PDA

View Full Version : Rick Gosselin's mock draft.


shakesthecat
04-13-2005, 08:22 AM
Sorry if this is a repost.
All in all, I think I'd rather trade down, and take Pollack, Spears, or Roth.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/football/nfl/draft/2005/mockdraft1.html

No., team Player Pos. School
1. San Francisco Aaron Rodgers QB California
2. Miami Ronnie Brown HB Auburn
3. Cleveland Braylon Edwards WR Michigan
4. Chicago Carnell Williams HB Auburn
5. Tampa Bay Alex Smith QB Utah
6. Tennessee Antrel Rolle CB Miami
7. Minnesota Mark Clayton WR Oklahoma
8. Arizona Cedric Benson HB Texas
9. Washington Adam Jones CB West Virginia
10. Detroit Derrick Johnson OLB Texas
11. Dallas Demarcus Ware OLB Troy
12. San Diego Erasmus James DE Wisconsin
13. Houston Shawne Merriman DE Maryland
14. Carolina Carlos Rogers CB Auburn
15. Kansas City Troy Williamson WR South Carolina
16. New Orleans Shaun Cody DT Southern California
17. Cincinnati Thomas Davis S Georgia
18. Minnesota Mike Williams WR Southern California
19. St. Louis Jammal Brown OT Oklahoma
20. Dallas Marcus Spears DE LSU
21. Jacksonville David Pollack DE Georgia
22. Baltimore Travis Johnson DT Florida State
23. Seattle Luis Castillo DT Northwestern
24. Green Bay Matt Roth DE Iowa
25. Denver Fabian Washington CB Nebraska
26. N.Y. Jets Alex Barron OT Florida State
27. Atlanta Roddy White WR Alabama-Birmingham
28. San Diego Khalif Barnes OT Washington
29. Indianapolis Brodney Pool S Oklahoma
30. Pittsburgh Marcus Johnson OT Mississippi
31. Philadelphia Heath Miller TE Virginia
32. New England Justin Miller CB Clemson

KChiefs1
04-13-2005, 08:26 AM
If DJ, Rolle, Rogers & Jones were off the board by the time the Chiefs came to pick....I'd hope they definitely TRADE DOWN!

I don't like the looks of that mock draft. :banghead:

htismaqe
04-13-2005, 08:32 AM
****.

This just sucks.

Gosselin is one of the most accurate mockers out there...

Chiefnj
04-13-2005, 08:36 AM
Gosselin is one of the more reliable reporters. He might have some old connections to the Chiefs. IIRC he had us picking Larry Johnson 3 years ago. I hope he's being fed wrong material for this mock.

HemiEd
04-13-2005, 08:36 AM
I am no draft guru but how could we take Troy Williamson WR South Carolina ahead of Mike Williams from USC? Huh? :doh!:

Chiefnj
04-13-2005, 08:39 AM
I am no draft guru but how could we take Troy Williamson WR South Carolina ahead of Mike Williams from USC? Huh? :doh!:

Vermeil and Saunders like speed??

htismaqe
04-13-2005, 08:40 AM
Gosselin is one of the more reliable reporters. He might have some old connections to the Chiefs. IIRC he had us picking Larry Johnson 3 years ago. I hope he's being fed wrong material for this mock.

Gosselin did Gretz' job before going to the DMN IIRC.

And yes, he did have us picking LJ.

I believe he's got over 90% hit-rate on the 1st round over the last 4 years or something crazy like that.

htismaqe
04-13-2005, 08:40 AM
I am no draft guru but how could we take Troy Williamson WR South Carolina ahead of Mike Williams from USC? Huh? :doh!:

Because Mike Williams sucks.

Bowser
04-13-2005, 08:47 AM
Yikes. I definitely hope that if this is the case, we trade down. Hopefully Vermeil can woo Philly into a trade up, even though I'm not sure what they would want to trade up for. WR, maybe? :shrug:

Mile High Mania
04-13-2005, 08:51 AM
I'm so not a fan of a 5'10 185 lb cornerback from Nebraska that was baked often by the sparish Big 12 QBs...

I'd rather them take Matt Jones than freaking Washington.

Cochise
04-13-2005, 08:55 AM
I'm so not a fan of a 5'10 185 lb cornerback from Nebraska that was baked often by the sparish Big 12 QBs...

I'd rather them take Matt Jones than freaking Washington.

As a Big 12 fan I'm kind of puzzled why he's listed that high but :shrug:

Bowser
04-13-2005, 09:05 AM
I'm so not a fan of a 5'10 185 lb cornerback from Nebraska that was baked often by the sparish Big 12 QBs...

I'd rather them take Matt Jones than freaking Washington.

I would rather the Browncos not take Matt Jones.

Cochise
04-13-2005, 09:07 AM
I will also add once again that I would rather we move up and get Johnson but if we address our corner needs before the draft I'm allright with a WR in the 1st.

ct
04-13-2005, 09:08 AM
This mock is total horseshit, thank you for wasting 2 minutes of my day! :cuss:

KChiefs1
04-13-2005, 09:09 AM
Hopefully Vermeil can woo Philly into a trade up, even though I'm not sure what they would want to trade up for. WR, maybe?

