Quote:
Originally Posted by kccrow
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.
|
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.