Rookie Wide Receivers

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Not quite. Against Houston, Bradford was 16 of 20. But then, 21 of those points came from defense and ST. After their first possession of the 3rd quarter, Bradford didn't throw a pass.

They also didn't get the ball back til the beginning of the 4th. Which is when they ran the ball.

That game was the closest they came to a balanced attack - and they still aired out... They threw it even more against jacksonville, despite constantly maintaining a lead (sometimes by 10+ points)
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,847
No. My point was that #1 caliber numbers are typically in the 1200 to 1400+ yard range. With 1000 to 1200 yards being fringe #1 WR numbers...and it seems very improbable just for Watkins to get the fringe #1 WR numbers...much less 1200+ yards as a rookie.

Putting up 800 to 950ish type yards seems like a more realistic expectation.

And what seems to be the problem here? As a rookie, that would be a great season. Again, I don't see why those types of expectations should be held has to not draft him.

I'm making the claim based on how I rated them as a prospects. I don't see that sort of ability or potential in him.

Again: we don't know any of that will be true.

Just b/c you don't "see" this or that, doesn't mean anything. He has potential. Just like any other rookie.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
And what seems to be the problem here? As a rookie, that would be a great season. Again, I don't see why those types of expectations should be held has to not draft him.

That's not my argument either. You're looking for implications that simply aren't present.

Again: we don't know any of that will be true.

Just b/c you don't "see" this or that, doesn't mean anything. He has potential. Just like any other rookie.

We don't know if anything will be true. Watkins could be Jerry Rice or could be Troy Williamson. For all we know, 7th rounder 5'8" Jeremy Gallon could end up being the best WR in this class. But since we want to discuss draft prospects(I'm assuming others do, I do), we watch games or highlight tapes(for some) and discuss what we think of them.

I've watched a number of Watkins's games. And my opinion of the kid is that he's an excellent prospect but isn't of the caliber of Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green, Julio Jones, Larry Fitzgerald, etc. and doesn't have the upside that those guys did.

I think he's a tier below them.

So, it's your opinion that it doesn't mean anything. But I want to express my opinion on prospects and believe it or not, I've done pretty well with WRs in the past. It's a position that I know well and am good at evaluating. Do I promise 100% accuracy? No. But I'm going to be confident in my opinions because I do my due diligence with these guys. I watch a lot of games and put a lot of time into my evaluations.
 

Ram Quixote

Knight Errant
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
2,923
Name
Tim
You know, I don't really think we can come out wrong, whether we take Clowney at 2 or trade down a bit and take one of Matthews, Robinson or Watkins.

What I do object to is the characterization of our young WR corp as not talented enough to succeed without a so-called #1 receiver, as the justification for needing to draft Watkins. IMO, Bradford will excel at spreading the ball around to the varied talents of our receivers, even Kenny Brit.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,082
Name
Burger man
You know, I don't really think we can come out wrong, whether we take Clowney at 2 or trade down a bit and take one of Matthews, Robinson or Watkins.

What I do object to is the characterization of our young WR corp as not talented enough to succeed without a so-called #1 receiver, as the justification for needing to draft Watkins. IMO, Bradford will excel at spreading the ball around to the varied talents of our receivers, even Kenny Brit.

Not to mention, we almost finished .500 with a backup QB tossing to this young group. Austin and Bailey were rookies, for christ sake.

I like the idea of drafting Watkins, but there is a ton of upside with this existing WR group that I don't think the sky is falling at WR if we don't.
 

RFIP

Guest
Let us examine closely those wr's the current establishment has drafted outside round 1.

Quick
Givens
Bailey.

Yep, it's Watkins for me no doubt with that track record.

Which is the point of this mental gymnastics no?

As Wagoner put it in today's chat; the time for drafting more wr's who are projects has passed. The gap from Watkins to Evans is wide and it only widens from there.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Let us examine closely those wr's the current establishment has drafted outside round 1.

Quick
Givens
Bailey.

Yep, it's Watkins for me no doubt with that track record.

Which is the point of this mental gymnastics no?

As Wagoner put it in today's chat; the time for drafting more wr's who are projects has passed. The gap from Watkins to Evans is wide and it only widens from there.

