Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 [quote]Vikings coach Mike Tice said he looks for the team's first-round draft choices, wide receiver Troy Williamson and defensive end Erasmus James, [b]to see limited service at the start of the season.[/b] "We think Troy Williamson will be involved in some packages early on," Tice said as the coach prepared for training camp, which opens Friday in Mankato. "We'll place him in some plays where his speed and running-after-the-catch ability will make him shine and he'll be able to make some plays and gain confidence early. That confidence will carry him down the road and advance him quickly." However, going into training camp, [b]Williamson will be No. 5 on the wide receiver depth chart behind Nate Burleson, Marcus Robinson, Kelly Campbell and Travis Taylor[/b]. "All those guys know the offense very, very well and have been with us," Tice said. "The only player that hasn't been with us more than a year is Travis, and Travis is a veteran guy." Taylor was the No. 10 overall pick in the 2000 draft for Baltimore, where he played five years before joining the Vikings. "I do like Travis Taylor," Tice said. "I think he is the surprise free-agent signing of this year. I really believe he brings a lot to the table." Getting back to James, Tice said he will give the former Wisconsin standout a chance to be a pass rusher along with veteran Lance Johnstone. "It will give us the ability to have two speed guys on the edge in the nickel defense," Tice said. "We'll probably throw him right into that role and see how he handles it early on. If he can't handle it, then we'll take him out and nurse him along a little bit." You want my opinion? [b]I think Tice and his coaching staff were the least ecstatic about the performances of Williamson, especially regarding his ability to catch the ball, and James, who was inconsistent, at minicamp[/b]. The coaches are anxious to see what both do when they put the pads on. They might not play a lot early.[/quote] So they take a guy #7 overall and put him behind Travis Taylor and Kelley Campbell on the depth chart? Williamson was more of a combine creation then a polished reciever and that fact is showing now, #5 on the depth chart is insulting considering were he was drafted. I know they want to bring him along slowly but our third round choice has a better chance of getting more playing time than the #7 overall pick, Williamson's going to be a bust... This is taken from another article from Williamson's hometown, appearantly he thinks he's better than former USC wideout Mike Williams. I know you have to be confident and all, but c'mon lets not get carried away. Not drafting Mike Williams will be a something Vikings fans will be mad about for years. [quote]Williamson never played in a bowl game, going 16-19 in three seasons. Most experts thought he was making a mistake leaving school as a junior after catching just 91 passes and 13 touchdowns in 34 games. Southern California's Mike Williams, the popular draft-day choice among Vikings fans, had 95 catches and 30 touchdowns in only two seasons "It would have been stupid for Minnesota to pick Mike Williams," Williamson says. "He isn't a guy who can stretch the field. The Vikings did what they had to do to make their team better, not just what pleases the fans." Williamson, of course, has much bigger comparison issues to deal with. After all, he was taken with the draft pick -- seventh overall -- that was the key piece in the Randy Moss trade to Oakland. "Yeah, I hear about Moss a lot now," Williamson said. "But that doesn't bother me. You can't expect me to come in as a rookie and replace him right off. I expect a lot of myself this year, but I don't expect that."[/quote] He needs to worry about beating out Kelly Campbell and Travis Taylor, something that Mike Williams could do with one leg and three fingers. For him to talk shit about Williams is stupid, Williams will go down as a one of the best ever and Williamson will be known as a bust. When will people learn that the forty has no bearing on how good of a player someone will be. Willie Gault had world class speed, but was an average reciever. Jerry Rice had a 40 time similar to Williams but I NEVER saw Rice get ran down and oh yeah he's only the best wr ever to play. Williamson is a joke.. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//30.gif[/img]
Guest bengalrick Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 [i]However, going into training camp, Williamson will be No. 5 on the wide receiver depth chart behind Nate Burleson, Marcus Robinson, Kelly Campbell and Travis Taylor[/i]. how the hell is everyone on the vikings nuts this year??? seriously, their wr's SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! everyone thinks that they will be good BECAUSE they released the malcontent randy moss... i think they are smoking some crazy shit in minny this year... they have a pretty weak running game and no recievers... unless dante runs the ball 50% of the time and doesn't get hurt, they have NO chance... they might have good defense, but if they're on the field 75% of the time, it doesn't matter.. ask miami last year.... <edit> [i]So they take a guy #7 overall and put him behind Travis Taylor and [b]Kelley Washington[/b] on the depth chart?[/i] - [b]smoov[/b] either you are reading the future or this is a mistake... he very well might end up there though
-Dan_Bengals_FL- Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 I think in the AFC, they would be an average team, but because they play in the weak NFC they will crush some of their opponents. Their offense will be worse off this season, but their defense should be improved. BTW I was never a huge Williamson fan, I was very surprised when they didn't take Mike Williams.