I'm hoping that Philly desires Mike Williams as much as Mel Kiper does! Kiper has him as the #1 player on his board so the Chiefs might have some suitors for that pick! :thumb:

TEX
04-13-2005, 09:09 AM
I'm not even going to watch the draft this year because after last year I swore that I wasn't going to waste another weekend on watching the CHIEFS try and draft. No way I'm going to sit around and watch every good defensive player come off the board and watch the CHIEFS do NOTHING about it except draft another offensive player in round 1. :shake:

Bowser
04-13-2005, 09:10 AM
I will also add once again that I would rather we move up and get Johnson but if we address our corner needs before the draft I'm allright with a WR in the 1st.

I used to think like that, but our linebacker corp is bad, REAL bad. I'm not always for trading down, but this year I am not against it at all just for all the help on D we need. And, we have enough second day picks to package them and move up into the third, or early fourth. Possibly.

CHIEF4EVER
04-13-2005, 09:18 AM
If we take anything but the best D player in each of the first 3 rounds I will quite literally go berserk. :mad:

tyton75
04-13-2005, 09:18 AM
If it helps anyone's sanity.. I saw Lynn Stiles on 38 sports spot last night and said, more or less, that they are definitely taking a defensive player, even if the best "athlete" on the board at their pick is an offensive guy.

He then went on to say that we are "fed up" with out defensive problems and need to address them.. yada yada....

made me feel a little better

Cochise
04-13-2005, 09:20 AM
It wouldn't be my first choice but I'm not going to melt the board down about the pick if it's a WR. (Though, I'm sure it will happen no matter who is selected)

We can pick whatever crappy defensive tackle we were going to end up with anyway in the 2nd, no need to spend a 1 on them.

nmt1
04-13-2005, 09:20 AM
I like the Williamson pick. I can see it happening. This place would completely melt down...oh wait...that happens every year.

Lzen
04-13-2005, 09:43 AM
If the Chiefs draft a WR in the 1st round, I think a lot of Chiefs fans are gonna go insane. Myself included. :shake:

BigChiefFan
04-13-2005, 09:48 AM
Williamson is a reach at 15. If we take him at 15, I will have lost what little hope I have for them. I'm not opposed to a WR, but not in round one, when we still have glaring holes at CB and LBer.

HemiEd
04-13-2005, 09:51 AM
Because Mike Williams sucks.


Really? I did not know that, I thought he was the second coming of TO? :rolleyes:

the Talking Can
04-13-2005, 09:51 AM
shit...Gosselin is hte one writer on the draft who isn't full of crap...I would hope we'd trade down there and grab Pollack

nmt1
04-13-2005, 09:52 AM
Williamson is a reach at 15. If we take him at 15, I will have lost what little hope I have for them. I'm not opposed to a WR, but not in round one, when we still have glaring holes at CB and LBer.

In this mock, Rolle, Rogers, and Jones are already picked. What CB, that we could draft at 15 after those three guys are gone, is going to come in and start? Same for LB. Which LB after Johnson is going to come in and start immediately?
How do you know Williamson is a reach? I've read many WR evaluations that have him listed third, ahead of Mike Williams. Does that mean Mike Williams is a reach too?

the Talking Can
04-13-2005, 09:52 AM
he has Fabian Washington listed over Marlin Jackson...

Cochise
04-13-2005, 09:53 AM
I like the Williamson pick. I can see it happening. This place would completely melt down...oh wait...that happens every year.

It doesn't matter who the pick is, it will be wrong. The guy we pick will be a reach at that spot and thus the pick will be wasted, or we'll trade up but pay too much and piss picks away, or we'll trade down because Carl's too cheap to sign a first round pick. I do not believe there are many ways draft day can play out that there will not be a meltdown.

HemiEd
04-13-2005, 09:56 AM
It doesn't matter who the pick is, it will be wrong. The guy we pick will be a reach at that spot and thus the pick will be wasted, or we'll trade up but pay too much and piss picks away, or we'll trade down because Carl's too cheap to sign a first round pick. I do not believe there are many ways draft day can play out that there will not be a meltdown.
ROFL

nmt1
04-13-2005, 09:57 AM
It doesn't matter who the pick is, it will be wrong. The guy we pick will be a reach at that spot and thus the pick will be wasted, or we'll trade up but pay too much and piss picks away, or we'll trade down because Carl's too cheap to sign a first round pick. I do not believe there are many ways draft day can play out that there will not be a meltdown.

It's like clockwork.

BigChiefFan
04-13-2005, 09:59 AM
In this mock, Rolle and Rogers are already picked. What CB that we could draft at 15 after those two guys is going to come in and start? Same for LB. Which LB after Johnson is going to come in and start immediately?
How do you know Williamson is a reach? I've read many WR evaluations that have him listed third, ahead of Mike Williams. Does that mean Mike Williams is a reach too?How do you know he isn't a reach? That's an absurd question because it's all based on OPINION, just like yours. Again, if you'll actually read what I said the first time, I said going after a WR in the first is foolish because of our glaring holes at CB, LB, and DE. If those guys aren't there, we could take a DE or trade down.


