From next level reports

I think calling him James Jett's way much. I do see this guy being productive - I don't see how people laud him as if he were Roy Williams or similar, and no he doesn't have great routes. But no, I wouldn't say that RAC is that related to routes - it helps to get separation and he can do that, but with the ball in his hands he's dangerous.

I imagine people are projecting that he wasn't used to his best abilities at USC. I don't think that he's a complete player, but he certainly does enough to be deserving of first round-type attention in this talent-poor draft. I don't think that there's a problem with Williamson being rated top 15 or so, just that there's a problem with Clayton not being rated as high. Realistically, they're very similar players, one heavier on production.

 

Agreed, that's the million dollar question if Johnson would actually be available. Neither would be suited for strongside duty, so either you draft Johnson with the expectation that you won't be able or else willing to sign Witherspoon when his contract is up after the season, or else you're thinking about moving WW to ILB full-time. Neither sounds like an appetizing prospect, but Johnson just looks so damn good that I would be excited anyway.

And regarding Williamson, even if the USC hindered his abilities instead of hiding his deficiencies, what are those hidden abilities going to be? We've established that Williamson isn't faster than Clayton, and I doubt you'd disagree that he doesn't seem to play bigger on film. So if Clayton has superior receiving skills, even assuming Troy will eventually develop his, where is Williamson's advantage going to come from?

 

With Williamson? It's a basic belief that he'll grow into his full potential/productivity. That he'll be as complete as Clayton? No. Most guys aren't complete, though. Smith wasn't, and still really isn't. Muhammad's never shown all of his skills all at once. I have no reason to think he won't be a playmaker at this level - whether he'll succeed at intermediate routes in this league's based on how physical he wants to become.

 

Yeah, at this point I'm not trying to establish whether or not Williamson will be a good pro. I disagree with others on that count and I'm fine with that. I'm just trying to understand where Williamson can ever be considered superior to Clayton. If he's not faster and doesn't play bigger, how is he going to be better than Clayton at any point even if he "grows into his potential"?

Right now I'm legitimately asking the question, not trying to bash Williamson. I'm just trying to see in what best case scenario Williamson passes Clayton. The only thing I could think of is if Williamson makes better use of his height advantage later on, but that's literally the only even possible advantage I can come up with.

 

I could see him being more physical than Clayton, and more of a deep threat since Clayton will probably have a role underneath more. Since he wasn't used enough at USC, one could suggest that no one's seen all he can do in the pros. I don't see a reason he won't be productive, and I do see an amount of playmaking that you don't seem to.

 

I think the appeal of Williamson is that he is naturally a very smooth runner and his moves are subtle which makes it harder to scout on film. A smooth runner's speed can be very deceptive.

 

Uhm ... how can "smooth running" be hard to scout on film? For that matter, Williamson's electronically timed speed was not faster than Clayton's, and was slower than Matt Jones'.

 

I thought W's time was 4.32, which was way faster than either.

 

4.38 - http://2005.otcdraft.com/content/profiles/receiver/TroyWilliamson.php

 

Combine size & times:

Williamson 6' 1.3" 40's 4.31 & 4.32

Clayton 5' 10.3" 40's 4.38 & 4.39

http://qisports.com/combine2005.html