You know what I did.

a player can have impact off the bench. Considering the way we long-ball, you could see Williamson or Clayton pull 5-6 TDs as a situational backup. Doesn't take that much development to run by a corner.
Don't expect you to agree, though. Meanwhile, if you're going to bump it, show what you'd do. If you want, I can bump some other 14/45/79 threads for you to try out.

 

As a 4th receiver, or would Williamson play ahead of Proehl?

Not bloody likely. Stokely and Marcus Robinson were the only #3 receivers to score more than just 3 touchdowns last season. I don't think a #4 had more than 2 TDs.

Players I think will be there aren't there in this draft, and my knowledge gets very sketchy in the later rounds, but...

14) Matt Jones, WR, Arkansas (why would anyone move him to TE? Could have waited until 45, but I wanted Campbell )
45) Jason Campbell, QB, Auburn (our first real QB of the future since Collins?)
79) Jason Brown, C, UNC (somewhat forced by Mitchell uncertainty)
115) Kay-Jay Harris, RB, West Virginia (I'd prefer Sproles, but we need Davis insurance. Did you know he's already 26?)
149) Craig Bragg, WR, UCLA (need to get that return man)
169) Leroy Hill, LB, Clemson (could be play inside? Maybe not, but at worst he's a special teams ace)
171) Jordan Beck, LB, Cal Poly (wanted Colquitt so we could dump Sauerbrun)
189) Mitch Meeuwsen, DS, Oregon State (free safety with ball skills)
207) Nick Collins, CB, Bethune-Cookman (worth a shot I guess)

 

Williamson is a reach at 14 but you'd take Matt Jones?

 

Jones is bigger, faster, has better hands, and in my opinion shows more passion for the game. He's a gamble, but so is Williamson, and Jones has the much bigger upside.

 

would Jones? It's hard to say why we do what we do offensively, and you know I get exasperated at our offensive issues. Would the team draft a guy 14th overall and sit him? I doubt it, but we did it with Colbert.
Do these questions also apply to Clayton? Jones? Did they to Colbert?

Lee Evans did have 2 or 3 TDs when not starting.
That Proehl got ~30 rec, in decline, suggests that a 3rd WR of better caliber could be used.

>>45) Jason Campbell, QB, Auburn (our first real QB of the future since Collins?)

Jason and Collin, sitting in a tree :rofl -ing

I know you don't like Delhomme that much. I don't see a QB as a huge need. God knows we'll draft a crap project, but I'm not worried about replacing Delhomme and this team isn't exactly the type to groom a player.


>>79) Jason Brown, C, UNC (somewhat forced by Mitchell uncertainty)

A good strong player, the type center I like, but this team shies away from drive-blockers like this.

>>115) Kay-Jay Harris, RB, West Virginia (I'd prefer Sproles, but we need Davis insurance. Did you know he's already 26?)

Yes, I did, and it doesn't phase me - no RB in this offense will make it past 30 even if he's 28 :banginghe I like him, and find him to be the right fit for this offense.


>>149) Craig Bragg, WR, UCLA (need to get that return man)

Decent punt returner, yeah. Don't see a listed speed. Do see listed 20 and 10s for him, though (and no shuttle/cone), and he looks like he has good short speed.

The rest aren't bad. If you want to sim it realistically, you can always pull out a top 200, no matter how absurd the rankings, and only pick the guys from pick numbers on.


Like these:
http://www.thisboardrocks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83530
http://www.thisboardrocks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82182
http://www.thisboardrocks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78284

 

Definitely not, but a risky pick like Jones would be made with the idea of having an absolutely uncoverable receiver in hopefully one or two years. It would have to be a sort of McGahee investment, and I'm not sure we have the stones to try it, but I'd love to see it. Quite frankly I picked Jones just because I couldn't bring myself to choose anyone else. I considered Johnson, but just don't love him. I also considered Clayton, but couldn't justify Clayton above Jones unless we really needed someone to step in and start right away.

That's not entirely correct. Two years ago I wrote in our magazine that Delhomme was a great free agent pickup who would turn out to be a serviceable QB. The only real problems I have with him are that fans treat him like he's better than he is, and that our front office treated him like he's better than he is. He's a decent QB and I see no reason to replace him unless he wanted more than $5 million a year ... oops.

I just think Campbell looks like an exciting young quarterback. They're all different players, but I felt the same way about Roethlisberger and Leftwich. I don't get that tingly feeling from any other QB in the draft or any other in the previous two drafts besides those mentioned.

Agreed, but Baas was gone and I felt like I had to address center.

Absolutely, and Sproles definitely wouldn't be, I'd just like to see Sproles instead. It would be interesting to finally have a legitimate homerun threat out of the backfield both as a runner and as a receiver.

He strained his hamstring while running that 40 at the combine. He previously ran in the 4.4s. Bragg also has the added bonus of being able to function as an adequate slot receiver.


