jlwaters1 wrote:I'm a little confused by all the Tavon Austin love. From just looking at a few highlight video's he's kind of a Reggie Bush type player, not strictly a WR, but also a RB used in sweeps as well as in the return game.
But here's what I don't get, why isn't Stedman Bailey getting just as much attention? Both players were TD makers.
INfact I'd prefer Bailey over Austin for a few reasons
A) He's bigger- Bailey listed @ 5-10, 188, Austin listed @ 5-9, 174
B) He's more productive- Bailey 114 catches, 1622 yards, 14.2 avg, and a WHOPPING 25 TD's
Austin had 114 catches, 1289 yards, 11.7 avg, 12 TD's. + 643 yards rushing, 8.9 avg, 3 TD's.
I'm just not understanding why Bailey's not rated higher. I'd prefer Deandre Hopkins to either of these 2-- Just as productive with better size. but if you could get Bailey in the 3rd that would be a bargain.
Stats and measurables only tell you so much. Tavon Austin is elite in YAC. As everyone correctly assesses.... if he gets in open space with the ball... lookout. Someone posted that graph that shows how he compares in YAC to the rest. In terms of Austin over Bailey (or any other receiver in the draft, imo)... did you ever get to watch him play in games and watch the player play football? I think Austin has his head screwed on right and gives every indication of being a great teammate, a willing contributor however creative a team can be to utilize his skills, etc. He made Oklahoma look like a High School JV team. There's something special about that player. That stuff doesn't just happen. He's an elite playmaker. I think if he was a few inches taller and weighed at least 200 lbs... everyone would be salivating at the prospect of Tavon Austin to Seattle. Perhaps not quite the same size issue comparison as those who questioned RW at the QB position, but there are some similar things going on there to some extent, I think. I've said it before... I'm not suggesting the Seahawks field a team of smurfs, but just don't dismiss an elite playmaker and assume so much that he wont do for a team vs. what he could bring to the team. Whenever prospects are discussed... how much of all that a player is capable of do they actually do for their teams? I wonder how many players new to the team are going to have as great of a chance of making the roster and/or contributing to this team. So, if there is a playmaker on the level of Austin there at 25... my contention is that you take him. Add him to an already dangerous team. I really do hope some FA players don't get signed right away and become more affordable to the Hawks so that they can pick up more proven vets to add to this team that needs to stay intact and improve from where they left off while perhaps adding those few key vets and a few rookies that can make an immediate impact.