat that will hold his ground and protect the LBs.

royce1054
03-23-2005, 02:40 PM
WR is a need it will be the first pick but they will also attend to the defense by trading up to get a player just like last year in the Babin trade. Since we have sharper it wont cost us a pick. It looks good in that prospective. I would be happy to see Williamson at #13 and maybe Blackstock at like 28 or 29.

infantrycak
03-23-2005, 03:21 PM
WR is a need it will be the first pick but they will also attend to the defense by trading up to get a player just like last year in the Babin trade. Since we have sharper it wont cost us a pick. It looks good in that prospective. I would be happy to see Williamson at #13 and maybe Blackstock at like 28 or 29.

Nahhh, you must be joking about this, I mean this is only the twentieth thread you have posted the same thought. Must be a smokescreen.

royce1054
03-23-2005, 06:06 PM
no trades this is how i think it will go
1. Rodgers
2. Brown
3. Johnson
4. Edwards
5. C. Williams
6. Pac-man
7. M. Williams
8. Benson (unless travis henry is traded)
9. Rolle
10. Merriman
11. James
12. Spears
13. Williamson
That is realistic. seems like a good way to go. Williamson is best player for us at the pick. Now if we got Channing Crowder who is my #16 to saints could be drafted keep wong on the outside. Then trade up and maybe get a Roddy White but thats a little iffy.
i still think Williamson is the pick and a trade up for Blackstock and move wong to his natural postition onn the inside

royce1054
03-23-2005, 06:07 PM
Nahhh, you must be joking about this, I mean this is only the twentieth thread you have posted the same thought. Must be a smokescreen.

Shows repetition and a strong belief in who i think we will take.

Blake
03-23-2005, 06:25 PM
WR is a need it will be the first pick but they will also attend to the defense by trading up to get a player just like last year in the Babin trade. Since we have sharper it wont cost us a pick. It looks good in that prospective. I would be happy to see Williamson at #13 and maybe Blackstock at like 28 or 29.

Not a bad plan. But I wouldnt be happy with Blackstock. I know they say he thrives in the 3-4, but im just not sold on an athlete who has to have a certain situation to be good in. especially in the 1st. I wouldnt mind Burnett from Tenn.

Dunta_23
03-23-2005, 06:33 PM
I still dont really feel that WR is a bigtime need....I have yet to see Starling play, but ppl say he is a gamer...Gaffney is still only 22 or 23, I think he needs another year with Carr getting a bit better protection he can be good and Armstrong in the slot....unless a steal is available in round 2...I dont see it being adressed early....UNLESS....Williams or Edwards falls to around 10 and they move up and get them....

royce1054
03-23-2005, 07:37 PM
I still dont really feel that WR is a bigtime need....I have yet to see Starling play, but ppl say he is a gamer...Gaffney is still only 22 or 23, I think he needs another year with Carr getting a bit better protection he can be good and Armstrong in the slot....unless a steal is available in round 2...I dont see it being adressed early....UNLESS....Williams or Edwards falls to around 10 and they move up and get them....

Sterling might not even make the team.. If he does its a gunner on punt and maybe on kick off. I dont think we will have a 2nd round pick. I think we will get a puss rusher and a WR to replace Bradford.. you cant ask for more than that. Then we have 2 3rd round picks we can get a DE and CB to add depth.

D-ReK
03-23-2005, 07:55 PM
Sterling might not even make the team.. If he does its a gunner on punt and maybe on kick off.

I know stranger things have happened, but IMO, there's no possible way that Starling doesn't make the team...He has all of the tools you look for in a solid receiver...He showed tons of promise during the preseason last year, but he wasn't used during the season because he was having problems with learning the playbook...After a year in the system, he should be ready to make some sort of impact this year...Not #2 receiver impact, but I can see him getting 15 catches and a TD...

texasguy346
03-23-2005, 08:11 PM
Starling did get some game time this season, but not much at WR (maybe a few plays, can't be sure). I'm pretty sure he was called up from the practice squad around midseason. He mostly saw action as a gunner, but I agree that he'll most likely make the team even if JJ Moses remains our returner next season. If JJ is somehow unseated then Starling will definately be on the roster as the 4th or 5th WR, and has a good chance of playing more. We'll get a much better idea once training camp gets underway.

