Williams over Fitz = Common sense

[BuckeyeCardinal]

i think they're a wash and would be stoked with either one (but only if dg is actually able to turn coal-mccown into a diamond-stud qb, 'cuz if he can't and we pass on a manning or rothasdknfaoaierger i'll be PISSED).
__________________


Well said Ouchie.

 

[vikesfan]

Fitzgerald:

161 catches 2,677 yards 16.6 ypc 34 TDs

Williams:

176 catches 2,579 yards 14.7 ypc 30 TDs

Williams also only started two games as a freshman.

Thanks for the stats! This is why Fitz is the number one choice and Mike is number two and Roy is number three imo. Production.
Also check the production for last year when they were both starters.

 

[azdad1978]

Vikesfan Menu.

Menu item #4: DG does make the call on player personnel.

Graves is not a player personnel guy. Green is one of the best. He was voted the best in the NFL from 95-2000. There is no way DG comes here if he doesn't have the call on the players. Graves might have "final say" but I seriously doubt the man who drafted Johnson/Pace is going to be telling the man who drafted Culpepper, Birk, Bennett, Steussie, Stringer, Moss, B Johnson, Kleinsasser, R Smith, Stringer, E McDaniel, etc who to take in the draft - especially after that man said the Cards should have taken Suggs last year! I think DG was given the assurance he would make the calls on players (see Josh, see the FA list he made up, see Blake etc)!

Graves I believe has to give final approval and if he is not going to do that, then why hire DG who demands personnel decisions? He could have hired a coach who is not into personnel decisions like DG is - like Fassel for eg.

DG has never forgotten that Vikes management would not let him draft Sapp. He then took over personnel so that would never happen again just in time to take Moss!

Look that sounds good and all but unless Graves steps down from his GM position he's still calling the shots.

 

[ajcardfan]

Thanks for the stats! This is why Fitz is the number one choice and Mike is number two and Roy is number three imo. Production.
Also check the production for last year when they were both starters.

It's all how you spin it, I guess. That production is nearly a wash. In fact, it can be argued that Fitz SHOULD have better numbers because he had to carry more of the load. Both guys were double teamed constantly.

 

[azdad1978]

Thanks for the stats! This is why Fitz is the number one choice and Mike is number two and Roy is number three imo. Production.
Also check the production for last year when they were both starters.

Btw stats doesn't really mean squat. Anquan doesn't have great stats in college but he still produce for us.

 

[az jam]

Graves and Green will be on the same page when the draft takes place. The sessions over the next two weeks will estabish an agreeable ranking of the players. IMO if Fitz is there at #3 Denny will take him.

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

Graves and Green will be on the same page when the draft takes place. The sessions over the next two weeks will estabish an agreeable ranking of the players. IMO if Fitz is there at #3 Denny will take him.

Some or maybe Many will have a fatal heart attack if DG passes on Fitz.

 

[azdad1978]

Graves and Green will be on the same page when the draft takes place. The sessions over the next two weeks will estabish an agreeable ranking of the players. IMO if Fitz is there at #3 Denny will take him.

Thats true but either way Graves still makes the final call.

 

[azdad1978]

Some or maybe Many will have a fatal heart attack if DG passes on Fitz.

I heard he will quit and go back to ESPN.

 

[BuckeyeCardinal]

I heard he will quit and go back to ESPN.

 

[jerryp]

Common sense to me says don't draft a WR with the 3rd overall pick considering in my entire lifetime there has been exactly one WR drafted in the top five overall that actually won a Super Bowl.

He was a #1 overall and won the SB with a team that did not draft him.

So if there was this raging discussion in the Shuan King thread yesterday about early QB's busting then why aren't we having this conversation about WR's?

I mean when I was looking up all the WR's that were drafted in the top five overall I noticed there was far more (percentage wise) in the lower parts of the first round and the second round that turned out to be above average recievers.

The list is;

'84
Irving Fryar
Kenny Jackson

'90
Rob Moore

'92
Desmond Howard (Got a SB but as a returner, not as a WR threat)

'95
Micheal Westbrook

'96
Keyshawn Johnson

'00
Peter Warrick

'03
Charlie Rogers
Andre Johnson

Some guys of note that were close to top 5 but not quite

'85
Al Toon (10)
Jerry Rice (16)

'89
Tim Brown (6)
Sterling Sharpe (7)
Micheal Irvin (11)

'91
Herman Moore (10)

'95
Joey Galloway (8)

'96
Terry Glenn (7)

'97
Ike Hilliard

'99
Torry Holt (6)
David "Where's the Juice?" Boston (8)

'00
Plaxico Burress (8)

'01
Koren Robinson (9)

'02
Dante Stallworth (13)


Looks to me in the past 20 years that there have been more quality WR's drafted in the 6-15 range than 1-5.