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 25 2005, 11:40 AM'][i]However, going into training camp, Williamson will be No. 5 on the wide receiver depth chart behind Nate Burleson, Marcus Robinson, Kelly Campbell and Travis Taylor[/i]. how the hell is everyone on the vikings nuts this year??? seriously, their wr's SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! everyone thinks that they will be good BECAUSE they released the malcontent randy moss... i think they are smoking some crazy shit in minny this year... they have a pretty weak running game and no recievers... unless dante runs the ball 50% of the time and doesn't get hurt, they have NO chance... they might have good defense, but if they're on the field 75% of the time, it doesn't matter.. ask miami last year.... <edit> [i]So they take a guy #7 overall and put him behind Travis Taylor and [b]Kelley Washington[/b] on the depth chart?[/i] - [b]smoov[/b] either you are reading the future or this is a mistake... he very well might end up there though [right][post="118969"][/post][/right][/quote] I meant Kelley Campbell, who has the same function as Williamson. The Vikings had the second worse pick in the draft taking Williamson, of course "Pacman" is the worse, they will rue the day they passed on Mike Williams. You make a good point about there lack of a running game, with the Wizzinator suspened for a season that leaves them with Mewelde Moore and the brittle Micheal Bennet left as viable replacements. I heard that Eddie George might sign with them, Eddie was good about 5 years ago and I'm a OSU fan. Donte`had a great season that was overshadowed by Manning's record setting year, he's going to have to play 10x times better because losing there best player will hurt them more than their pride will let them admit. Moss can't be replaced by Travis Taylor and Troy Williamson, regardless of what Tice tells his team.
Guest BengalsOwn Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 The Vikings have a very good WR corps. And it's a good thing when your draft picks won't be on the field very much. That's what happens with good teams.
Guest BadassBengal Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 Travis Taylor is underrated. He's simply had some shitty QBs in Baltiwhore. Just watch. If he gets some playing time this season, he should surprise some of ya'll.
-GoBengals- Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 this proves nothing, henry and perry are pretty far down our depth chart too, especially GOING INTO TRAINING CAMP... but henry is easily better than wasyington and tj, and that will probably be reflected in '06, but draft picks SHOULDNT see the field thier first year very much.. unless your team is in a sad sad state at that position, if hardy hadnt lost a step and every other LB wasnt injured but simmons do you think thurman and pollack would be starting? not a fucking chance, why bother taking the risk when you can weed thier development over time swapping with a veteran or letting them play late in games when its already over, its foolish to have rookies starting, unless its your only option... [quote name='BengalsOwn' date='Jul 25 2005, 01:46 PM']The Vikings have a very good WR corps. And it's a good thing when your draft picks won't be on the field very much. That's what happens with good teams. [right][post="119039"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] exactly.. [quote name='BadassBengal' date='Jul 25 2005, 01:52 PM']Travis Taylor is underrated. He's simply had some shitty QBs in Baltiwhore. Just watch. If he gets some playing time this season, he should surprise some of ya'll. [right][post="119044"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] i agree with that one too, i dont know that he is a huge superstar but he can definetly make some noise with the right QB,
Guest Matt_Six Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 I think Williamson will be the third receiver at te start of the season... and second receiver, next to Burleson by season's end.