Also, I have watched Williamson play, have you? He's very quick, but is definitely a reach at 15. He's not the 15th best player in the country. Not even close. He is inexperienced and would be a joke to take at 15. Maybe you should follow the games before calling somebody out that actually follows football. Williamson at 15 is hysterical.

the Talking Can
04-13-2005, 09:59 AM
If we pick Rodgers or trade up for DJ this place will be ecstatic...

ChiefsCountry
04-13-2005, 09:59 AM
I don't see how Carolina needs a CB. They signed Lucas in the off season, and already have Gamble and Manning.

ChiefsFanatic
04-13-2005, 10:00 AM
I am no draft guru but how could we take Troy Williamson WR South Carolina ahead of Mike Williams from USC? Huh? :doh!:

If we took Williamson ahead of Cody from USC, I would implode.

nmt1
04-13-2005, 10:11 AM
How do you know he isn't a reach? That's an absurd question because it's all based on OPINION, just like yours. Again, if you'll actually read what I said the first time, I said going after a WR in the first is foolish because of our glaring holes at CB, LB, and DE. If those guys aren't there, we could take a DE or trade down.


Also, I have watched Williamson play, have you? He's very quick, but is definitely a reach at 15. He's not the 15th best player in the country. Not even close. He is inexperienced and would be a joke to take at 15. Maybe you should follow the games before calling somebody out that actually follows football. Williamson at 15 is hysterical.

I did read what you said hence my question, which you answered. It's you're opinion. Do you care to address my other questions which are directed at the second part of your statement? We do have holes at those positions but tell me who we can draft, according to this mock, that will come in and fill those holes immediately?
Foxsports has Williamson rated as the 16th best player in the draft: here. (http://scout.foxsports.scout.com/a.z?s=211&p=9&c=12&nid=83&lnid=124) They're opinion is every bit as valid as yours if not moreso.
If you think drafting Williamson at 15 is hysterical, I hope you'll laugh if we pick him.

Maybe you should follow the games before calling somebody out that actually follows football.
We have our first confirmed NFL scout, everybody. Tell me, where do you have Williamson ranked on your WR board? What are his strengths and weaknesses? Did you go to his pro day?
Get over yourself, moron.

nmt1
04-13-2005, 10:11 AM
If we pick Rodgers or trade up for DJ this place will be ecstatic...

No it won't. It'll be melting over Carl trading away too many draft picks.

Cochise
04-13-2005, 10:13 AM
We have our first confirmed NFL scout, everybody. Tell me, where do you have Williamson ranked on your WR board? What are his strengths and weaknesses? Did you go to his pro day?
Get over yourself, moron.

ROFL Reminds me of whoever it was here who used to say your opinion didn't matter if you never played high school football.

"Bet you I can throw a football over those mountains..."

Cochise
04-13-2005, 10:14 AM
If we pick Rodgers or trade up for DJ this place will be ecstatic...

Aaron Rodgers??

nmt1
04-13-2005, 10:21 AM
Also, I have watched Williamson play, have you? He's very quick, but is definitely a reach at 15. He's not the 15th best player in the country. Not even close. He is inexperienced and would be a joke to take at 15. Maybe you should follow the games before calling somebody out that actually follows football. Williamson at 15 is hysterical.

Also thought you'd like to see this: CNNSI (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/breakdowns/by_position/wr.html).
Just in case you don't click on the link, they have Williamson rated 2nd behing Braylon Edwards. He and Edwards are the only WR's who score above 4 in their rating system.

Bowser
04-13-2005, 10:22 AM
No it won't. It'll be melting over Carl trading away too many draft picks.

You're a glass is half empty kind of guy, aren'tcha?

:hmmm:

BigChiefFan
04-13-2005, 10:25 AM
I did read what you said hence my question, which you answered. It's you're opinion. Do you care to address my other questions which are directed at the second part of your statement? We do have holes at those positions but tell me who we can draft, according to this mock, that will come in and fill those holes immediately?
Foxsports has Williamson rated as the 16th best player in the draft: here. (http://scout.foxsports.scout.com/a.z?s=211&p=9&c=12&nid=83&lnid=124) They're opinion is every bit as valid as yours if not moreso.
If you think drafting Williamson at 15 is hysterical, I hope you'll laugh if we pick him.


We have our first confirmed NFL scout, everybody. Tell me, where do you have Williamson ranked on your WR board? What are his strengths and weaknesses? Did you go to his pro day?
Get over yourself, moron.
You know what? **** off! Okay? I'm really tired of you thinking you know better than everybody else and attempting to belittle those that disagree with you. You just had to attempt to discredit my post, by throwing your arrogant, superior(in your mind) horseshit around because somebdy actually follows football, so it intimidates you and you can't deal. I ddin't know FX sports was the only ****ing source that can make a PREDICTION. Just put me on ignore or avoid my posts because your ass-kissing of everything Chiefs and holier than thou attitude sucks. Having a objective conversation with you is impossible. so kiss my ass.

nmt1
04-13-2005, 10:25 AM
You're a glass is half empty kind of guy, aren'tcha?