Also, you'll notice that most of the combined SB rings are on the hands of the guys that didn't get drafted top five.

Also note how the top how out of the top 10 players in recieving stats last year (REC/Yards/TD's) there is exactly no one drafted in the top 5 that made that list except Charlie Rogers. The same is bascially true of the 2000-2002 seasons. Typically one guy drafted top five that makes the top 10 in the league in those categories. Now I know that is slanted since there is so few of them in the league but it does show how a top WR pick is not garunteed to be lighting up the stat sheet.

And of course there is the list of players drafted out of the top 15;

Moss
Harrison
Owens
Moulds
Boldin
Bruce


Look at the New England Patriots to see just how low you can draft your WR's (and QB for that matter) and still win Super Bowls.

I don't understand why if we want a WR so bad we don't trade down and get whichever one falls to say 7-10 range. And if they are all snagged up by the 7th pick, then we get Winslow or Taylor, or a QB, or Gallery. No matter what one of those players will be available at 9th pick.

Please note I am not saying that any of the top 3 WR prospects are going to bust. What I am saying is there is a real high chance the WR will just be average or a little above average. A good WR, but not worth a 3rd pick. We can get one at 7, why freaking not?

And keep in mind that alot of people think the Roy Williams statement of "Top 10 for sure" is insane. Which means that those same people admit we have a good chance at getting Williams a little past the 10th pick.

I won't be upset if we get any of the three top WR's in the draft and they are only average. I'll be pissed if we could have traded down and still gotten one of the WR's, then if they were just average, we at least got something else.

Lastly, if Denny Greens QB system is so magical, it shouldn't matter who McCown tosses the rock too.

 

[spanky1]

yeah, just don't see it as that clear cut. first of all - 3 inches is a LOT! 6'5 is HUGE. and 10 pounds at the wr positions is a lot also. you flick those off as if they're dust, they're not. as for speed, if you lined 'em up against one and other i'd bet they'd finish in a dead heat.

as for polish and productivity, i think you're mad. mike williams was the greatest weapon on a national champion squad. and he wasn't productive? ridiculous. and sick catches? none were sicker than m williams' one-handed snatch in the back of the end zone.

i think they're a wash and would be stoked with either one (but only if dg is actually able to turn coal-mccown into a diamond-stud qb, 'cuz if he can't and we pass on a manning or rothasdknfaoaierger i'll be PISSED).

Ouchie-Z-Clown,

Firstly.....Mike Williams IS NOT 3" taller than Fitzgerald.....he's only a little over an inch and a half taller.
Secondly....they are both within five lbs of each other.

So no matter how you slice it, on the basis of the statistically difference between the two, you might as well call it a wash. Time to move on to the other considerations....like a) which of the two is more likely to be "fearless" both as a pass cathcher as well as a pass blocker.......answer, Fitzgerald b) who accomplished more with less in terms of offensive support......answer, Fitzgerald c) of the two, who is likely more NFL ready.......answer, Fitzgerald.

The bottom line is that given what Green wants to install, Fitzgerald is our answer between the all the WR's. Don't forget, Bryant Johnson ran his 40 in 4.39 and 4.42.........it is he who will be our deep threat receiver........and watch what he does this year......he'll have people eating "crow" very quickly into the season.

 

[cardsunsfan]

Ouchie-Z-Clown,

Firstly.....Mike Williams IS NOT 3" taller than Fitzgerald.....he's only a little over an inch and a half taller.
Secondly....they are both within five lbs of each other.

So no matter how you slice it, on the basis of the statistically difference between the two, you might as well call it a wash. Time to move on to the other considerations....like a) which of the two is more likely to be "fearless" both as a pass cathcher as well as a pass blocker.......answer, Fitzgerald b) who accomplished more with less in terms of offensive support......answer, Fitzgerald c) of the two, who is likely more NFL ready.......answer, Fitzgerald.

The bottom line is that given what Green wants to install, Fitzgerald is our answer between the all the WR's. Don't forget, Bryant Johnson ran his 40 in 4.39 and 4.42.........it is he who will be our deep threat receiver........and watch what he does this year......he'll have people eating "crow" very quickly into the season.

Hmm Spanky... Fitz is 6'2'' and Mike Williams is 6'5'' looks like three inches to me

 

[azdad1978]

Hmm Spanky... Fitz is 6'2'' and Mike Williams is 6'5'' looks like three inches to me

From all the publication I've seen so far they have Fitz listed as 6'3 225 pounds and MW 6'5 230 pounds.

 

[cardsunsfan]

From all the publication I've seen so far they have Fitz listed as 6'3 225 pounds and MW 6'5 230 pounds.

