Its about several factors. Including the type of game he has. That screen/ short pass [BAD WORD REMOVED] he ate up college defenses with ain't going to garner him much success in the NFL. 

 

I have seen enough highlights of him on passes that were deeper to know that this is just more crap you're spewing.  Also, since the bulk of our passing game is short to intermediate passes where the receivers are put into a position to make plays, that would almost seem to debunk your concern anyway.

 

He had zero control over the offense they were running in college.  I'm pretty sure the guys paid to evaluate what they expect from him at this level see things much differently from you, cookie.  Otherwise, he wouldn't be a fixture in the top 5 of most draft boards.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The only question I have about Watkins at this point is his ability to get off of the jam at the LOS.

 

If you notice, Clemson tended to play him off of the LOS, often making him the motion guy.

 

This, plus a fear of his speed/playmaking ability, had guys playing off of him to some degree, allowing him clean releases.

 

I wonder how he would fare if a big, physical man corner like Revis, Talib or Peterson jammed him at the line.

 

Otherwise, I have no questions about Watkins.

 

Wouldn't you want a player with Watkins' skill set to be offset from the line so that you could move him in motion and make him more of a threat? I understand the concern for beating the jam, but that can be easily remedied by alignment. Plus, if you put him in motion; Jet sweep!

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

You continue to sidestep the question.

 

How is our love for Mack/Watkins considered a "bandwagon", and yet you're doing the EXACT same thing with Bridgewater/Matthews? 

 

Seriously, don't hold your breath.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Watkins game speed actually reflects his 40 time. 

 

Blackmon, like most of the greats, plays faster than his timed speed. 

 

No, Watkins really doesn't. You're not helping your case to help people agree with you here at all.

---

Watkins game speed actually reflects his 40 time. 

 

Blackmon, like most of the greats, plays faster than his timed speed. 

 

Nope.  More crap.

 

Blackmon uses his body to get separation.  Otherwise, he's not running away from anyone.  I've seen enough of Watkins to know he plays faster than his 40 time.  This is just you and your typical manufacturing of "facts" to bolster your opinion. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Watkins game speed actually reflects his 40 time. 

 

Blackmon, like most of the greats, plays faster than his timed speed. 

 

Try again 

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Watkins game speed actually reflects his 40 time.


Blackmon, like most of the greats, plays faster than his timed speed.

No, that's actually incorrect.

---

Seriously, don't hold your breath.

 

That's what i'm starting to think too.

 

If anything, most Watkins supporters seem to be more open to players than he does. Watkins/Mack would be like "flushing our pick down the toilet"...like really?

---

When Watkins comes in and goes for 1,000+ in his rookie year, what will be TMD's response?

 

A. Product of the system.

B. Product of the QB.

C. I like'd him all along. I said he would be good, just not Calvin Johnson.

---

You were all up on the Barr-train three months ago...... What gives??

 

 

You can get him at 10 or lower. 

 

I assume your value board is identical today as to where it was 3 months ago? Pretty impressive. Oh wait....

---

When Watkins comes in and goes for 1,000+ in his rookie year, what will be TMD's response?

 

A. Product of the system.

B. Product of the QB.

C. I like'd him all along. I said he would be good, just not Calvin Johnson.

 

Pretty much.  He won't concede an inch regardless of what Watkins does.  It's his schtick.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Wouldn't you want a player with Watkins' skill set to be offset from the line so that you could move him in motion and make him more of a threat? I understand the concern for beating the jam, but that can be easily remedied by alignment. Plus, if you put him in motion; Jet sweep!

 

I see why they did it, but plug him into this offense.

 

Who would you play off of the line...Watkins or Shorts?

 

I have similar concerns about Shorts against big, physical corners.

 

Once they get into their routes, both are fine.

 

Just getting them into their routes against certain players/schemes is my concern.

 

Now a guy with Watkins' tools and coaching from Sullivan, he should be fine.

 

But right now that's the one concern I have re: Watkins.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

You can get him at 10 or lower. 

 

I assume your value board is identical today as to where it was 3 months ago? Pretty impressive. Oh wait....

Except for the fact you wanted him at 3...

---

You can get him at 10 or lower. 

 

I assume your value board is identical today as to where it was 3 months ago? Pretty impressive. Oh wait....

 

So your entire draft philosophy has changed? Three months ago you were okay with drafting non-premium positions at #3? lol...

---

That's what i'm starting to think too.

 

If anything, most Watkins supporters seem to be more open to players than he does. Watkins/Mack would be like "flushing our pick down the toilet"...like really?

 

So he's saying Watkins/Mack would be the equivalent of any thought that spews forth from TMD? 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

LOL at TMD aiming for "premium positions" at the pick but also wanting a RT at #3...

 

In this day and age of the NFL along with who is one of our chief competitors within the division, Texans, having TWO top level OT's will serve this team well. 

 

Both OT spots are premium positions, now. Caldwell actually inferred something similar when he was asked a similar question over the offseason, IIRC. 

---

When Watkins comes in and goes for 1,000+ in his rookie year,

 

 

 

won't happen, so, irrelevant. 

---

It was built well enough for 222 lbs as a sophomore. 

 

How do you know he was 222 lbs as a sophomore? Because he and his agent said so?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Except for the fact you wanted him at 3...

Ouch!  He just loves the guy's build.  He's taller and heavier.  Just don't make note of the 40 time. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

How do you know he was 222 lbs as a sophomore? Because he and his agent said so?

 

TMD is practicing to become a carnival barker.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.