:hmmm:

Not me. If we traded up for one of those guys I'd be happy. If we stayed at 15 and picked Williamson I'd be happy, if we traded down and got more picks I'd be happy.
The collective opinion of the Chiefs on this board is "glass all empty."

shaneo69
04-13-2005, 10:27 AM
I don't see how Carolina needs a CB. They signed Lucas in the off season, and already have Gamble and Manning.

Eggzactly. No fuggin way Carolina picks a CB here.

And there's no fuggin way Mike Williams lasts until 18.

Sorry Gosselin worshipers. I don't buy the hype.

Bowser
04-13-2005, 10:29 AM
Eggzactly. No fuggin way Carolina picks a CB here.

And there's no fuggin way Mike Williams lasts until 18.

Sorry Gosselin worshipers. I don't buy the hype.

I would agree with you, but just the fact that he actually predicted us taking Larry Johnson a couple of years back makes me not want to dismiss him so quickly......

nmt1
04-13-2005, 10:30 AM
You know what? **** off! Okay? I'm really tired of you thinking you know better than everybody else and attempting to belittle those that disagree with you. You just had to attempt to discredit my post, by throwing your arrogant, superior(in your mind) horseshit around because somebdy actually follows football, so it intimidates you and you can't deal. I ddin't know FX sports was the only ****ing source that can make a PREDICTION. Just put me on ignore or avoid my posts because your ass-kissing of everything Chiefs and holier than thou attitude sucks. Having a objective conversation with you is impossible. so kiss my ass.

Take a chill pill dude. Sorry for calling you a moron. I don't know any better than anyone else. That attitude came from you. I said I'd like the Williamson pick and you said it would be laughable if anyone picked him at 15. I gave you some opinions of others who don't agree.
You don't want to have an objective conversation. I asked you a couple of questions about why you thought Williamson was a reach and about who you thought would come in and start immediately. You couldn't handle it and told me I should try following football. Who's the one with the holier than thou attitude?
I expect someone to back up what they say. Sorry that you can't handle that.

Brock
04-13-2005, 10:40 AM
Eggzactly. No fuggin way Carolina picks a CB here.

And there's no fuggin way Mike Williams lasts until 18.

Sorry Gosselin worshipers. I don't buy the hype.

He's actually been quite accurate over the years. Though I don't think this is a good example.

BigChiefFan
04-13-2005, 10:49 AM
Take a chill pill dude. Sorry for calling you a moron. I don't know any better than anyone else. That attitude came from you. I said I'd like the Williamson pick and you said it would be laughable if anyone picked him at 15. I gave you some opinions of others who don't agree.
You don't want to have an objective conversation. I asked you a couple of questions about why you thought Williamson was a reach and about who you thought would come in and start immediately. You couldn't handle it and told me I should try following football. Who's the one with the holier than thou attitude?
I expect someone to back up what they say. Sorry that you can't handle that.
NMT, you know I would be more than willing to talk football with you or anybody else for that matter. However, I think we both know, that we have an attitude towards one another because we don't see things eye to eye. I'm more than willing to be civil but I expect the same in return. Let's bury the hatchett and talk football without letting our egos get in the way. Cool?

Williamson-he's a speedy WR, but very inexperienced. He played on a run-oriented offense. He led the team with 31 catches last year and only 2 TDs. He's got the intangiables for a wide-out, but didn't prove much at the college level. I like my 1st round picks to be productive on the college level and when they aren't it's a red flag to me. That's why I think it's hysterical that so many get caught up with the combine numbers(which are somewhat important, but hardly the measuring stick for success). In most any year of the draft, Williamson would be a 2nd rounder or below. This draft, however doesn't have many quality wide-outs, so Williamson stock has risen. I think that is more to do with lack of quality WRs, over what Williamson really brings to a football team.

His college career consists of a total of 48 receptions and 6 TDs. Hardly first round material, IMO.

Chiefnj
04-13-2005, 10:55 AM
It's not a question of whether people are Gosselin worshippers or not, the guy has a good track record for being accurate and informed. In any other mock I'd shrug off the pick, but because Gosselin apparently has a connection to the Chiefs his predictions about the Chiefs carry some weight.

nmt1
04-13-2005, 11:01 AM
NMT, you know I would be more than willing to talk football with you or anybody else for that matter. However, I think we both know, that we have an attitude towards one another because we don't see things eye to eye. I'm more than willing to be civil but I expect the same in return. Let's bury the hatchett and talk football without letting our egos get in the way. Cool?

Williamson-he's a speedy WR, but very inexperienced. He played on a run-oriented offense. He led the team with 31 catches last year and only 2 TDs. He's got the intangiables for a wide-out, but didn't prove much at the college level. I like my 1st round picks to be productive on the college level and when they aren't it's a red flag to me. That's why I think it's hysterical that so many get caught up with the combine numbers(which are somewhat important, but hardly the measuring stick for success). In most any year of the draft, Williamson would be a 2nd rounder or below. This draft, however doesn't have many quality wide-outs, so Williamson stock has risen. I think that is more to do with lack of quality WRs, over what Williamson really brings to a football team.