Fitz is close to 6'3'' I guess but he is not 6'3''

 

[spanky1]

Hmm Spanky... Fitz is 6'2'' and Mike Williams is 6'5'' looks like three inches to me

Fitz is 6'3 and 1/8".......Williams "official" reading is 6'4 and7/8"

 

[spanky1]

Fitz is close to 6'3'' I guess but he is not 6'3''

Here are the actual #'s on Fitzgerald and Mike Williams

Fitzgerald: 6' 2 and 7/8".....225 lbs
Mike Williams: 6' 4 and 5/8".....228 lbs.

 

[cardsunsfan]

Here are the actual #'s on Fitzgerald and Mike Williams

Fitzgerald: 6' 2 and 7/8".....225 lbs
Mike Williams: 6' 4 and 5/8".....228 lbs.

Which ones are right I got mine from ESPN Insider...
Fitz 6' 2 and 7'8
Williams 6'5

 

[joeshmo]

Here are the official readings from there proday workouts. Anything else is wrong or was pre-workout #'s.

http://nfl.com/draft/analysis/individual_workouts

M.Williams - (6-4 5/8, 228)

Fitz - (6-3 1/8, 221)

So M. Williams is only 7 lbs bigger and only 1 1/2 inch taller.

So as you can see Williams is not 3 inches taller.

 

[azdad1978]

Here are the official readings from there proday workouts. Anything else is wrong or was pre-workout #'s.

http://nfl.com/draft/analysis/individual_workouts

M.Williams - (6-4 5/8, 228)

Fitz - (6-3 1/8, 221)

So M. Williams is only 7 lbs bigger and only 1 1/2 inch taller.

So as you can see Williams is not 3 inches taller.

Yup thats the one I got in NFL.com

 

[cardsunsfan]

Here are the official readings from there proday workouts. Anything else is wrong or was pre-workout #'s.

http://nfl.com/draft/analysis/individual_workouts

M.Williams - (6-4 5/8, 228)

Fitz - (6-3 1/8, 221)

So M. Williams is only 7 lbs bigger and only 1 1/2 inch taller.

So as you can see Williams is not 3 inches taller.

Well I'm happy Fitz is taller than we thought! Actually I think Williams is closer to 15 pounds bigger because I sincerely doubt that that 9 pounds he lost were fat, probably more water so he'll gain most of it back in the next couple of weeks.

 

[Russ Smith]

4.6 on a FAST track that is very stoppable.
He will be dynamite on slant patterns though.
You want to take a slant reciever with the #3. Well maybe if Fitz is gone but if he is not then common sense says take Fitz.

Fitz is just a couple inches shorter and couple pound lighter and is faster. More polished. Able to get deep on moves and speed. Able to score TDs. Able to make sick catches. Was way more productive in school. Has less chance to bust.
Common sense says take Fitz. M Williams might end up being a heck of a TE though.

One guy ran about 4.55, one about 4.58. Both were on fast tracks, I'm not sure how there's much difference in speed?

The difference is one guy is 2-3 inches taller, a better leaper, and stronger, and younger. The other is more polished but that could mean he'll improve less too.

I'll be happy with either guy, I've said all along I prefer Mike Williams but I'll take either one and be happy.

Williams is faster than Boldin, in fact he's faster than a bunch of good NFL WR's most of whom aren't his size either.

 

[joeshmo]

One guy ran about 4.55, one about 4.58. Both were on fast tracks, I'm not sure how there's much difference in speed?

Speed - M.Williams(4.56 with the wind and 4.62 against the wind), Fitz(ran his 40s in 4.51 and 4.47). Both official times from there prodays from www.nfl.com. More of a difference then you posted.

The difference is one guy is 2-3 inches taller, a better leaper, and stronger, and younger. The other is more polished but that could mean he'll improve less too.

One guy is 1 1/2 inch taller not 2-3 inches, one guy is a better leaper by 2 inches, one guy is stronger but its Fitz not M.Williams(fitz bench 20, williams bench 18), and both are 20 years old right now. Do you really think a difference of months when it comes to age is a big difference.

Williams is faster than Boldin

IMO this is very debatable. I would really like to see what Boldin runs now. Knowing that his combine #s were skewed becuase of his knee injury and lack of workout time prior to the combine. I would be willing to bet that Boldin Today would run faster then, 4.56 with the wind and 4.62 against the wind.

 

[cardsunsfan]

I do think Fitz ran at the fastest track though...

 

[joeshmo]

I do think Fitz ran at the fastest track though...

why is that?

And if true you can give a knock on Williams too, for using cleats on a rubber track, which a lot of scouts were discouraged about.