Why it looks to me like Mike Williams may just be the Bengals choice.

[depthchart]

(04-19-2017, 03:50 PM)eoxyod Wrote: This isn't a comparison of the size, but explosiveness related to size which is more important

You can put your Chips on Laquan Treadwell and I'll put mine on Mike Williams.
Like the House, you win if it's a tie in this hypothetical.

They will have much different careers when it is all said and done.  IMO

[eoxyod]

(04-19-2017, 04:13 PM)depthchart Wrote: You can put your Chips on Laquan Treadwell and I'll put mine on Mike Williams.
Like the House, you win if it's a tie in this hypothetical.

They will have much different careers when it is all said and done.  IMO

I agree they will have different careers. I'm not saying they are the same exact player. But I am saying that all signs that have been pointed too from a data standpoint are not great for Williams. That said I don't think he'll be a bad player, but closer to guy who gets targets on WR hungry team

[depthchart]

(04-19-2017, 04:15 PM)eoxyod Wrote: I agree they will have different careers. I'm not saying they are the same exact player. But I am saying that all signs that have been pointed too from a data standpoint are not great for Williams. That said I don't think he'll be a bad player, but closer to guy who gets targets on WR hungry team

Your concern has some validity and is worth discussing.

Treadwell at 6 foot 2 is being covered by corners that are very close to his height at say 6 foot and these corners are much faster than Treadwell who ran a 4.63 and many of these corners can out jump him enough to make up for his height edge.

Mike Williams is 6 foot 3 and 5/8 and ran let us say a 4.55. Faster than Treadwell.
Williams has a larger overall Body Frame, a 3 to 4 inch height advantage on these same corners and just enough speed to cause a corner some problems if that corner makes the slightest mistake. The corners are staying in Treadwell's back pocket with him at 6 foot 2 & 4.63. Less margin for error with Williams for these corners and his greater height advantage & Big Frame make it tougher for them to out position for the ball.  IMO

[*Go Cards*]

(04-18-2017, 03:42 PM)depthchart Wrote: The Bengals likely see Key injuries on Offense as the reason the team struggled in 2016.
No Tyler Eifert early on, then no AJ Green or Eifert down the stretch plus the loss of Gio.
Major Red Zone struggles.
Offense may get the 1st pick attention, since the Defense did OK in 2016 by comparison.

OJ Howard will likely be gone before pick 9 and the Bengals may still feel a sense of loyalty to Eifert or think Eifert can rebound physically. Garrett, Thomas, Lattimore, Fournette, Adams, Hooker & Jonathan Allen could all be gone before we pick as well. That would leave Reuben Foster, Derek Barnett and Mike Williams as the remaining Big names.

Drafting Mike Williams at 6 foot 3 and 5/8 inches tall & 220 pounds would provide another Eifert type Red Zone threat.
If Eifert stays injured we have another Red Zone threat in place with Williams. Williams should also provide some DURABILITY to the receiving core on Offense. Remember, the Bengals likely feel that injuries to Key offensive weapons killed the 2016 season. Williams would be an insurance policy in the Red Zone for any injury to Tyler Eifert.
If Eifert stays healthy we have multiple tall Red Zone threats. (Eifert, Williams, AJ)

Mike Williams even looks like a Bengal type pick with his rare size and good speed for his size combo. He has above average hands, can move the chains and be a Big Red Zone threat which we struggle with when Eifert is out. Williams ran a 4.50 forty which is good for his size. He is a size mismatch for corners, wide receiver is a 3 down position versus say a rotational defensive end which the Bengals tend to take in later rounds and he has that Bengal style physical Freak characteristic the Bengals tend to like.

Buckle up because Mike Williams may just be the pick.

If it came down to Foster, Barnett, or Williams I would want in order Foster, Barnett, then maybe Williams 

[CJD]

I'm at the point of the year where I'm tired of the speculation and just want the draft to come and end the debate.

Why can't the draft start tomorrow? haha.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(04-19-2017, 10:42 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm at the point of the year where I'm tired of the speculation and just want the draft to come and end the debate.

Why can't the draft start tomorrow? haha.

You and Ocho and me are feeling about the same.

I like the back and forth though. Nice arguments on both sides.

I have no real crazy want at 9. Lots of picks will make me happy.

After the first round is where this draft will make the Bengal's hay or straw.

[Jpoore]

(04-19-2017, 11:47 AM)ochocincos Wrote: The 4.50 was what one scout/team got via hand timing. There were plenty of reports of teams getting (much) slower than that at Williams' pro day.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/did-deshaun-watson-or-mike-williams-change-any-minds-at-clemson-pro-day/



A player who I haven't seen Williams compared much to but might actually be pretty spot-on is a shorter, less explosive version of Mike Evans. Williams is ~1.5" shorter than Evans, also about 1.5" shorter arms, about 15 lbs lighter. Williams had a 32.5" vert whereas Evans had a 37" vert.
With that said, both are vertical players that won't beat you with speed but will use size to their advantage. Both are not great route runners. Evans ran a 4.53 at the Combine which was solid given he was 231 lbs.
Mike Evans has had a pretty darn good first three years to his career with 3578 yards and 27 TDs, but that was with him being slotted directly opposite VJax, not having to earn playing time with a guy like LaFell and a former second round draft pick in Tyler Boyd in front of him.

If the comparison is accurate, how much less productive would Mike Evans be if he were 1.5" shorter, had 1.5" shorter arms, and had a 4.5" shorter vert? Because that might be exactly what you get out of Mike Williams.

