Way too much downside to go high on Watson.

If everything works out and he gets better at playing WR he could be a nice vertical 2.

If everything works out? That would mean:

1) his hands aren’t an issue
2) his numbers at NDSU WERE depressed by the offensive system and success on the ground and not at all indicative of his ability
3) he blossoms as a route runner

If all 3 of those things are true, we’re not taking about a “nice” #2. We’re talking about a guy in conversation for best WR in the league. DK Metcalf height/speed, but with the short-area quickness of a good slot WR.

They’re big IFs. But his size/speed/elusiveness/quick twitch combo ARE elite. If the IFs are answered in a positive manner. the ceiling is highly vaulted.

I don't see his upside as much better than a MVS plus.

But at least the Packers didn't spend a top pick on MVS.

He didn’t face a real fbs corner until the Senior Bowl. That makes things more difficult to evaluate

Actually Watson did.

He played against Robert Rochelle, a 4th round draft pick for the Rams in Lance's only game last year.

Watson was shut down. It was bad.

This is exactly my position, we already have tall, quick, occasionally iffy hands and so-so route running with MVS. I don't see the value in getting another guy.in the same mould

No, his upside is much, much higher. MVS doesn't have near the agility.

Watson's upside is, well, Megatron.

His floor is wash-out. That's what's scary.

Now maybe you feel like that is more likely-and I'm not sure I disagree with you. I'm really not pounding the table for Watson in the first. I think there's a legitimate, big risk there.

#2 Relative Athletic Score since 1987, behind only Calvin Johnson. In 35 years, that's the only real comparison. #2 out of 2,613.

To downplay that potential is silly.

Now there are very real questions, and yes, it's a big risk and I'm not sure the risk is worth a #1. I think there are safer bets. Much safer.

But if Veach and Andy decide this is their guy after meeting with him, I'll assume they've decided his head is on straight and he's worth it.

Arguments against the athleticism are bogus. Arguments against the production are valid.

This kid will never be a decent #2. He'll either be a star, or a JAG.

I'm not arguing he doesn't have the athleticism. I'm arguing that you don't take a kid high in the draft based solely on that athleticism, and that's what you'd be doing by taking Watson at 50+. John Ross was an example that all the speed and athleticism don't mean shit. Hell, Watson is a major reach at 62 IMO but at least I wouldn't hate it. I wouldn't mind him as a shot in the dark but he's by no means worth a high pick because he simply isn't anything near a good WR yet. He's a project and a relatively big one. I'd love him at 94/103. 1st round? Early 2nd? Now that's just plain stupid in my eyes. It's what Veach did with Gay. I fully expect some team to do the same with both Watson and the CB from UTSA, Woolen. At least Woolen has looked alot better as a football player than Watson has though.

Pretty reachy...dream scenario is a trade of 30 down to no lower than 37, and add another 2nd (may have to throw in a 4th or a pick from 2023). If a team grabs Watson before 50, you would still have an extra shot at your next favorite who would be more likely to contribute right away, , whether it is Metchie, Tolbert, Bell, Moore, Pierce, or even Ezukama a bit later, and then throw a late dart at Gray, Thornton, et al

Good post. He's not a good football player. Use your draft picks early on good football players with traits.

You draft dart throws like Watson later. Most guys don't change as much as people think.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, although I think you over-exaggerate the kid as a football player. The tape I've seen is not nearly that bad. I think in year one, he's a vertical threat and gadget player, and the rest could be grown into. I agree though, it's a project, and the possibility that he never reaches his potential is there.

I'd take him at #50, but I'm a gambler. I'd take a chance on the speed and athleticism.

Have you actually watched any film on the kid? Because I literally have no idea how you could have if that is your take.

You want to argue that it won't translate against NFL talent, and I can see that, but saying he's not good at football is...yeah, you haven't watched any tape on the kid.

I'd rather draft Khalil Shakir in the 2nd than Watson.

6 feet, runs a 4.4 40 and is a beast on the field.

No contest, Shakir is better, IMO.

Yes, watched him when Lance came out. Wasn't impressed then and he looks no different now.

One of the reasons I'd double dip in the first two rounds at DE and WR is that we are always picking at the end of the round. You can just take high floor guys, and probably get pretty good football players, but I think you have to take the extra shot at star potential when you can. That's why I'd love to see a Karlaftis paired with a Mafe/Eketibie and a more polished WR pick (choose one, I like Pierce, Pickens, Metchie) with a Watson. If you hit on a star and a quality starter at each spot somewhere in there you're in good shape.