The gap from Watkins and Evans isn't even remotely wide. And if you want to go the "pro ready" route...Jared Abbrederis is more pro ready than Sammy Watkins. Since...as you said...we don't want projects. We obviously need them to be ready now...and Abbrederis is. He's miles ahead of Watkins as a route runner. So we should obviously not draft Sammy Watkins and should draft Jared Abbrederis.

As far as your list goes, I see one WR that has more than lived up to his draft slot(Givens), I see on WR that hasn't thus far(Quick), and I see one guy that just finished his rookie year.

In fact, none of the guys on your list have even reached their 3rd year. Frankly, I'd rather not list all the WRs that didn't break out until their 3rd year to illustrate how flawed the logic you're using is.

But hey, why don't you tell us what type of production we should expect from Sammy Watkins as a rookie?
 

RFIP

Guest
I see one WR that has more than lived up to his draft slot(Givens),

You might want to get those peepers check my boy, unless you are talking about living up to a disappointment?

He was decent his rookie year and then fell off the face of the earth to the point where a lot of people think between he, Pettis and Quick one OR MORE are in trouble of getting cut if the 9 time convict sticks and we draft a wr.

Givens is a 3 on an average team and a 4 at best on a great one, nothing more.

And please, by all means keep talking down Watkins and up Evans because I have a good memory and this is going to be a blast to recant. :D
 

Faceplant

Still celebrating Superbowl LVI
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2023 ROD Pick'em Champion
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
9,597
Holy criminy your love for Watkins is strong. Like uncomfortably so. Once again I will make this simple point. You could insert Jerrulio Calvizgeraldjefferey and they would be lucky to break 1000 yds. It is just not that type of offense!! For reference, look at the Patriot teams that actually WON superbowls. Ball was spread around like marmelade. They didn't start losing SBs till they had their "#1 WRs". Lolz.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,847
That's not my argument either. You're looking for implications that simply aren't present.



We don't know if anything will be true. Watkins could be Jerry Rice or could be Troy Williamson. For all we know, 7th rounder 5'8" Jeremy Gallon could end up being the best WR in this class. But since we want to discuss draft prospects(I'm assuming others do, I do), we watch games or highlight tapes(for some) and discuss what we think of them.

I've watched a number of Watkins's games. And my opinion of the kid is that he's an excellent prospect but isn't of the caliber of Calvin Johnson, A.J. Green, Julio Jones, Larry Fitzgerald, etc. and doesn't have the upside that those guys did.

I think he's a tier below them.

So, it's your opinion that it doesn't mean anything. But I want to express my opinion on prospects and believe it or not, I've done pretty well with WRs in the past. It's a position that I know well and am good at evaluating. Do I promise 100% accuracy? No. But I'm going to be confident in my opinions because I do my due diligence with these guys. I watch a lot of games and put a lot of time into my evaluations.

I know what your stance is. You don't think that's "#1" numbers, and b/c of that isn't worth it to draft w/ the 2nd pick. When in reality, a rookie having a hypothetical performance like that is amazing. In some cases, it would exceed the rookie years of the guys you listed (Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, and Torry Holt).

It's well known you don't want him @ #2. I think he's absolutely worth it at that spot based on his potential. Comparing Sammy to the guys you listed here and the original post is not fair and will of course make him "not worth it" at that spot. Calvin Johnson may have been the best WR to have ever come out in recent years, and basing future 21 year olds to that standard will make anyone look like a "tier below them".

And again, nobody knows. You, me, the scouts, whoever. It's all based on potential. That's all...no matter how many games that are watched.
 

Ram Quixote

Knight Errant
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
2,923
Name
Tim
You know, there's a fine line between passionate and obsessed. Obsession gets you on watch lists and restraining orders. Passion can win you friends and enemies, even if the latter may respect your opinion.

Stay classy, ROD members.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
I know what your stance is. You don't think that's "#1" numbers, and b/c of that isn't worth it to draft w/ the 2nd pick. When in reality, a rookie having a hypothetical performance like that is amazing. In some cases, it would exceed the rookie years of the guys you listed (Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, and Torry Holt).

No. You don't know what my stance is and I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't try to tell me what it is. The "numbers" have nothing to do with why I wouldn't draft Watkins at #2. Simply put, I rate JaDeveon Clowney and Jake Matthews as better players in this draft. We are sitting at #2. That means we will get a shot at 1 of the 2 AT MINIMUM. That's why I would not draft Watkins at #2. I have no idea what numbers Watkins will put up as a rookie. I have no idea what numbers Clowney or Matthews will put up as rookies. But I judge Clowney and Matthews to be better talents/values which means I'm not passing on them.

