AkaD Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 :thumbsup: I hear that he'll be eligible for a supplemental draft or something like that since he's not allowed in the main draft this weekend. Is this accurate, and if so, is it a possibility to acquire him? Lates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Looks like he'll be back with caroll and company next year, I wouldnt count on him being a redskins, at least not until the draft for next year shapes up, hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkaD Posted April 21, 2004 Author Share Posted April 21, 2004 Well, I saw an interview today with Michael Irvin, and he was hanging out with Mike Williams for quite some time...anyways, he said if he wasn't allowed in the draft that he would take another route getting into the NFL, so I assume he won't be back in college ball next year. Also, I don't think he's eligible to go back to college ball. Hmm. Lates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The X-Factor Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 It all depends on the appeal process. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Clarrett and it is after the draft, then they will both be in the supplemental draft. Otherwise, it looks like they're going to have to go back to college. USC would welcome back Williams in a heartbeat, but Clarett is another story. He probably screwed himself over with this whole ordeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 The Supreme court is ruling on the stay granted to the NFL yesterday, not on the case. If the supreme court rules in favor of Clarrett, they will be included in this weekends draft. A ruling is expected tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFanInTX Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 supplemental draft ! Apparently they divide all 32 teams into 3 buckets: (1) those that lost less than 6 games, (2) those that won more than 6 games and did not make the playoffs, and (3) playoff teams. Each bucket is then arranged in order based on a lottery. When it's your turn you can select an available player, but the catch is you lose that pick in next year's draft. So if you take Mike Williams w/ your #1 pick you don't get a 2005 1st rounder. So - my question to everyone - - if we have the opportunity, do we draft Mike Williams? My answer would be :point2sky YES ... since if he goes back to college he would probably be a lock to go 1 or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The X-Factor Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by RedskinsFanInTX since if he goes back to college he would probably be a lock to go 1 or 2. I don't know if that is entirely true. He will probably be one of the top 2 receivers next year, but he might not go that high. Before this ruling, his draft stock was falling like crazy. He was thought of a top 5 pick when he declared, but this week he was expected to go somewhere in the middle of the first round. Unless he magically improves his 40 time, he will not be drafted that high. If you can't separate from your defender, how are you suppose to make an impact on the field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I hope he makes it back to USC. I've actually hoped for this all along, as I never thought the NFL would budge from it's current stance on younger players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsRback04 Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I say you draft him if given the chance. Irvin says this guy is the pick of the litter. With his size and strength getting off of the LOS would be no problem playing against teams with physical secondarys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.