If the Chiefs took WR Christian Watson at 30…

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

John Ross did that at an average NFL WR size. In addition to injury problems, he's not shown much growth. That speaks to his mental make-up and character.

And THAT is why the draft is a crap-shoot. And make no mistake, it is.

If you don't like the prospect, that's a legitimate stance. Trying to argue against the raw athleticism is not.

#2 out of 2613 WR's tested since 1987. Number ****ing TWO, behind only Calvin "Megatron" Johnson.

Christian Watson will be as good as he wants to be, and that is the bottom line. That's not necessarily true of everyone. Most prospects have physical limitations in one regard or another. Watson does not.

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.

[MahomesMagic]

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.

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.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

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.

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.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

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.

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

[Chris Meck]

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.