It's really that simple. The point of this thread was to try and temper some of the expectations of what a rookie WR will do. So people, INCLUDING MYSELF, don't make the same mistake made last year when we expected a rookie WR to be our #1 weapon and put up 1000+ yards and 10 TDs.

It's well known you don't want him @ #2. I think he's absolutely worth it at that spot based on his potential. Comparing Sammy to the guys you listed here and the original post is not fair and will of course make him "not worth it" at that spot. Calvin Johnson may have been the best WR to have ever come out in recent years, and basing future 21 year olds to that standard will make anyone look like a "tier below them".

It's absolutely fair because guys like Calvin, Fitz, AJ Green, etc. are the only types of WR prospects that I'd spend a #2 overall pick on...unless it were a very weak draft.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
You might want to get those peepers check my boy, unless you are talking about living up to a disappointment?

Chris Givens was a 4th round pick. If you think putting up over 1200 yards in his first two years is not living up to expectations, frankly, your expectations are so out of whack that this isn't worth the discussion.

If Chris Givens were a top 5 pick, you'd have a point. The kid is a 4th round pick that's good enough to stick and contribute to our roster. That's meeting your expectations.

And I'll even back my point up here:
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Boom-or-bust-A-look-at-draft-probabilities.html
Odds that a guy drafted between pick #74 and pick #116 starts as a rookie? 12.2%
Odds that a guy drafted between pick #74 and pick #116 starts at least two seasons? 36.6%
Odds that a guy drafted in the 4th round starts as a rookie? 10.2%
Odds that a guy drafted in the 4th round starts at least two seasons? 32.1%

Looks to me as if Chris Givens has already lived up to and exceeded his expectations for his draft slot.

Givens is a 3 on an average team and a 4 at best on a great one, nothing more.

And please, by all means keep talking down Watkins and up Evans because I have a good memory and this is going to be a blast to recant. :D

Givens was a 4th round pick. Givens being a #3 WR is living up to expectations.

I hope you do bring it back up. Because you'll have to remember that I rated Watkins as #1 and Evans as #2...but I thought the gap between them was small and that Evans has more potential as a #1 WR while Watkins is more pro ready.

You ain't the first person that's told me this...especially about WRs...and the last few ended up eating crow.(Torrey Smith vs. Leonard Hankerson, T.Y. Hilton vs. Juron Criner, Alshon Jeffery vs. Justin Blackmon/Michael Floyd, etc.) Well, actually, they didn't eat crow because they didn't mention it again.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,847
No. You don't know what my stance is and I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't try to tell me what it is. The "numbers" have nothing to do with why I wouldn't draft Watkins at #2. Simply put, I rate JaDeveon Clowney and Jake Matthews as better players in this draft. We are sitting at #2. That means we will get a shot at 1 of the 2 AT MINIMUM. That's why I would not draft Watkins at #2. I have no idea what numbers Watkins will put up as a rookie. I have no idea what numbers Clowney or Matthews will put up as rookies. But I judge Clowney and Matthews to be better talents/values which means I'm not passing on them.

It's really that simple. The point of this thread was to try and temper some of the expectations of what a rookie WR will do. So people, INCLUDING MYSELF, don't make the same mistake made last year when we expected a rookie WR to be our #1 weapon and put up 1000+ yards and 10 TDs.



It's absolutely fair because guys like Calvin, Fitz, AJ Green, etc. are the only types of WR prospects that I'd spend a #2 overall pick on...unless it were a very weak draft.

Uhhh reading your previous posts? Don't you rather trade down and get Jake Matthews?

All of the "big 4" have their merits as to why they should go #2. They all have talent, that's why they are the "big 4".

And again, no it's not fair. On one hand you create this thread to show to temper expectations regarding a rookie (which I agree with), then you use the best of the best as comparisons, even tho you mention in your older posts that all of them except 6 that you listed had less than a 1000 yards, including Calvin, Larry Fitzgerald, and I mentioned Torry Holt.

My final word: Sammy Watkins absolutely deserves to be in consideration for #2. Even tho he probably won't be taken, he does have the talent to be there.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Uhhh reading your previous posts? Don't you rather trade down and get Jake Matthews?