D-ReK
03-23-2005, 08:15 PM
Yeah, when I said he didn't get any PT, I was referring to him not getting in any at WR...I think using him on kick returns may be a good idea...He has great speed and good hands...The KR battle will be very interesting to watch this preseason...

outofhnd
03-24-2005, 06:05 AM
Royce...

If we draft Williamson with our 13th pick. I will give you props for having the preminition.

However It would be the worst move we could possibly make. We are not the Colts or the Rams offense.

Our offense runs thru AJ. We do not need another speedster WR especially one with marginal hands. what we need is a solid posession receiver that will force the D to chose be killed in 1 shot or the slow methodical death.

If we do not improve our lines this year especially at DT& LTyour receiver will make 0 impact because he wont be on the field for 3 plays and then back to the bench. Id rather have Bradford back than Williamson atleast he knows the playbook.

hound
03-24-2005, 06:15 AM
Williamson doesn't do much for me. He has "potential" and speed and height and... Well there are a lot of guys with "potential" and speed and height.

If you looked at Sloan Thomas' numbers from a year ago... He had potential... and yeah he was not drafted high at all... But still he was and still is tall and he was and is very fast... and he had made spectacular catches in college... but he didn't even make the real team.

Williamson didn't do enough in college to spend my first pick on him when I have so many other needs. I'd give Starling and Armstrong and Sloan Thomas and someone I draft in a latter round the chance to fill the need.

outofhnd
03-24-2005, 06:31 AM
My point exactly. Alot of kids have excellent pro days. If he goes anywhere it will proabably be Atl.

Mr Shush
03-24-2005, 07:28 AM
Yup. Doesn't matter if he can't catch there: Vick won't get the ball anywhere near him anyway. He just has to stretch the field and give them yet more room to run from their 3-back formations.

I like the sound of Mark Clayton (although he might be a slight reach at 13) and I don't think Pollack would be a reach there at all.

D-ReK
03-24-2005, 10:36 AM
IMO Clayton is a much better option than Williamson...He has better hands, runs better routes, and their speed numbers are virtually the same...The only advantage Williamson has over Clayton is that he's bigger...I still think we're either going RB (if someone fell) or defense in the 1st...

TheOgre
03-24-2005, 10:47 AM
I dont think we will have a 2nd round pick...Then we have 2 3rd round picks we can get a DE and CB to add depth.

How do you propose we move up from the 2nd into the 1st round? If you are thinking that Sharper will propel us that far, you are vastely overestimating his market value. In 2003 the Ravens moved from the 2nd to the 1st and it cost them their 1st the following year. In 2004 the Bills moved from the 2nd to the 1st and it cost them a 1st the following year. There is absolutely no way that Sharper is worth a 2006 1st rounder in TRADE VALUE.

Xman
03-24-2005, 12:44 PM
Our 2nd rounder and a 3rd should be worth #26 or # 27.

TheOgre
03-24-2005, 01:00 PM
Our 2nd rounder and a 3rd should be worth #26 or # 27.

I believe I have these right:
2nd (15) 440 pts
3rd* (9) 230 pts
3rd (14) 205 pts

* from Dallas


If you used our 2nd and the 3rd from Dallas that puts us at 670 pts. That is a hair shy (675) of the 29th pick on the chart I have. Perhaps we have different charts.

royce1054
03-24-2005, 06:45 PM
How do you propose we move up from the 2nd into the 1st round? If you are thinking that Sharper will propel us that far, you are vastely overestimating his market value. In 2003 the Ravens moved from the 2nd to the 1st and it cost them their 1st the following year. In 2004 the Bills moved from the 2nd to the 1st and it cost them a 1st the following year. There is absolutely no way that Sharper is worth a 2006 1st rounder in TRADE VALUE.

Ok. the 28th pick to steelers is worth
28 660 for
#47 430 and give sharpers and 230 rating which is a 3rd round quality which i think is under paying but it would work