From next level reports

It'd be good if they had eyes to address a replacement for Smitty.

 

I think what is so frustrating for a fan like me who doesn't pay that much attention to the college players until this time of year is the contradictory information out there about them. For instance, Linda posted the above comments from TFY. Here is a comment from ESPN.com sited in an article by Pasquerelli:

Lacks the physical dimension of the bigger receivers in this year's pool, but a wiry build and can take punishment, certainly knows how to protect himself. Much more quick than fast, although he opened a lot of eyes at the scouting combine with his performance in the 40, and that surprised a lot of people who felt he was kind of pedestrian. Smooth and fluid, and of all the top receivers might be the most naturally explosive in and out of his cuts. That's particularly true on the inside routes. Good body control and super change-of-direction abilities. Long arms allow him to play a tad bigger than he is, and he is fearless in traffic and in terms of attacking the ball. Smart and savvy, has played in sophisticated passing game and knows how to get open. Can return kicks.

Doesn't even sound like the same player. Its the part I've underlined that has me so excited about him. I'm not that worried about his height. People talk about Midget Recievers, Pats have been winning Super Bowls without a 6'3" guy for a while now.

From what I've read and heard: Clayton > Williamson.

 

OK my curiousity got the best of me. I can't find any combine numbers at all on NFL.com. They only report campus drills that I can find. TFY says they have the official numbers off the official master list. You're right. Williamson ran 4.38 and 4.39. Clayton ran 4.44 and 4.45. Thats a couple of steps on a deep route. Not a humongous diff, but significant. They're also the leaping. Clayton, 36.5, combine only. Williamson 45.5, campus only. That's 9 inches difference. Neither ran at their campus workouts.

You have game film, combine positions drills, and workouts. And none of that can predict the future, but you put them together and try to.

 

Clayton - from what little I saw of him in the SB he's got great hands and body control. did not seem to be Smitty quick or fast although i remember them quoting Gruden as saying that he seemed to be double-jointed coming outa his cuts (didn't lose any speed but did lose defenders). didn't see it in the game, but didn't get alot of looks. from the little i saw, he looks tuff and is a very willing blocker. looked pretty good on the PR but i didn't cream over him. he definately seems to be a competitor and i loved that about him.

Williamson - from the video he just flat outruns the defense. if he gets a crease and a step on a slant and is hit in stide, he's gone. runs very smooth. looked to have very good hands and body control and is tuff. He looks much, much faster than Clayton. the video seems to support all the positives you read about him. the diffence between Williamson's 4.38 (Williamson would seem is every bit that ... and I've seen reported clockings at the combine of 4.25) and Clayton's 4.4 (which surprised scounts that were expecting a 4.8, which i took to mean he doesn't seem to play as fast as he timed and no one is claiming an obscene time for him) is a lot. it's the difference between being able to just flat outrun almost every CB in the league and not. the one question on him that I read was that he didn't catch the over-the-shoulder pass well. if that's true, it would be a worry

Already having Colbert and Smitty, I think Williamson makes much more sense for us. As Linda said, he can keep the safeties from cheating and off our RBs and Colbert and Smitty ... and Magnum. With Smitty and Williamson on the field, I don't think teams can play that defense the Saints threw at us in the last game. I'm not so sure I wouldn't want to wait and try to grab Murphy (? the Aggie) or Mathis if we can't get Williamson.

I'm not sure either Clayton or Williamson will be highly effective in the redzone. Clayton, I'd guess might have more success there. But, Matt Jones or Mike Williams would seem to be more of the answer there ... if Peppers isn't.

 

I agree with your whole post. The redzone comment is right. I wouldnt want to take Jones in the 1st, and it seems he'll be gone later. Moose did give us that RZ presence. We'll have to get it from our TEs, who can't jump. Most TEs can't. Maybe Williamson could be tough enough for some fades, which I think are low percentage passes anyway. Maybe the Peppers thing will turn out to be more than a trick play.

 

The numbers under agility on NFL.com are from the combine unless a player didn't perform there. And I hate to burst your bubble again, but 5 hundredths of a second (only 3 according to NFL.com and most other sites) is not even close to "a couple of steps." They're averaging three inches per hundredth of a second, so we're talking about nine or fifteen inches depending upon whom you believe.