His college career consists of a total of 48 receptions and 6 TDs. Hardly first round material, IMO.

Very valid points. Though, I won't rule out someone who has the athleticsm Williamson has. Many think he has what it takes to be successful at the next level. That, obviously, remains to be seen.
I'm not advocating picking any one position. The Chiefs could use a solid player at almost every position on the roster, the exceptions being RB and TE.
What I find most interesting is that many think the Chiefs should draft a CB or LB and nothing else because it's perceived to be the most glaring weakness on the team. As I said before, they are definite weaknesses but my opinion is that most of the guys that could help the team right away will be gone by the time the Chiefs pick. I hope the Chiefs don't decide to draft a particular position before seeing who is available when they are on the clock. Doing that causes teams to reach for players that may not be worth picking at that point in the draft.

shaneo69
04-13-2005, 11:05 AM
It's not a question of whether people are Gosselin worshippers or not, the guy has a good track record for being accurate and informed. In any other mock I'd shrug off the pick, but because Gosselin apparently has a connection to the Chiefs his predictions about the Chiefs carry some weight.

I'm not disputing his projected Chiefs pick of Williamson at #15. It's possible. We have a need at WR, and Williamson is a workout warrior with little college production, so he fits the Chiefs profile.

My comments were directed at the Panthers pick and the fact that Gosselin has Mike Williams lasting until #18.

BigChiefFan
04-13-2005, 11:17 AM
Very valid points. Though, I won't rule out someone who has the athleticsm Williamson has. Many think he has what it takes to be successful at the next level. That, obviously, remains to be seen.
I'm not advocating picking any one position. The Chiefs could use a solid player at almost every position on the roster, the exceptions being RB and TE.
What I find most interesting is that many think the Chiefs should draft a CB or LB and nothing else because it's perceived to be the most glaring weakness on the team. As I said before, they are definite weaknesses but my opinion is that most of the guys that could help the team right away will be gone by the time the Chiefs pick. I hope the Chiefs don't decide to draft a particular position before seeing who is available when they are on the clock. Doing that causes teams to reach for players that may not be worth picking at that point in the draft.Good post and I appreciate you being civil. I don't want the Chiefs to reach either, but picking at 15, we should be able to find a QUALITY defender. 2 QBs, at least 2 HBs(probably 3),an OT and at least 2 WRs should all go before we pick. That means we have a shot at one of the top 7 defenders coming out of college. I'm confident between Rogers, Rolle, DJ, Pollack, Davis, ect.. one of them will be there at 15.

nmt1
04-13-2005, 11:22 AM
Good post and I appreciate you being civil. I don't want the Chiefs to reach either, but picking at 15, we should be able to find a QUALITY defender. 2 QBs, at least 2 HBs(probably 3),an OT and at least 2 WRs should all go before we pick. That means we have a shot at one of the top 7 defenders coming out of college. I'm confident between Rogers, Rolle, DJ, Pollack, Davis, ect.. one of them will be there at 15.

I just hope they pick the best player when it's time to make the pick. I won't be disappointed with any particular player.

ChiefsCountry
04-13-2005, 11:37 AM
Williamson isn't a reach at 15, he has been menionted as high as #7 for the Vikings. He would be a good pick, especially since there is no sud CB or LB there.

BigChiefFan
04-13-2005, 11:42 AM
Williamson isn't a reach at 15, he has been menionted as high as #7 for the Vikings. He would be a good pick, especially since there is no sud CB or LB there.
So you believe he is the is one of the top 15 players in the draft? I disagree. I expect more production out of a player when picking them 15th overall. He's got the intangiables, but he was shutdown last year, big time. No way, would I give top dollar to player like that.

nmt1
04-13-2005, 11:45 AM
So you believe he is the is one of the top 15 players in the draft? I disagree. I expect more production out of a player when picking them 15th overall. He's got the intangiables, but he was shutdown last year, big time. No way, would I give top dollar to player like that.

You must factor in that Williamson played in a run first offense and his QB wasn't much to speak of. Hard to get production when you're not getting the ball.

ChiefsCountry
04-13-2005, 11:49 AM
So you believe he is the is one of the top 15 players in the draft? I disagree. I expect more production out of a player when picking them 15th overall. He's got the intangiables, but he was shutdown last year, big time. No way, would I give top dollar to player like that.

I would rather have Clayton, but Williamson is not that bad of a WR.

Chiefnj
04-13-2005, 11:50 AM
Williamson played in a tough conference against teams with much better players. Couple that with the fact that his offense isn't pass oriented and he didn't have a good QB delivering the ball, means low numbers. Teams covet speed and size which he has. He's still a bit of a project, but that sub 4.4 negates that factor in the mock drafts.