As for the rest, Hill I've seen, while Meeuwsen I learned about by playing NCAA 2005 and then liked what I saw on television. The other two I know nothing about.

 

well, we'll disagree on that. While I won't nit-pick the use of Jones compared like McGahee the way that a player you wouldn't like would get compared to Jason Peter, I just don't feel that Jones is that worthy of that investment as a simple project. I don't fall in love with Williamson, and am barely coming around on him now, but he and Clayton are both more legit prospects right now and effective players now. I don't think this team made the FA moves they did, risky as they are, to be great in 5 years.

You also wanted to let him walk and take a chance that a scrub-ass like Garcia or Dilfer could do as well. I don't see them having had that success here last year. You might not like Delhomme, but I won't understand how you really want to replace him already.

 

Isn't that nit-picking? But I'm not saying Jones will succeed like McGahee. I'm saying that the team that selects Jones in the first round, and someone will, will probably sit him for at least a year with the hope of having someone dominant in the future. So he's a McGahee-type risk. Meanwhile you could compare a player to Jason Peter if he added a lot of weight to his frame, even if you think that player might succeed. I'm not coloring Jones, I'm stating what seems to be obvious, that he needs development but could end up being amazing.

Clayton is. But look at your own justification of Williamson. You said he has size. Jones has a hell of a lot more. You said Williamson has speed. Jones has as much, and actually more over the first 10 and 20 yards. You said Williamson has potential. Jones has more. There really isn't a way to justify Williamson over Jones, but you can justify Clayton over Jones because Clayton is ready to contribute right away while Jones and Williamson are not.

We're not talking about being great in 5 years. Jones won't take nearly that long. He'll either be huge or a bust within two, maybe three years. And if we're set on doing as well as we possibly can right away, Clayton is the pick, not Williamson. You've already admitted that Williamson is not the receiver Clayton is right now, but could grow into his potential later.

I never liked Dilfer, but someone like Garcia, Johnson, Warner, Volek, etc probably could do just as well or only slightly worse than Delhomme. Don't get upset because you mischaracterized my position. I've always been clear about my opinions on players. You're picking a fight over me liking Jason Campbell, which is just silly. There's no need for that.

 

Volek and Johnson maybe. No way on Garcia or Warner. Delhomme has a rare quality about him. Does he make a throw every now and again that'll make your stratch your head (Turn aroun J, anyone?), but he gives his receivers a chance to make plays. He's humble, and a team-first leader who will take responsibility for his actions. He's the best we've ever had. Sure Beuerline had better numbers, but he played in more QB friendly offense.

I would take Delhomme over ANY player on that list and over plenty of other teams starting QBs.

 

If I expounded on it, yes. Nit-picking would probably also mean coming after whether or not Williamson would be an immediate contributor after agreeing that we're talking about him being a pick because he'd be the BPA.

He's a Randle-El type risk, if you want to get there. Or an Eric Crouch, if you want to color it poorly. There's no major injury problem there with Jones, and unlike McGahee, he's never proven himself at WR or TE, where McGahee certainly had shown himself as a good RB. So if you did want the nit-pick, it fails because there are accurate QB-conversion

like Nelson, but with strength :banginghe

I don't think I touted Williamson as having awe-inspiring size, and did note that I didn't feel his size was that much of an asset compared to Clayton. I did also note that he could add weight and become more physical, but I don't think that's his game. You can also look at a half-ass like Burress or Boston and see size that's irrelevant compared to natural play-making, which I've seen both do. I can't project Jones one way or the other, so I don't bother with being enamored by a 40-time.

You say that like it's a terribly bad thing, that I admitted it. I feel justified in saying it and saying that Williamson is probably as good now as Clayton is. Not that majority makes opinion, but we would be so lucky to still think Williamson will be at 14.

I'd say wanting to replace a player who you clearly didn't want to re-sign isn't mischaracterizing it all that much. I can't remember the last time

We probably paid too much. I'd say we probably paid too much for Smith, too. I said at the time I didn't like Delhomme's bonus. Teams pay too much for core players they keep, and in the end they don't see all that money whether they stay or not. I'm happy having him here, and I don't want to get caught in a perennial loop of has-beens hoping that we can get more than one decent year out of scrapheap players.

Loving, not liking. You've brought him up a number of times, and he's not a need. Maybe you're being defensive about it - maybe it's a non-issue. I do think that replacing him at any point in the near future isn't realistic, and from there I just played that "you love player X" thing you like to play. The Delhomme thing is a carry-over, but it's relevant, because you don't draft a QB top 50 without having a big reason to do so, so questioning it in relation to those comments last year? Sure, to me it made sense rather than "picking a fight". But I think you're mistaking my intent to think I want to get in the level of pissing contest that you're suggesting.


Anyway, feel free to chime in on the threads I quoted for a fairly realistic simulation of draft intention.