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 [quote name='GoBengals' date='Jul 25 2005, 02:22 PM']this proves nothing, henry and perry are pretty far down our depth chart too, especially GOING INTO TRAINING CAMP... but henry is easily better than wasyington and tj, and that will probably be reflected in '06, but draft picks SHOULDNT see the field thier first year very much.. unless your team is in a sad sad state at that position, if hardy hadnt lost a step and every other LB wasnt injured but simmons do you think thurman and pollack would be starting? not a fucking chance, why bother taking the risk when you can weed thier development over time swapping with a veteran or letting them play late in games when its already over, its foolish to have rookies starting, unless its your only option... exactly.. i agree with that one too, i dont know that he is a huge superstar but he can definetly make some noise with the right QB, [right][post="119065"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] He should at least be the #3 wr, any player taken in the first 10 picks should play signifigantly, imo. #5 on the depth chart shows that he is raw and has a ways to go. Mike Williams won't be #5 on the Lions depth chart, that's for sure. As for Travis Taylor, he is good, but considering he went #10 overall he's a bust. So Williamson is #5 going into camp and it seems as if they are content to let him start the season at that position. I'm sure he's disappointed by this news, they don't think he's better than Kelley Campbell. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]
Guest bengalrick Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 [quote name='BengalsOwn' date='Jul 25 2005, 01:46 PM']The Vikings have a very good WR corps. And it's a good thing when your draft picks won't be on the field very much. That's what happens with good teams. [right][post="119039"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] [url="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/395935"]nate burleson[/url] - better than i thought, but no stud... if he's their number 1, they blow like i said... 2003 = 29 catches for 499 yards 2 td's 2004 = 68 catches for 1006 yards 9 td's the unseen stat.... moss on the other side... ------ [url="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1676"]marcus robinson[/url] - good wr... in 1999!!! hasn't broken 60 catches or 800 yards since that year... and he only did it one year... 2003 = 31 catches for 451 yards 6 td's 2004 = 47 catches for 657 yards 8 td's ------ [url="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/303032"]Kelly Campbell [/url] - three year guy who has topped out at 25 catches for 522 yards and 4 td's in 2003 2003 = 25 catches for 522 yards 4 td's 2004 = 19 catches for 364 yards 1 td ------ [url="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187399"]Travis Taylor[/url] - another has been... badass said that he didn't have a chance b/c of boller... usually a wr should make a qb look better... he sure as fuck didn't... he hasn't shown shit since he's been in the league... can you say bust?!? 2003 = 39 catches for 632 yards 3 td's 2004 = 34 catches for 421 yards 0 td's only had one decent year in 2002 w/ 61 catches for 861 yards 6 td's ----- own, why do you say they have a good wr corp?
-Dan_Bengals_FL- Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 Marcus Robinson could have been good. But he will take a game off, if he chips a finger nail. One of the biggest wousies in the game. No heart what so ever. He definatley has to ability to be a beast in the redzone, when he decides to play. Overall I think the Vikings are going to be a top team, because they play in the weak NFC.
Guest bengalrick Posted July 25, 2005 Report Posted July 25, 2005 [quote name='Dan_Bengals_NJ' date='Jul 25 2005, 03:59 PM']Marcus Robinson could have been good. But he will take a game off, if he chips a finger nail. One of the biggest wousies in the game. No heart what so ever. [b]He definatley has to ability to be a beast in the redzone, when he decides to play. Overall I think the Vikings are going to be a top team, because they play in the weak NFC.[/b] [right][post="119141"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] agreed there...
The Scales Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 I hope he does well, i have a Rookie card of his. Which of course reminds me that i need to get a couple odell, henry, and Pollacks.