BigChiefFan
04-13-2005, 11:51 AM
You must factor in that Williamson played in a run first offense and his QB wasn't much to speak of. Hard to get production when you're not getting the ball.
You know I factored it in, because I'm the one that mentioned it in the first place. I still think it's a bad move. We need players who dominated on the college level. There is no guarantee that it's translates to success, but I think there is more of a success rate with college production than with combine studs. Wiliamson is a good player, but if I was GM, no way would I make him the highest paid rookie on the team, He's a work in progress. I prefer a smoother transition when using a first rounder. A college career that consists of 48 career catches and 6 TDs doesn't scream first rounder to me. It screams steer clear.

BigChiefFan
04-13-2005, 11:52 AM
Williamson played in a tough conference against teams with much better players. Couple that with the fact that his offense isn't pass oriented and he didn't have a good QB delivering the ball, means low numbers. Teams covet speed and size which he has. He's still a bit of a project, but that sub 4.4 negates that factor in the mock drafts.
I'll take production over combine numbers anyday.

Chiefnj
04-13-2005, 11:52 AM
I'll take production over combine numbers anyday.

It's tough to get production when your offense doesn't call your number and you don't have a very good QB to get you the ball.

BigChiefFan
04-13-2005, 11:59 AM
It's tough to get production when your offense doesn't call your number and you don't have a very good QB to get you the ball.
Well if he is a question mark due to his production, I would have to say picking him 15th overall would be less than wise. Too many good combine numbers and not enough production equals a reach in the first round. Having the choice between someone who has produced at the college level like David Pollack or somebody who hasn't produced much, like Williamson is a no-brainer to me. The combine is overrated.

KevB
04-13-2005, 12:05 PM
One thing I'd like to point out about Gosselin's mocks....his mock that comes out the morning of the draft is the one that is lauded for it's accuracy. The mocks leading up to draft day aren't nearly as accurate. If he has Williamson as the Chiefs pick on draft morning, then some of you should be concerned (if you don't want the guy).

Katie
04-13-2005, 12:07 PM
Maybe if the Chiefs had a good track record of picking wide receivers with potential that panned out, folks would be a little more comfortable with the idea of Williamson. But when was the last time we drafted a stud wide receiver?

KevB
04-13-2005, 12:19 PM
Maybe if the Chiefs had a good track record of picking wide receivers with potential that panned out, folks would be a little more comfortable with the idea of Williamson. But when was the last time we drafted a stud wide receiver?

When was the last time the Chiefs drafted a stud at any position? I'd argue Tony G in 1997. Some may argue Dante in 2000 or Tait in 1999.

Then some wonder why Chief fans are skeptical no matter who is drafted....

Big Slick
04-13-2005, 12:19 PM
More from Gosselin on Williamson"

Long distance: Troy Williamson caught 13 touchdown passes in his career and most of them were from long range. He scored from 99, 73, 70, 65, 60, 56, 55, 33, 32, 23, 23, 19 and 14 yards. His average score was 47.8 yards.

I think that kind of threat combined with his size, pretty obvious why we'd be interested. Understand the lack of dominating career numbers concern, tho.

Also, it's not Gosselin's mocks that are so highly rated. It's his Top 100 list that isn't out yet that is so good. He consistently hits near 90% on that, but he doesn't try to predict which team will take what player in that list. But it makes sense that based off his Top 100 success, his mocks are probably better than most...

buddha
04-13-2005, 12:30 PM
Because Mike Williams sucks.

Actually, Rufas...he doesn't suck. He's a damn good receiver and the Chiefs would be fools for not snagging him if he were sitting there at their pick. I don't know anything about the South Carolina receiver, but I would be shocked if we went that direction.

I don't care if Rick got the Larry Johnson pick right or not. I know Rick and he's a bright guy, but he doesn't have a 90% success rate picking which players go to which teams in the first round. Nobody can call it that well!

Mike Williams is the number 1 guy on Kiper's draft board, and before you respond back that Kiper sucks or he's an idiot or whatever, let's just remember who gets paid to do what he does!

shaneo69
04-13-2005, 12:33 PM
Well if he is a question mark due to his production, I would have to say picking him 15th overall would be less than wise. Too many good combine numbers and not enough production equals a reach in the first round. Having the choice between someone who has produced at the college level like David Pollack or somebody who hasn't produced much, like Williamson is a no-brainer to me. The combine is overrated.


Agree completely. Take the workout warrior projects in the later rounds. Maybe it wasn't just the system or QB.

shaneo69
04-13-2005, 12:40 PM
More from Gosselin on Williamson"

Long distance: Troy Williamson caught 13 touchdown passes in his career and most of them were from long range. He scored from 99, 73, 70, 65, 60, 56, 55, 33, 32, 23, 23, 19 and 14 yards. His average score was 47.8 yards.

I think that kind of threat combined with his size, pretty obvious why we'd be interested. Understand the lack of dominating career numbers concern, tho.


Does anyone know who leads the NFL in average yards per TD over the past 3 years? That's right, Corey Bradford, who had to re-sign with the Texans after no one else showed interest.

If that's the stat they're touting Williamson with, I'd be very leery.

buddha
04-13-2005, 12:44 PM
Several services are pretty good at picking the players who will be drafted in the first or second round. I heard a GM yesterday on ESPN say that that feat isn't that difficult. Knowing which player ends up on a given team is virtually impossible given all the possible trades, etc.

