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

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I'm still hoping for a defensive playmaker in the 1st. I like Evan Engram in the second. Not the traditional TE type, more in the mold of Jimmy Graham and can be used split out in the slot like Graham. Better 40 and vertical leap than Mike Williams at an inch shorter, but thicker build.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(04-18-2017, 07:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm still hoping for a defensive playmaker in the 1st. I like Evan Engram in the second. Not the traditional TE type, more in the mold of Jimmy Graham and can be used split out in the slot like Graham. Better 40 and vertical leap than Mike Williams at an inch shorter, but thicker build.

I like Engram a lot but if he is an inch shorter than Mike Williams he is a 6'2".

Not quite in the mold of the 6'8" Jimmy Graham.

[eoxyod]

(04-18-2017, 06:30 PM)Murdock2420 Wrote: So did a guy named Larry Fitzgerald....

Not too mention Boldin was never known as explosive with his speed.

Speed is not the end all be all. Look at the Raiders and all the times they drafted guys who had great 40 times. Give me the guy who runs nice crisps routes (Williams) has a big body that can take the hits in the NFL (Williams) and has played against the top level of competition and still managed to make a major impact. 

Larry Fitzgerald had a crazy high playmaker score as well. A big body is irrelevant when he won't be able to get separation.

[Striped4war]

Don't know why so many are down on Williams.I want a pass rusher but Williams is my favorite receiver in the draft.It may have been 1 game but he single handedly humiliated that Bama defense in the championship game and I don't think it was a fluke either.I hope like hell we are calling his name at pick 9.We got so many needs ,De,Lt,Lb but Williams would be awesome in the stripes for us I believe.

[Luvnit2]

(04-18-2017, 06:42 PM)mhbsavant Wrote: Give me Corey Davis, 6-3, 209, Western Michigan (first): Davis led the Broncos in receiving for four straight years. He had a career-high 97 catches, 1,500 yards receiving and 19 touchdowns last season to earn the MAC offensive player of the year honors.

His highlight tape is AMAZING he is 6'3" and ran a 4.38 low and 4.48 high....the draft steal at 9 in my opinion.

My first choice on offensive side is Howard if available, if not I love C. Davis. Forget the negative MAC hype and injury concerns. There is this guy named Antonio Brown is small and durable which brings my 3rd choice Ross.

I take all 3 over Williams for 1st pick, but my hope is Allen slides to us at 9 and solves our DL issues

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-18-2017, 07:44 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: I like Engram a lot but if he is an inch shorter than Mike Williams he is a 6'2".

Not quite in the mold of the 6'8" Jimmy Graham.

Mike Williams is 6'4" putting Engram at 6'3". In the mold of Graham as in how they are used on the field. Not the traditional inline TE.

[lostpoet2]

I agree that the players you listed might be off the board by the time we pick at 9. If so, this would be a great opportunity to trade back a few picks and still get one of the top 3 receivers, Foster, or Howard.

[depthchart]

(04-18-2017, 05:01 PM)eoxyod Wrote: Problem is Mike Williams ranks in the lower percentiles in a lot of factors relating to explosiveness and comparative speed. He also ranked a playmaker score of only 70% which isn't necessarily bad, but not worth a high pick. Most good first round WRs get a playmaker score of over 70%. A WR the size of Williams should rank much higher from TD catches, but didn't catch TDs compared to that especially with a great QB at the helm. He also had a very average YPC average which should be higher for a WR that is supposed to high point deep passes much better.

Similarly, he compares athletically to Laquon Treadwell who has had a rough start in the NFL. He doesn't have the separation ability that other WR prospects have which is much mroe important than just being big. More WRs with his measurable and same supposed "wow" factor fail than succeed

You make some good points, however, I am not concerned with the Laquon Treadwell comparisons I have heard from many people.

Treadwell is only 6 foot 2 inches tall as compared to Mike Williams at 6 foot 3 and 5/8 inches.
Treadwell posted a 4.63 forty time compared to Mike Williams time of 4.50 with an extra inch and 5/8 of height.
I think he will be much better than Treadwell but you have a valid point to consider..

 

[*ochocincos*]

(04-19-2017, 10:43 AM)depthchart Wrote: You make some good points, however, I am not concerned with the Laquon Treadwell comparisons I have heard from many people.

Treadwell is only 6 foot 2 inches tall as compared to Mike Williams at 6 foot 3 and 5/8 inches.
Treadwell posted a 4.63 forty time compared to Mike Williams time of 4.50 with an extra inch and 5/8 of height.
I think he will be much better than Treadwell but you have a valid point to consider..

 

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/

Quote:Possibly the most anticipated 40-yard dash for any pro day around the country was from Williams, who elected not to run at the Combine. He took the extra time to train for the drill and ran his sprints Thursday in the 4.55-4.58 range, depending on the stopwatch.

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.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(04-19-2017, 09:26 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Mike Williams is 6'4" putting Engram at 6'3". In the mold of Graham as in how they are used on the field. Not the traditional inline TE.

As Depthchart here says, 6'3" 5/8 but yeah i get what you are sayin'.

I bet we want a taller TE since we drafted Orson Charles who never panned out.