Guest BengalsOwn Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 25 2005, 03:46 PM'][url="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/395935"]nate burleson[/url] - better than i thought, but no stud... if he's their number 1, they blow like i said... 2003 = 29 catches for 499 yards 2 td's 2004 = 68 catches for 1006 yards 9 td's the unseen stat.... moss on the other side... ------ [url="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/1676"]marcus robinson[/url] - good wr... in 1999!!! hasn't broken 60 catches or 800 yards since that year... and he only did it one year... 2003 = 31 catches for 451 yards 6 td's 2004 = 47 catches for 657 yards 8 td's ------ [url="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/303032"]Kelly Campbell [/url] - three year guy who has topped out at 25 catches for 522 yards and 4 td's in 2003 2003 = 25 catches for 522 yards 4 td's 2004 = 19 catches for 364 yards 1 td ------ [url="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/187399"]Travis Taylor[/url] - another has been... badass said that he didn't have a chance b/c of boller... usually a wr should make a qb look better... he sure as fuck didn't... he hasn't shown shit since he's been in the league... can you say bust?!? 2003 = 39 catches for 632 yards 3 td's 2004 = 34 catches for 421 yards 0 td's only had one decent year in 2002 w/ 61 catches for 861 yards 6 td's ----- own, why do you say they have a good wr corp? [right][post="119137"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Moss WAS NOT on the other side of Burleson last season, Moss was injured for a good part of the season. Let's see, one 1000 yard WR, with three other WR's who have had over 500 yards receiving in one season. That sounds pretty damn good to me.
Guest BlackJesus Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [i][b]I tried to tell the people on here who were obsessed with Williamson not to be.... As a Gamecock fan I knew he wasn't what they made him up to be [/b][/i]
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='BengalsOwn' date='Jul 26 2005, 12:49 AM']Moss WAS NOT on the other side of Burleson last season, Moss was injured for a good part of the season. Let's see, one 1000 yard WR, with three other WR's who have had over 500 yards receiving in one season. That sounds pretty damn good to me. [right][post="119376"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Moss played in 13 out of 18 games, he only missed 2 more games than Carson did. Burleson definitely benefited from playing opposite of Moss as he was an after thought to defensive coordinators who spent the week preparing to shut down Moss, not Burleson. Now that Burleson is the #1 guy, let's see what he does. I don't believe Burleson is a #1 receiver, the Vikes don't have a #1 receiver, they traded him to Oakland to prove a point. btw, one wr with just over 1000 and the rest of the corp not even close to 1,000 IS NOT a wr corp, in fact it's pretty horrible. A good wr corp would have 2 wr that are close to 1,000; like last year we had CJ with close to 1,400 and TJ had 972. This year is going to ridiculous with the additon of Perry and Henry and Warrick coming back from injury. Those 3 added with the three from last year it a good corp, not some collection of underachievers and pussies.
Guest bengalrick Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='BengalsOwn' date='Jul 26 2005, 12:49 AM']Moss WAS NOT on the other side of Burleson last season, Moss was injured for a good part of the season. Let's see, one 1000 yard WR, with three other WR's who have had over 500 yards receiving in one season. That sounds pretty damn good to me. [right][post="119376"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] moss missed 5 games during the season... 3 offically, but didn't have a catch 2 other games so i guess you are counting that in there... how does one alright wr, 2 old slow hasbeens, and 1 guy i've never heard of equal a good wideout corp... i'd rank them around the middle... but they have no running game so their offense sucks even more...
BengalsCat Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='BadassBengal' date='Jul 25 2005, 02:52 PM']Travis Taylor is underrated. He's simply had some shitty QBs in Baltiwhore. Just watch. If he gets some playing time this season, he should surprise some of ya'll. [right][post="119044"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] another quality U of Florida product he just got caught on a crappy team
Guest bengalrick Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='BengalsCat' date='Jul 26 2005, 10:43 AM']another quality U of Florida product he just got caught on a crappy team [right][post="119496"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] he has been average at best, since he was drafted... sorry to bust your U of F bubble, but he will always be average... caulpepper will throw one pass to him, watch him bobble it half way accrossed the field, and then drop it... then daunte will break all the qb's records for running...
