I like Shakir, but 2nd is too high unless all the mocks are wrong.

He's a higher floor player and a guy I like in the 3rd/4th. He's more polished at the moment, and less risk, but is not of the same potential as Watson. Shakir-now that's a nice #2 WR potential.

Again, maybe Watson never reaches that Megatron potential. Maybe it's even LIKELY. But if he DID...

#2 out of 2,613 WR's tested in 35 years.
[Reply]

I do really quite like Shakir. I wish he were a better accelerator because that could limit his ability from the slot in the NFL. Because he's more of a build-up speed guy, I'd love to see him at the X but he didn't operate from there much at all in college. Can he get off the line against NFL CBs? He's dangerous on those crossers when he's moving, that's for sure. Might have the best highlight reel of insane catches in the draft though.
[Reply]

I'm not going to say it's a comp but there is a little Godwin here.
[Reply]

One of the reasons I'd double dip in the first two rounds at DE and WR is that we are always picking at the end of the round. You can just take high floor guys, and probably get pretty good football players, but I think you have to take the extra shot at star potential when you can. That's why I'd love to see a Karlaftis paired with a Mafe/Eketibie and a more polished WR pick (choose one, I like Pierce, Pickens, Metchie) with a Watson. If you hit on a star and a quality starter at each spot somewhere in there you're in good shape.
[Reply]

If you watch college tape of Valdes-Scantling and college tape of Watson and come away thinking they're the same guy, we don't have much else to talk about.

I won't bang the table for Watson, but some of the hate he's getting on this site is way over the top.

No, he isn't a perfect prospect and yes, there are questions and yes, he's raw. But calling him a BAD college football player? Based on what? Being the leading receiver at an elite, title-winning program 3/4 years, in an offense that throws the ball like 35 percent of the time. Come on now.

I prefer Pickens if they're taking an upside stab at WR in the late 1st/early 2nd. But if the Chiefs take Watson in that range, I'll get it.

If a team takes him before the Chiefs even have a chance to get to him, I won't be surprised, either. And I won't be surprised if he explodes or busts.

He's a definite high-risk, high-reward kid. In his favor, he's an NFL player's kid, with no character red flags, and he went to a program that is highly established and disciplined and was a contributor every year but his redshirt freshman one (edit: I had his stat progression wrong in my head. He was leading receiver as a junior during the COVID year)

Against him, obviously there have been a lot of athletic fast guys who haven't made it all work.
[Reply]

We know he's tall. We know he's fast. What do you like about the way he plays WR?
[Reply]

I like how quick his feet are. I love his change of direction ability and general athletic explosiveness. I like that despite being raw and needing extra work on route-running at the Senior Bowl, he was still the standout WR at that (shows conversion of those traits into production), out-performing even some darlings of this forum (Tolbert, Austin, Melton).

I love his physicality. He's a good and willing run blocker, but more importantly he is a potential YAC monster because not only is he really fast with good twitch and change of direction, he's also physical and willing to take on contact for extra yard.

I wish he had played in a more pass-friendly offense. I don't like the raw nature of his football skill set that results.

I wouldn't spend a 1st on him if calling the shots, based on what I know currently. But something around 50 (even in the low-to-mid 40s?) yeah
[Reply]

The intrigue with watson is use as a gadget player early in his career. And with the success of deebo, why couldn’t he be successful without being polished early in his career and get better over time? After considering how many of burks plays were gadget plays, how much better of a prospect is burks considering his athletic testing questions? As far as polish, burks has many of the same questions as watson in addition to his testing numbers. Consider that travon walker at 6’5” 270 lbs ran 6.89 3 cone and burks ran a 7.3 3 cone. Again, when I watch burks, I see deebo but the risk still remains. If we drafted burks, he’d have a gadget role and have to be developed. Why can’t watson have that same role? He shows that he has the ability to be the same type of player as burks without the risk of testing numbers. I still have burks ahead of watson but with deebo, we know these gadget guys can be successful. Funny to me how many of y’all are high on burks but low on watson when they would play the same role? Can you explain that?
[Reply]

Why is that onus on the ones that like Burks better? Burks is clearly the higher-rated prospect by every board on the planet. I think this falls on you.

I'm not going to compare him to Burks at all. I'll be clear, I'm not that much a fan of Burks in this offense.

I'm going to say this, I think Watson's floor is MVS. He can be a deep-threat guy, just chuck it up there dawg and we'll see what happens. I have no doubts about that. Same size, same speed, very similar guys coming out from a skills perspective, and relatively equitable collegiate production in similar offenses (South Florida was run-oriented with Marlon Mack and D'Ernest Johnson). If MVS didn't jump terribly, his RAS scorecard would look identical to Watson's.

I look at this though, MVS was a 5th round pick. Now, if MVS had a 5th round value then why on Earth should we be inclined to think that Watson should have much higher than that? At this point, the comps are identical sans vertical jump. So, is Watson's ability to jump 8 inches higher than MVS in shorts worth 3 or 4 rounds? Honestly, that's what everyone is talking about, the Mel Kiper's of the world included. I'm just trying to be realistic here and I really feel like this whole "RAS" shit is blown well out of proportion in comparison to the on-field.

As I said, I like the shot on the kid but I just don't like him above a good crop of others, and before 62 is pushing it.
[Reply]

The point I was trying to make is that burks has a weakness with running routes. He’s compared to deebo and will likely be used as a gadget player. Let’s assume that if we drafted burks, he’d get a lot of those kind of gadget touches. Watson has also been used a lot as a gadget player. He played RB a lot. Lots of short passes, reverses and runs from the rb position. How much of a drop off would watson be from burks in a gadget role? I’d say apples and oranges. Burks wouldn’t necessarily be a better gadget player. He’s better at breaking tackles but watson is a bigger home run hitter. Watson has the juice to score if he gets some open grass. So, if watson and burks are both good gadget players and watson has the higher ceiling if he develops then it’s not a huge reach for watson in the first. Burks is a consensus 1st round selection. Watson should be close behind him but more like a ziggy ansah selection where his selection is based on traits. And mvs isn’t really a gadget guy? I think your misjudging watsons ability in the open field in a deebo role.

Originally Posted by kcbubb
Funny to me how many of y’all are high on burks but low on watson when they would play the same role? Can you explain that?


[Reply]

Watson is also a good leader and makes contested catches with his length.
[Reply]

The Cassel Wars will seem tame by comparison if we draft this kid in the 1st.

It will be positively Frank Clark-esque.

Who wants to start the "Christian Watson Fucking Sucks!" thread?
[Reply]

I'll be deep in that thread.

Just like if we trade up for Jameson Williams and that kid never pans out. I'll create that thread from day fucking one.
[Reply]

I know this, I'll get called to the table again when I say the same shit about him as I said about Willie Gay. LOL.
[Reply]

Meh...you hated Gay. I hated Bolton. It's whatever at this point.
[Reply]