Yes.

All of the "big 4" have their merits as to why they should go #2. They all have talent, that's why they are the "big 4".

I don't agree.

And again, no it's not fair. On one hand you create this thread to show to temper expectations regarding a rookie (which I agree with), then you use the best of the best as comparisons, even tho you mention in your older posts that all of them except 6 that you listed had less than a 1000 yards, including Calvin, Larry Fitzgerald, and I mentioned Torry Holt.

It is if you consider the point of the thread. Which has nothing to do with whether or not to draft Watkins at #2.

My final word: Sammy Watkins absolutely deserves to be in consideration for #2. Even tho he probably won't be taken, he does have the talent to be there.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I just don't agree.
 

RFIP

Guest
Chris Givens was a 4th round pick. If you think putting up over 1200 yards in his first two years is not living up to expectations, frankly, your expectations are so out of whack that this isn't worth the discussion.

It's hard to argue with those "numbers" for sure but it's how he plays the game that doesn't translate for me.

he almost never wins a contested ball, doesn't shield defenders while extending to catch, isn't a great leaper, has tendecies to get gator arms and is stiff in the hips which nullifies a lot of his route running skills because he can't get in and out of his breaks.

In short, he needs time and space to operate, 2 things the Rams did well his rookie year, finding ways to get him deep and ahead of man coverage. They also have gotten decent mileage out of him on drag routes too where he gets an early step on his guy or rubs him off the crosser, which allows him to use his speed to keep his distance from the defender.

I don't like his hands nor his contested ball ability, in short I think he takes Pettis spot once he leaves either this year or next when his contract ends, and from there IF we continue to grow the wr pool, he will eventually be gone as well.

Funny but with both guys bring to the table now, I'd rather they keep Pettis (size & hands) over Givens.
 

tbux

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
497
No matter what you think of Watkins, there isn't much doubt he possesses more raw talent than ANY outside wr we have- and by a WIDE margin. Will he live up to that potential? nobody knows- but he surely looks the part. I see a dedicated, strong willed, hard working player that is as close to a sure thing as there is- and I am praying he is in horns! Sam would LOVE to FINALLY have his go to guy on the outside.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
It's hard to argue with those "numbers" for sure but it's how he plays the game that doesn't translate for me.

he almost never wins a contested ball, doesn't shield defenders while extending to catch, isn't a great leaper, has tendecies to get gator arms and is stiff in the hips which nullifies a lot of his route running skills because he can't get in and out of his breaks.

Because he's a deep threat. He's a role player.

Although Givens isn't stiff in the hips. He just isn't a good route runner.

Regardless, this is a 4th round pick. Not a 1st round pick. So expecting Givens to be Larry Fitzgerald or even James Jones is unrealistic. Givens is living up to expectations for his draft slot.

In short, he needs time and space to operate, 2 things the Rams did well his rookie year, finding ways to get him deep and ahead of man coverage. They also have gotten decent mileage out of him on drag routes too where he gets an early step on his guy or rubs him off the crosser, which allows him to use his speed to keep his distance from the defender.

I don't like his hands nor his contested ball ability, in short I think he takes Pettis spot once he leaves either this year or next when his contract ends, and from there IF we continue to grow the wr pool, he will eventually be gone as well.

Funny but with both guys bring to the table now, I'd rather they keep Pettis (size & hands) over Givens.

I think Givens will settle into a role as a #4 type WR...like Devery Henderson was in New Orleans for years. Mainly just a deep threat and as you said, useful on those crossers.

Personally, I think they'll hold onto both for now. But if they let one go, I'd say it's probably Pettis. Although I like Pettis's reliability. Both him and Givens have their place on the roster.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
No matter what you think of Watkins, there isn't much doubt he possesses more raw talent than ANY outside wr we have- and by a WIDE margin. Will he live up to that potential? nobody knows- but he surely looks the part. I see a dedicated, strong willed, hard working player that is as close to a sure thing as there is- and I am praying he is in horns! Sam would LOVE to FINALLY have his go to guy on the outside.

I don't agree because I think Tavon Austin is an outside WR.
 

tbux

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
497
I don't agree because I think Tavon Austin is an outside WR.

I don't think Austin is an outside wr at all. he lines up all over and is used in a myriad of ways- some of which is on the outside, but far from being called an outside wr.