He nailed just the second perfect score in NFL/Wonderlic history. He joined Pat McNally (a P/WR from the Bengals of the '80's) as the only players to ever score a perfect 50.
I don't think people understand how dificult the test is.
How did Pat do in the NFL? I certainly don't recall his name?
Chad
Just because you don't recall someone means what?
MCINALLY was a decent punter who even made a pro bowl or two. He was also the Bengals' 3rd receiver during their Super Bowl run.
Whoa There! I was simply asking....nothing sarcastic about it. I was curious to see if it had any impast on his game.
Troy Williamson would be my choice. He did very good in a tough conference in an offense that ran all the time, and didn't do a good job at it. Troy is no Desmond Howard, he is yet to reach the peak of his ability. Mike may have tremendous size but that does not make him the second coming of TO. Troy Williamson would be a great pick at number 9. Williams won't be there anyway, Tampa Bay is rumored to have promised him the number 5 pick and Minnesota loves him at number 7.
the likliehood of williams being available at number 9 are slim...but that wasn't the question that started this thread...the question was who would you choose if both receivers were available.
did anyone mention that Michael Clayton led the league last year in yards received and touchdowns for rookies...a year that had the best receiving stock of any other year to date? micheal clayton ran a 4.59...same as mike williams. the bucs had no running game, virtually no other receiver...and a sorry qb but still produced extremely well...
we have speed guys...taylor jacobs, james thrash, and coles if he stays...we need a big receiver that can make the jump ball catches in the endzone, that can beat up on a DB at the line of scrimmage, and will go over the middle and not get punished...and he's a great blocker
i answered the thread already in an earlier post but never explained why...so this is why i would choose mike williams over williamson with absolutely no question.
