mark clayton video highlights

Like I said I can prove it to Clayton easier than I could to you. I think I'll go practice on the wall a while before I continue this pointless conversation.

 

Sounds to me more like you can't make the case. Tell me, do you disagree that Wiliamson and Clayton appear to have relatively equal speed (Troy slightly faster on long runs, Mark slightly faster short)? Do you think that Williamson's size advantage is a bigger factor than I'm giving him credit for? Do you think Clayton doesn't have a big advantage in receiving skills?

Seriously, no one has yet explained where this upside is expected to materialize.

 

Certainly, because I'm not even close to understanding how you're giving Williamson a "James Jett" at best. So I'll just leave that.

But in the end, they're basically the same player, which is why I don't go apeshit over the slight height/weight advantage Williamson has - and don't know if he'll pack on the bulk he'd need to make advantage of that slight advantage. Being that they're each RAC/deep receivers, it'll be splitting hairs, which is why it took me a while to get on board with Williamson (that and my irrational hatred for Roddy White, of course). But the guy does seem to be legitimately dangerous in the open field, and I'd say a bit more than Clayton. At this level, with the new rules, you could make a bit of a case that he can initiate and release contact with a receiver a bit more than Clayton, moot unless he gains the bulk and learns how to use it.

Those seem superficial as reasons, but as I said, I don't find a big difference between them anyway, so my reasons for ranking higher are going to be slight. I'd be happy with either. I'd probably see Williamson getting used more deep, and Clayton more intermediately, which is just gut feeling since I feel they're the same type player, and that'll probably make Williamson's value a bit more. In potential, people are assuming that more balls = more production for Williamson, where Clayton's had as much attention as he'll get at the pros, maybe more than he'll get. Whether that's true or not? Hard to say, but at some point it made sense.

 

Sounds to me like you'd dispute the case if Jesus himself would come down and say it.

Speed is useless to measure in the first 10 years. So that's irrelvant. Generally within the first ten yards a player is gonna get slowed from first contact with a DB. Speed is generally only usefull for long yardage and breakaways.

Yes, but like I said before we already have 2 recievers under 6 foot tall. If Moose was here and Smith or Colbert weren't I'd be just as happy with Clayton, but the team's gonna need someone to go up and get the high long field passes. Which for the Panthers that makes Williamson the better player.

Yes he has the better advantage, but once again he's had 1 more year to develop them at the college level than Williamson has. Maybe Williamson's hands are equal to Claytons after another year. Who's to say?

But I'm beginning to realize that all these points you keep looking for you don't see because you don't want to, for whatever reason. You say you aren't getting anything, but every time you do you try and change it. I post 40 times and you say "those aren't right, but you neglect to mention the 40 times listed were rounded off, making Clayton look faster on you listing that he is.

 

>>Speed is useless to measure in the first 10 years. So that's irrelvant. Generally within the first ten yards a player is gonna get slowed from first contact with a DB. Speed is generally only usefull for long yardage and breakaways

I disagree here. While I do agree that all involved have picked a side and will stay with it, the 10-yard thing's a relevant thing to measure.

If a guy had a slow time, but it shows up mostly in the first 10, then you wonder if he got a bad start; or if he's just slow to get going and has multiple gears. As well, a lot of stuff in the league happens in the first ten yards, so a guy who's fast to get going and runs good routes has an advantage over a strider that has to get up to speed. Consider it like judging 0-60 for a pair of cars v/s 1/4 mile times for those cars. Most 40 times just show some level of athleticism, which combined with vertical and the shuttle/cone give you some idea of what the player can/can't do (with the natural exceptions).

Wish we had some wingspan/hand measurements. One of the things I liked about Smitty coming out was that he had longer than average wingspan for his height (which I believe should be, on average, equal to your height), had bigger than average hands, and was built like he could take some punishment, the same type stuff Lee Evans had coming out (with more production, mind you). Which made his height a relative non-factor. If we knew something on one or the other, it might cause some light on this, but would still probably leave us liking one guy or the other.

Either way, I don't find that Williamson has hands-down that much better athleticism, nor that Clayton's not above dropping a few passes or rounding some routes, either. And I'd still like either player.


I think the whole thing's moot in the end, considering neither play an interior line position, and we'll probably draft there; we're probably as well served to get a Parrish, Mathis, Terrance Murphy in the 2nd or 3rd, make that player chase down punts for a few years and be the same type deep threat that the above two would be.

 

It depends on whether not net Jesus had a good argument I could respect, if not agree with. You haven't given me one.

This is so wrong that I don't quite know where to begin. One could easily argue that explosive speed, which is what the first 10 yards measures, is more important than 40 yard speed, which you don't get to use all that much. I completely agree with you that getting a free release is more important than raw speed, and already said as much in one of these threads, but it's pretty silly to say that short speed doesn't matter while long speed does.

Hey, if there was a first round-worthy receiver who was 6'3" and 210+ who played as physically as Muhammad, I'd be all over that. Unfortunately not even Mike Williams is that physical, despite his size, and he won't fall to us anyway. And as for what the Panthers need, Smith does a pretty good job of going up to get the long bombs. Clayton did too, although Williamson does have an extra inch on his vertical, giving him a four inch advantage overall. That's not insignificant, but neither he or Clayton appear to be above average in that respect.

First off, you don't magically get better every year. I do think Williamson has a good chance to improve his route running, in part because he did play at USC as opposed to OU. That said, I don't see anyone saying that Williamson will ever be better than Clayton in that respect, and I actually haven't seen any sites or pubs suggest that he could ever even be equal.

That's a total cop-out. I already pointed out that Magnus and I disagree about Benson, but he has good points. Meanwhile practically everyone who thinks I'm insane for liking Matt Jones has good points since the concerns there are so obvious. The truth is that no one has yet explained where Williamson's upside is. People keep talking about it, but no one explains where it will appear.

No, they weren't rounded off. Clayton's listed time on NFL.com and other sites is 4.41. You don't get from 4.45 to 4.41 by rounding. It's the same number of digits.


Magnus:
I don't understand why you keep saying "they're basically the same player" and then keep highlighting differences between them (differences I agree with, by the way), along with consistently putting Williamson over Clayton. Also that doesn't explain where this mysterious potential is going to come from. I like the "more balls" argument, but that doesn't make Williamson a better receiver, it would theoretically argue that Williamson is already a better receiver. That still doesn't address where this "upside" or "potential" comes into play.

 

Dude, NFL.com might have been disappointing in the past, but they have upgraded their draft information dramatically. If you go to the respective profiles you'll see that Williamson has a 2.375 inch advantage on Clayton in arm length (33 to 30.625) and a 0.25 inch advantage in hand size (9.375 to 9.125). Those are definitely bonuses in Williamson's corner. (interesting that Mike Williams has relatively tiny 8.8 inch hands - Edwards has 9.8)

 

well, since we're down to splitting hairs, "basically the same player" means there are still some differences. I don't understand - the 'more balls' idea was that he'd produce more with more uhh...targets... so that wouldn't currently make him the better receiver., at least the way it came out in my own head.

 

Oh. I was thinking of it in terms of Williamson gets more out of individual passes than Clayton, but I think that has to do more with what type of passes he's getting and where he's getting them. More balls in practice would just help Williamson catch up to Clayton in my view.

 

yeah, that's a concern - the ceiling. He won't Randy Moss 20 passes a game, at least in the positive sense. That makes sense, that he's potentially making more of what he has. Couldn't tell you offhand what their respective YPC numbers are right now, but once someone used Burress' 19/catch as a positive this year, I think I officially gave up on that stat.

I just used "Randy Moss" as a verb. Ugh.