Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:28 pm
by sch1977
JansenFan wrote:Walt Harris was a solid starter in Indy before we signed him and he was a solid CB last season after we signed him. Is he going to all of a sudden be a terrible corner after an off-season of preparing to be a starter?
You are right! Indy is known for it's tenacious defense, so Harris must be a quality starter
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:53 am
by redskindave
I would rather have Mike Williams over Edwards, Michigan recievers have not faired well in the NFL, example.. Amani Toomer, Desmond Howard, David Terrell, All were ok I guess, But not up to the potential that they were supposed to have.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:54 am
by JansenFan
sch1977 wrote:JansenFan wrote:Walt Harris was a solid starter in Indy before we signed him and he was a solid CB last season after we signed him. Is he going to all of a sudden be a terrible corner after an off-season of preparing to be a starter?
You are right! Indy is known for it's tenacious defense, so Harris must be a quality starter
I'm not saying he is a superstar. Just that he is a solid cornerback who has experience as a starter in the NFL. He's no Ty Law, but he is good enough for today's NFL.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:19 am
by BringThePain!
sch1977 wrote:JansenFan wrote:Walt Harris was a solid starter in Indy before we signed him and he was a solid CB last season after we signed him. Is he going to all of a sudden be a terrible corner after an off-season of preparing to be a starter?
You are right! Indy is known for it's tenacious defense, so Harris must be a quality starter
Well... we got Washington from Indy, and his Pro-Bowl self didn't turn out too bad...
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:45 am
by Scottskins
skinsfan#33 wrote:Mike Williams looks like he will be available at nine, but some people think that he will be another Keshawn Johnson, but not as good. He is big, but slow. And some experts are saying that he won't be any better than a #2 receiver.
Uh, where have you seen anyone say that? I don't know of anyone that thinks Mike will be like Keyshawn but worse. The only thing I saw that referenced Keyshawn said that he's like Keyshawn but bigger and catches better.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:27 pm
by 1niksder
Scottskins wrote:skinsfan#33 wrote:Mike Williams looks like he will be available at nine, but some people think that he will be another Keshawn Johnson, but not as good. He is big, but slow. And some experts are saying that he won't be any better than a #2 receiver.
Uh, where have you seen anyone say that? I don't know of anyone that thinks Mike will be like Keyshawn but worse. The only thing I saw that referenced Keyshawn said that he's like Keyshawn but bigger and catches better.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 461581.htm(KRT) - NFL scouts and draftniks have had more time to dissect Mike Williams than any other prospect available Saturday, and they still aren't sure what to make of him.
Is the former USC All- American The Next Big Thing at wide receiver, a taller version of Randy Moss? Or is Williams merely the next Keyshawn Johnson, a productive pro stuck with the dreaded "possession receiver" label?
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:54 pm
by fleetus
Merril Hoge and Mel Kiper got into a BIG argument last night over Mike Williams. Merril said Williams would never be a productive NFL WR and was not worth taking anywhere in the top half of the 1st round. Kiper of course thinks Williams is as good or better than Braylon. Mike Golic interjected something in the middle, saying Williams was another Keyshawn, would be relatively productive but not a star. So, it's anyone's guess. It comes down to work ethic (which is another question mark). If he works at it like Jerry Rice did, then the sky's the limit. If not, he might not start many games.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:12 pm
by portis26
What about trading Santana and the 9 to get one of the two big receivers? Then we would still have the 25 to get a good corner.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:39 pm
by El Mexican
As someone else said, there in no way in this world Gibbs would give up 3 no. 1 picks for one receiver (two this year and the one we gave away for next years draft).
Remember what happened with Desmond Howard, the last guy Gibbs picked in his first stint here in DC? Terrible dissapointment.
Desmond also came out Michigan, BTW.
Heck, if we know Gibbs just a little bit, he'd rather get a Center and a Left Guard with #9 and #25 than going all out for just one reciever.
If we DO trade both picks for just one recevier, I can clearly see the influence of the Danny an My Cousin Vinny in that decision, not Joe.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:11 pm
by fredp45
portis... santana moss and our #9 for Miami's #2...to get Edwards...
That is a very good thought. Moss is popular in Miami and I wonder -- is this why we haven't signed Moss?
Good one...
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:22 pm
by gay4pacman
We will sign santana soo enough. I dont think that we would give up too much to get to the 1. We are goinbg to pick a cb and the heath miller. period.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:25 pm
by Scottskins
I'm starting to think we should sign Troy Williamson even if Edwards and Williams are available....
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:36 pm
by gay4pacman
Please......Williamson is not even close to as good as either of the Wr's who WILL be picked in front of him. I go to USC and would never want the skins to take troy he is way too raw too take at such a high pick. The value definetly isnt there and he drops way to many passes. They show about three or four highlights of troy and those are actually the only passes he caught all year. Williams or edwards are the answer williamson is a big question.