Chiefnj
04-13-2005, 12:45 PM
Well if he is a question mark due to his production, I would have to say picking him 15th overall would be less than wise. Too many good combine numbers and not enough production equals a reach in the first round. Having the choice between someone who has produced at the college level like David Pollack or somebody who hasn't produced much, like Williamson is a no-brainer to me. The combine is overrated.

I agree on taking Pollack or possibly Rogers or Jackson. My point was that 15 isn't too high for Williamson to be rated. Do the Chiefs need an upgrade in receiver - yes. Do I think they should do it in round 1 - not unless Braylon Edwards falls.

Cochise
04-13-2005, 12:48 PM
The guy is the 2nd or 3rd wideout on a lot of boards, what's the BFD if he were picked at #15?

Isn't this the same place that runs for torches and pitchforks when someone with the team says they look for the "best player available"? And here we have people complaining that he wouldn't be the 15th best player in the draft?

Cochise
04-13-2005, 12:49 PM
I agree on taking Pollack or possibly Rogers or Jackson. My point was that 15 isn't too high for Williamson to be rated. Do the Chiefs need an upgrade in receiver - yes. Do I think they should do it in round 1 - not unless Braylon Edwards falls.

If he gets out of the top 5, I would be shocked.

jspchief
04-13-2005, 01:04 PM
he has Fabian Washington listed over Marlin Jackson...So does everyone else in the country...

go bowe
04-13-2005, 01:15 PM
If we take anything but the best D player in each of the first 3 rounds I will quite literally go berserk. :mad:oh sure, try to make us think that you're not already beserk... :shake: :shake: :shake:

Big Slick
04-13-2005, 01:15 PM
Want to know who's good at picking this stuff? Here's rankings of the rankers.

http://www.thehuddlereport.com/top100/index.shtml

go bowe
04-13-2005, 01:19 PM
ROFL Reminds me of whoever it was here who used to say your opinion didn't matter if you never played high school football.

"Bet you I can throw a football over those mountains..."surely you don't mean zach, do you? :shrug: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

jspchief
04-13-2005, 01:20 PM
Want to know who's good at picking this stuff? Here's rankings of the rankers.

http://www.thehuddlereport.com/top100/index.shtml

Good link. Looks like Gosselin isn't as good at mocks as some people thought (and suprisingly to me, Kiper isn't that bad).

go bowe
04-13-2005, 01:21 PM
Also thought you'd like to see this: CNNSI (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2005/draft/breakdowns/by_position/wr.html).
Just in case you don't click on the link, they have Williamson rated 2nd behing Braylon Edwards. He and Edwards are the only WR's who score above 4 in their rating system.i don't remember...

was williamson one of the guys the chiefs brought in to visit?

Ninjaman
04-13-2005, 01:34 PM
http://www.thehuddlereport.com/top100/index.shtml

So Nfl draftcountdown beats out Mel smoke Piper.

Why the hell is the guy from 'ourlads' on every radio station giving their opinion ?

BigChiefFan
04-13-2005, 01:43 PM
The guy is the 2nd or 3rd wideout on a lot of boards, what's the BFD if he were picked at #15?

Isn't this the same place that runs for torches and pitchforks when someone with the team says they look for the "best player available"? And here we have people complaining that he wouldn't be the 15th best player in the draft?
He may be the third best wide-out this year, but that doesn't mean he is worthy of the 15th overall pick. Like I said earlier, in last year's draft he's lucky to go in the bottom of the 2nd round. That's not a player I would like to see selected with the 15th overall pick. I can't justify giving a player millions who's entire career consists of 40 some-odd catches his entire collegiate span.

Chiefnj
04-13-2005, 01:44 PM
Good link. Looks like Gosselin isn't as good at mocks as some people thought (and suprisingly to me, Kiper isn't that bad).

He didn't look too bad to me.

#1 in top 100 boards
#3 in the draft last year
#4 3 year average of the draft.

jspchief
04-13-2005, 01:52 PM
He didn't look too bad to me.

#1 in top 100 boards
#3 in the draft last year
#4 3 year average of the draft.
There was one post claiming 90% in mock drafts. He's barely half that good.

I'm not saying he isn't good at it, clearly he is one of the best. It's just that he's not nearly as good at mocks as some had implied. There's a big difference between 90% and 45%.

htismaqe
04-13-2005, 01:57 PM
Actually, Rufas...he doesn't suck. He's a damn good receiver and the Chiefs would be fools for not snagging him if he were sitting there at their pick. I don't know anything about the South Carolina receiver, but I would be shocked if we went that direction.

I don't care if Rick got the Larry Johnson pick right or not. I know Rick and he's a bright guy, but he doesn't have a 90% success rate picking which players go to which teams in the first round. Nobody can call it that well!

Mike Williams is the number 1 guy on Kiper's draft board, and before you respond back that Kiper sucks or he's an idiot or whatever, let's just remember who gets paid to do what he does!

Mike Williams dominated in college because he's big.

He doesn't run good routes and he isn't outstanding at any one thing that will make him standout in the NFL (quickness, speed, etc.)