[Au165]

(04-19-2017, 12:20 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: As Depthchart here says, 6'3" 5/8 but yeah i get what you are sayin'.

I bet we want a taller TE since we drafted Orson Charles who never panned out.

We drafted Kroft and Uzomah who are 6'5 .

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(04-19-2017, 12:28 PM)Au165 Wrote: We drafted Kroft and Uzomah who are 6'5 .

Yeah, big TE's exactly my point.

[Au165]

(04-19-2017, 12:36 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Yeah, big TE's exactly my point.

I was more confirming that for you based on what we did recently. :andy:

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(04-19-2017, 12:38 PM)Au165 Wrote: I was more confirming that for you based on what we did recently. :andy:

Thank you sir.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-19-2017, 12:20 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: As Depthchart here says, 6'3" 5/8 but yeah i get what you are sayin'.

I bet we want a taller TE since we drafted Orson Charles who never panned out.

I was using NFL.com.  Don't they usually use the height and weights from the combine?  I thought they did, but could be wrong.  I also thought the Bengals tried to use Charles more as an H back rather than a typical TE or like Jimmy Graham.  I'm not suggesting that with Engram.  With Engram, I'm suggesting a TE who will line up in the slot to catch passes, like Graham. Or in line knowing he ain't gonna block, but run a route in which case he would be like a Jake Fisher, but with much better hands.  Kinda like an actual NFL level tight end and not a NFL OT who played TE in high school, but an actual TE kinda TE.  I might need to hire two guys to throw my TV out the window if I see Jake Fisher run another route from the TE position in the redzone again.  I'm so sick of it.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(04-19-2017, 12:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I was using NFL.com.  Don't they usually use the height and weights from the combine?  I thought they did, but could be wrong.  I also thought the Bengals tried to use Charles more as an H back rather than a typical TE or like Jimmy Graham.  I'm not suggesting that with Engram.  With Engram, I'm suggesting a TE who will line up in the slot to catch passes, like Graham. Or in line knowing he ain't gonna block, but run a route in which case he would be like a Jake Fisher, but with much better hands.  Kinda like an actual NFL level tight end and not a NFL OT who played TE in high school, but an actual TE kinda TE.  I might need to hire two guys to throw my TV out the window if I see Jake Fisher run another route from the TE position in the redzone again.  I'm so sick of it.

That was Mike Williams height from the combine i am pretty sure, 6'3" 5/8. He is almost 6'4".

True about Orson and Jake Fisher.

Hewitt is the only one that did well as an H-back and we didn't hardly even use him last year. That pizzed me off.

When Hewitt was out there we could run the ball decent. Zampese needs to wake the hell up and use the formations
that actually work. He got way too cute way too many times last year trying to be Hue Jackson.

[depthchart]

(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.

Mike Evans is a much better Comp than Laquan Treadwell.

Splitting hairs, I see Mike Evans at 6 foot 4 and 3/4 and 231 pounds at his Combine.
An inch and 1/8 taller and 13 pounds over Williams 218 combine weight.
Mike Evans wins the measurables competition.

I think Williams will be much closer to a Mike Evans than a Treadwell during his career.

I will lean on former GM Charlie Casserley's opinion on NFL Network which has Williams as the #1 receiver in this Draft and he considers him to be a better prospect coming out of college than former Clemson WR DeAndre Hopkins who plays for Houston.

[*ochocincos*]

(04-19-2017, 01:19 PM)depthchart Wrote: Mike Evans is a much better Comp than Laquan Treadwell.

Splitting hairs, I see Mike Evans at 6 foot 4 and 3/4 and 231 pounds at his Combine.
An inch and 1/8 taller and 13 pounds over Williams 218 combine weight.
Mike Evans wins the measurables competition.

I think Williams will be much closer to a Mike Evans than a Treadwell during his career.

I will lean on former GM Charlie Casserley's opinion on NFL Network which has Williams as the #1 receiver in this Draft and he considers him to be a better prospect coming out of college than former Clemson WR DeAndre Hopkins who plays for Houston.

Yea. However, I think the slightly smaller size and less explosiveness will be what separates Mike Evans from Mike Williams. I don't think Mike Williams will have near the successful career production wise that Evans has had so far and will have. I see Mike Williams in the 800-1000 yard a year range with probably 6-10 TDs a year. Very solid, respectable numbers but not Evans level.

[Au165]

(04-19-2017, 01:36 PM)ochocincos Wrote: Yea. However, I think the slightly smaller size and less explosiveness will be what separates Mike Evans from Mike Williams. I don't think Mike Williams will have near the successful career production wise that Evans has had so far and will have. I see Mike Williams in the 800-1000 yard a year range with probably 6-10 TDs a year. Very solid, respectable numbers but not Evans level.

The Evans to Williams comparison isn't a measurable one, but the way they can play the contested ball is a similar comparison. Really, Williams is going to need a QB who will throw it up and let him go get it, Dalton actually does that often with Green so it's not unthinkable that he could work with Dalton. I have gotten to the point that if we move back in the 1st, I'd be okay with any of the WR's.

[eoxyod]

(04-19-2017, 01:19 PM)depthchart Wrote: Mike Evans is a much better Comp than Laquan Treadwell.

This isn't a comparison of the size, but explosiveness related to size which is more important