As I stated earlier, you'll get far more separation from other factors. And also as mentioned, 40 time has been an extraordinarily bad predictor of pro success at all positions, including WR. The important thing to me is that both Williamson and Clayton look fast and quick on film. Of course the fact that Clayton has the far superior receiving skills makes it obvious why I like him more, but some do still insist that Williamson makes up the gap by being faster overall despite the meager difference in their electronic times.

As for the leap, I'm pretty sure that you're mistaken again. The best vertical leap I can find for Williamson is the 37 inches that NFL.com reports. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that someone jumping 45.5 inches would be all over the draft news since Reggie Brown is listed as the highest leaper in this WR class at 41.5. Are you telling me that Williamson improved his leap by 8.5 inches and that he's 4 inches higher than every other receiver in the draft, or do you think maybe you made a mistake?


Headcase:
Suggesting that scouts were expecting a 4.8 out of Clayton is so ridiculous that it obliterates your credibility. Since the rest of what you said seems pretty reasonable, although I disagree with it, I think that was just a mis-statement, correct? It is worth mentioning that Clayton was considered a first round pick even if he had come out last year in that WR-heavy class. I hate comparing guys just because they happen to be on the same team or share the same last name, but Mark Clayton plays a lot like Michael Clayton, though Mark is a little quicker and a little less physical.

And for the record, Clayton didn't run a lot of go and post routes at OU, which explains some of the reason he doesn't look to have the same top speed as Williamson. Electronic timers prove that he pretty much does, however. Meanwhile on film Clayton looks quicker laterally, but he had only a slight edge over Williamson in the combine's 3 cone drill.

So given that I'm generally averse to letting workout numbers influence my opinion of a player (though I admit Matt Jones is a big exception for whatever reason), and that there really isn't much difference between Clayton and Williamson in any of those numbers, Clayton's far superior receiving skills completely tip the scales for me. I could be absolutely wrong, as I was many years ago with Tomlinson, but I have no doubts at all that Williamson will be a bust in the NFL. I don't get that feeling about a player often, but when I do (Rivers, Boller, Ryan Sims), it's almost always right on.

 

sore are we?

define "bust" and then put your money where your mouth is

 

HeadCase:
Sore about what? I honestly don't get what you meant by that.

As for putting my money where my mouth is, people have seen me predict things over the years. They saw me say that Tomlinson wouldn't be a good NFL back because his TCU numbers were built on sweeps and not inside running, and that was obviously the wrongest I've ever been about any player. But they've also seen me get within one win of the correct final Panthers' record every year except 2002. They've also seen me correctly point out stars and busts from the last few drafts.

Everybody gets things right and everybody gets things wrong, you just try to get more right than wrong. Just because I'm sure Williamson will be a bust certainly doesn't mean he actually will, but I personally would put more stock in someone's opinion if they had a good track record and sound reasons for what they think. And in case you missed it, I compared Williamson to James Jett. That's what I'm thinking of when I say "bust," although Jett did score 12 touchdowns that one season in '97.

Maybe I'll be right and maybe I'll be wrong, but instead of getting an attitude with me, how about just sticking to explaining why you think what you do about the players in question? Aside from the silly 4.8 comment, the rest of your post was solid opinion.

 

Collin,

I guess it depends on who you believe. You have derivative values, that have been compiled from mulitple sources. My source says they typed all the numbers from the master sheet. If you want to believe your numbers, though, you can. No need for further discussion on it.

The 45 vert was from NFL.com under individual workouts, and Williamson IS all over the news. He's big and fast. Big WRs are prized for their jumping ability.

I agree that the 40 isnt enough. Apparently the game tape backs it up. I havent seen him, so I don't know. He may not be there anyway. About 4 teams above us are said to be interested.

In which case, I'm likeing Demarcus Ware, but I'm fearful he won't be able to play LB like I want him too. Just as a DE on 3rd down, it would be great.

 

Uhm ... no. I'm getting mine from NFL.com and other official sources. You're getting yours from god knows where.

I see it now that you said where it was. If accurate, that's damned impressive since no WR came within 4 inches of that. I just wonder why NFL.com's official profile and every other source I've seen has him listed under 40. *shrug*