Not to butt in but both of those are horrible comps. i have been saying his player comp has been keenan allen. Allen is a top 10 wr when healthy, ran a 4.71-4.75, and is body catcher more often than not. But lately and i cant believe this wasnt my comp from the beggining is alshon jeffery. Jeffery ran a 4.48-4.53. Mike williams ran a 4.49-4.53. Mccshay clocked him at 4.53. Here is jefferys bottom line.
Jeffery is indeed an elite jump-ball prospect, but his value will be heavily determined by a simple 40 time, as he does not stand out as fast on tape and is such a long strider that he at times looks to be moving in slow motion. Speed will never be his game, but he needs to become more comfortable in his routes to work the corner and truly gain separation. The development of his route running skills will be the key to his success. Jeffery was bit uncoordinated early on in his career and seemingly only began to look comfortable in his body towards the end of his collegiate career. That describes williams in a nut shell. So question is, would you take alshon jeffery?

[*ochocincos*]

(04-20-2017, 01:27 AM)Jpoore Wrote: Not to butt in but both of those are horrible comps. i have been saying his player comp has been keenan allen. Allen is a top 10 wr when healthy, ran a 4.71-4.75, and is body catcher more often than not. But lately and i cant believe this wasnt my comp from the beggining is alshon jeffery. Jeffery ran a 4.48-4.53. Mike williams ran a 4.49-4.53. Mccshay clocked him at 4.53. Here is jefferys bottom line.
Jeffery is indeed an elite jump-ball prospect, but his value will be heavily determined by a simple 40 time, as he does not stand out as fast on tape and is such a long strider that he at times looks to be moving in slow motion. Speed will never be his game, but he needs to become more comfortable in his routes to work the corner and truly gain separation. The development of his route running skills will be the key to his success. Jeffery was bit uncoordinated early on in his career and seemingly only began to look comfortable in his body towards the end of his collegiate career. That describes williams in a nut shell. So question is, would you take alshon jeffery?

Maybe you're right in that Williams does compare better to Allen and/or Jeffery, but why is the Mike Evans comparison horrible?

[Au165]

(04-20-2017, 09:06 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Maybe you're right in that Williams does compare better to Allen and/or Jeffery, but why is the Mike Evans comparison horrible?

Honestly Mike Williams is better coming out in the short routes and using his body to shield the ball than Evans was. Evan on the other hand is one of the best "back to the rim" throw it straight up and I'll go up and get it guys in the league, I am not sure that specifically is what Williams does. Williams is a good contested ball catchers, but turning around and waiting for the ball and high pointing it isn't really something he did much in college.

I use Dez Bryant as the comparison because of the route combinations he still runs in the NFL. Bryant is basically a 3 route WR and it is what I think Williams will be for the most part, which isn't  bad thing because Beckham is the same way just different routes.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-20-2017, 09:18 AM)Au165 Wrote: Honestly Mike Williams is better coming out in the short routes and using his body to shield the ball than Evans was. Evan on the other hand is one of the best "back to the rim" throw it straight up and I'll go up and get it guys in the league, I am not sure that specifically is what Williams does. Williams is a good contested ball catchers, but turning around and waiting for the ball and high pointing it isn't really something he did much in college.

I use Dez Bryant as the comparison because of the route combinations he still runs in the NFL. Bryant is basically a 3 route WR and it is what I think Williams will be for the most part, which isn't  bad thing because Beckham is the same way just different routes.

True, Williams is more of an over-the-shoulder catcher whereas Evans is more of a comeback high-pointer, but I guess where I was coming from was that both had high pointing the ball, being big and physical, and having strong hands to pluck the ball away from their body listed as strengths and having just NFL average speed (mid 4.5s) as a weakness.

I would say a "horrible" comparison would be like comparing Williams to someone who wins with speed and/or crisp route running. Just because someone isn't exactly like another player doesn't make it a horrible comparison. "Horrible" and "not-the-best" are two different things, which is more what I was getting at.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-20-2017, 01:27 AM)Jpoore Wrote: Not to butt in but both of those are horrible comps. i have been saying his player comp has been keenan allen. Allen is a top 10 wr when healthy, ran a 4.71-4.75, and is body catcher more often than not. But lately and i cant believe this wasnt my comp from the beggining is alshon jeffery. Jeffery ran a 4.48-4.53. Mike williams ran a 4.49-4.53. Mccshay clocked him at 4.53. Here is jefferys bottom line.
Jeffery is indeed an elite jump-ball prospect, but his value will be heavily determined by a simple 40 time, as he does not stand out as fast on tape and is such a long strider that he at times looks to be moving in slow motion. Speed will never be his game, but he needs to become more comfortable in his routes to work the corner and truly gain separation. The development of his route running skills will be the key to his success. Jeffery was bit uncoordinated early on in his career and seemingly only began to look comfortable in his body towards the end of his collegiate career. That describes williams in a nut shell. So question is, would you take alshon jeffery?

I'll definitely give you the Alshon Jeffery comparison over Mike Evans. That is more accurate.
And the answer is yes, I would take Alshon Jeffery, but I still want the Bengals to have more speed.
As mentioned in another thread, I would be fine with the Mike Williams selection at 9, but I just prefer a few other players instead of him.

[Au165]

(04-20-2017, 09:49 AM)ochocincos Wrote: True, Williams is more of an over-the-shoulder catcher whereas Evans is more of a comeback high-pointer, but I guess where I was coming from was that both had high pointing the ball, being big and physical, and having strong hands to pluck the ball away from their body listed as strengths and having just NFL average speed (mid 4.5s) as a weakness.

I would say a "horrible" comparison would be like comparing Williams to someone who wins with speed and/or crisp route running. Just because someone isn't exactly like another player doesn't make it a horrible comparison. "Horrible" and "not-the-best" are two different things, which is more what I was getting at..

I agree, Evans isn't a "horrible" comparison, just not a clean one. A horrible one would be Andrew Hawkins haha.