He's not the #1 WR in this draft. He's not even #2 or #3.

htismaqe
04-13-2005, 01:59 PM
There was one post claiming 90% in mock drafts. He's barely half that good.

I'm not saying he isn't good at it, clearly he is one of the best. It's just that he's not nearly as good at mocks as some had implied. There's a big difference between 90% and 45%.

He was 87% on his Top 100 over THREE years AVERAGE.

So sue me. He's still the best in the business.

Chiefnj
04-13-2005, 02:03 PM
There was one post claiming 90% in mock drafts. He's barely half that good.

I'm not saying he isn't good at it, clearly he is one of the best. It's just that he's not nearly as good at mocks as some had implied. There's a big difference between 90% and 45%.

The 45 isn't a %, it's a grading system. If you look at 2004 they have a column for M and P. That correlates to the # of correct picks who were drafted in the first round and someone predicting the correct team that drafted that particular player.

The highest anyone got last year was 13 correct players predicted to the team.

jspchief
04-13-2005, 02:04 PM
He was 87% on his Top 100 over THREE years AVERAGE.

So sue me. He's still the best in the business.I'm not trying to bag on you. There's a big difference between top 100 and mock drafts though. You and I could probably get better then 60% in the top 100.

buddha
04-13-2005, 02:07 PM
Mike Williams dominated in college because he's big.

He doesn't run good routes and he isn't outstanding at any one thing that will make him standout in the NFL (quickness, speed, etc.)

He's not the #1 WR in this draft. He's not even #2 or #3.

I disagree.

He dominated partly because he was big, but there are plenty of big receivers who didn't do anything approach what Williams did at USC. He was dominant even when the other teams tried to shut him down.

Who does run good routes in college? Braylon Edwards? No. These guys dominate because they are better athletes and know how to adjust to the ball very well.

BTW, Mike Williams has much better hands than Edwards, who most people think is the top WR.

He runs fast enough to be a dominant WR in the NFL. Did you see the looks on the faces of the coaches and GMs who watched his individual workout? They were amazed that a man that size could move as fast and fluidly as he did.

He has Terrell Owens written all over him, except he's bigger than TO and he isn't a head case. Feel free to save these takes, because I think he is as close to a dead-lock cinch to be great in the NFL as there is this year.

jspchief
04-13-2005, 02:10 PM
The 45 isn't a %, it's a grading system. If you look at 2004 they have a column for M and P. That correlates to the # of correct picks who were drafted in the first round and someone predicting the correct team that drafted that particular player.

The highest anyone got last year was 13 correct players predicted to the team.

Okay, whatever. Was he 90% accurate in the first round? No. That was my only point.

"90% accurate in the first round" is a pretty sensational statement. That makes it sound like he gets 9 out of 10 picks right. Reality is that he comes nowhere near that. Rick Gosselin is the best NFL writer in the country IMO, and THR makes it clear that he's one of the best at projecting drafts. He still isn't 90% accurate in the first round though, or at least not in terms of a mock draft.

I'm not trying to bag on anyone or pick nits. I'm just pointing out that the 90% comment seems to be a bit misleading in relation to mock drafts.

jspchief
04-13-2005, 02:12 PM
Mike Williams dominated in college because he's big.

He doesn't run good routes and he isn't outstanding at any one thing that will make him standout in the NFL (quickness, speed, etc.)

He's not the #1 WR in this draft. He's not even #2 or #3.I agree completely. IMO he'll end up as an undersized TE before too long, much like a more talented Mikhael Ricks.

Chiefnj
04-13-2005, 02:13 PM
Okay, whatever. Was he 90% accurate in the first round? No. That was my only point.

"90% accurate in the first round" is a pretty sensational statement. That makes it sound like he gets 9 out of 10 picks right. Reality is that he comes nowhere near that. Rick Gosselin is the best NFL writer in the country IMO, and THR makes it clear that he's one of the best at projecting drafts. He still isn't 90% accurate in the first round though, or at least not in terms of a mock draft.

I'm not trying to bag on anyone or pick nits. I'm just pointing out that the 90% comment seems to be a bit misleading in relation to mock drafts.

I'm not trying to nitpick. I'm just saying that the better draft guys are good at predicting who will go in the top 100 and who will go in the first round, but they are only around 30% when matching the pick to the team.

nmt1
04-13-2005, 02:39 PM
i don't remember...

was williamson one of the guys the chiefs brought in to visit?

From Teh Star:

The four offensive visitors are running back Damien Nash of Missouri, wide receivers Mark Bradley of Oklahoma and Roydell Williams of Tulane and tackle Todd Herremans of Saginaw Valley State.

Source (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/football/nfl/kansas_city_chiefs/11369564.htm)

This is the only article I've seen on who the Chiefs were bringing in for visits. Doesn't say anything about Williamson.

buddha
04-13-2005, 03:21 PM
I agree completely. IMO he'll end up as an undersized TE before too long, much like a more talented Mikhael Ricks.

We will see, won't we? The kid down in Houston (Andre Johnson) is probably a better one to compare him to.