TheBZ Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='BengalsOwn' date='Jul 25 2005, 01:46 PM']The Vikings have a very good WR corps. And it's a good thing when your draft picks won't be on the field very much. That's what happens with good teams. [right][post="119039"][/post][/right][/quote] I agree with Own...I think the Vikings' receivers have a lot of speed, and they will be able to generate a good amount of points without Moss. Williamson...I liked the tape I saw on him, and would have been happy if we had taken him at 23, honestly...But I wouldn't have taken him before Mike Williams. I think Williamson will turn into a starting WR...Just not this season. I also agree with Badass (it had to happen eventually ) Burleson is very underrated, and I think Taylor will find some of that potential again. They will spread the ball around, and I think their desire to do that is another one of the reasons why Moss was let go. Don't underestimate Culpepper being able to make his corps better than the sumof their parts. He is a damned good QB, in my opinion. BZ
Guest BadassBengal Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='TheBZ' date='Jul 26 2005, 01:06 PM']I also agree with Badass (it had to happen eventually ) BZ [right][post="119590"][/post][/right][/quote] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//36.gif[/img]
Guest BengalsOwn Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 26 2005, 10:30 AM']moss missed 5 games during the season... 3 offically, but didn't have a catch 2 other games so i guess you are counting that in there... how does one alright wr, 2 old slow hasbeens, and 1 guy i've never heard of equal a good wideout corp... i'd rank them around the middle... but they have no running game so their offense sucks even more... [right][post="119490"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] They have no running game? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] They don't have one single RB who ran for a lot of yards, no. However, combined, they ran for 1823 yards last year, compared to our 1839 yards (which according to most on here, that is a great running game).
Guest bengalrick Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='BengalsOwn' date='Jul 26 2005, 03:05 PM']They have no running game? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] They don't have one single RB who ran for a lot of yards, no. However, combined, they ran for 1823 yards last year, compared to our 1839 yards (which according to most on here, that is a great running game). [right][post="119681"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] calpepper had 406 yards last year... i guess you can count that, but i don't consider that a running game imo, b/c it doesn't control the clock or the game... it is b/c dante is a hell of a runner and couldn't find anyone to throw to... the rest of their rb's is this: michael bennett = 70 attempts for 276 yards (3.9 yards) obviously we have to look at ypc and 3.9 is alright... but he hasn't proven he can do it over a whole season... moe williams = 30 attempts for 161 yards, (5.4 ypc) hasn't proven it, but w/ that ypc, he could be something... the rest of them are nothing to talk about... but their running numbers are extremely inflated, considering that dante led the team in rushing yards last year besides onterrio smith... but he's suspended for a year, so you can forget him... they have potential, but haven't shown shit... anyother thing that you don't mention w/ your stat is that rudi had 79% of all the yards that our rushers got last year... the vikings were spread around more, but the bengals would have been higher if perry wasn't hurt...
Guest BengalsOwn Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 26 2005, 04:29 PM']anyother thing that you don't mention w/ your stat is that rudi had 79% of all the yards that our rushers got last year... the vikings were spread around more, but the bengals would have been higher if perry wasn't hurt... [right][post="119728"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Not necessarily, it would have meant that Rudi wouldn't have had so many carries, and wouldn't have had as many yards rushing, if Perry were healthy.
Guest bengalrick Posted July 26, 2005 Report Posted July 26, 2005 [quote name='BengalsOwn' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:45 PM']Not necessarily, it would have meant that Rudi wouldn't have had so many carries, and wouldn't have had as many yards rushing, if Perry were healthy. [right][post="119802"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] this is only a matter of opinion, but i think that rudis ypc would be higher if perry was in there.... or in better words, if rudi didn't have to carry the load every game... i think that perry will increase our productivity this year, b/c he is a good change of pace from rudi... like i said, only my opinion, but i feel that rudi would have done better (obviously not more yards, but as a team, we would have ran the ball better) if perry were healthy last year...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.