Ty Montgomery, WR: Stanford

[Cameron Giles]

What are your thoughts on him? Seems like a very dynamic and talented player.

[ConnSKINS26]

I'm staying far, far away. Not a WR, he's a returner and gadget player.

[RightlegTucker]

He reminds me a little of Demaryius Thomas. He catches a lot of screens and is a physical runner after the catch. He's very raw, and needs to polish up his route running if he wants to be a contributor in the NFL. I'd be willing take a chance on him if he was still on the board in the 2nd at this point. Any guy who is 6'2"+ and has 4.4 speed will at least get a good look in the NFL. As the process moves along we will be able to gauge where he stands and what his draft time value will be.

[Jimmy Jones]

I haven't seen any film on him but it sounds like you guys are describing Cordarelle Patterson.

[RightlegTucker]

I haven't seen any film on him but it sounds like you guys are describing Cordarelle Patterson.

Or DThomas coming out, he's raw but that doesn't necessarily mean he won't develop. Even this past season Moncrief was viewed as a developmental guy but has shown promise that he may eventually be a WR1 someday. He's a solid 2nd round prospect in my opinion in standard 12 team leagues, which of course is subject to change as we move closer towards the draft.

[ConnSKINS26]

He reminds me a little of Demaryius Thomas. He catches a lot of screens and is a physical runner after the catch. He's very raw, and needs to polish up his route running if he wants to be a contributor in the NFL. I'd be willing take a chance on him if he was still on the board in the 2nd at this point. Any guy who is 6'2"+ and has 4.4 speed will at least get a good look in the NFL. As the process moves along we will be able to gauge where he stands and what his draft time value will be.

DT and even Moncrief showed much better ball skills in college than Montgomery. Especially DT, Moncrief had some drops issues but Montgomery is really a body catcher with ridiculous physical ability. DT was a much easier projection to the NFL, there's a reason why he was a 1st round pick despite how raw he was.

[bigchiefbc]

I haven't seen any film on him but it sounds like you guys are describing Cordarelle Patterson.

Yup, my thoughts exactly. Cpatt 2.0

[RightlegTucker]

He reminds me a little of Demaryius Thomas. He catches a lot of screens and is a physical runner after the catch. He's very raw, and needs to polish up his route running if he wants to be a contributor in the NFL. I'd be willing take a chance on him if he was still on the board in the 2nd at this point. Any guy who is 6'2"+ and has 4.4 speed will at least get a good look in the NFL. As the process moves along we will be able to gauge where he stands and what his draft time value will be.

DT and even Moncrief showed much better ball skills in college than Montgomery. Especially DT, Moncrief had some drops issues but Montgomery is really a body catcher with ridiculous physical ability. DT was a much easier projection to the NFL, there's a reason why he was a 1st round pick despite how raw he was.

I would argue that Montgomery has demonstrated good ball skills on par with Moncrief's. I've seen him high point the ball and make several contested catches, Moncrief is more of a body catcher than Ty is too from what I've seen. My primary concern with him is his route running. He has some trouble tracking the ball in the air as well, but he's still a solid 2nd rounder in dynasty imo.

[ConnSKINS26]

I see where you're coming from, and I'll always understand taking swings on these types of players (just like I understood taking a swing on Mincrief and Bryant due to their situations especially). But for me, I'll most likely stick with the more traditional skillset and physical "limitations" of a guy like Rashad Greene (who has Antonio/TY potential) in the same area of the draft.

[RightlegTucker]

I see where you're coming from, and I'll always understand taking swings on these types of players (just like I understood taking a swing on Mincrief and Bryant due to their situations especially). But for me, I'll most likely stick with the more traditional skillset and physical "limitations" of a guy like Rashad Greene (who has Antonio/TY potential) in the same area of the draft.

Perfectly understandable, I like Greene more myself and feel he's been somewhat overlooked up until this point. I don't believe, however, that the stigma of the Cpatts and the Tavon Austins should automatically count against other raw prospects, and who is to say they still want develop at this point? The certainty of inevitable failure is what irks me the most, but gentlemanly disagreement and varying player assessments are some of the finer aspects of dynasty.

[Jason3123]

I like him. I've seen a lot of Stanford games. He's had some issues with drops but a lot of guys do. He's an incredible athlete, very strong with a grown man's body. I think he'll be a pretty good WR, one of those typical 3rd round WR's who breaks out eventually. Hopefully he ends up in a good situation.

[ConnSKINS26]

I see where you're coming from, and I'll always understand taking swings on these types of players (just like I understood taking a swing on Mincrief and Bryant due to their situations especially). But for me, I'll most likely stick with the more traditional skillset and physical "limitations" of a guy like Rashad Greene (who has Antonio/TY potential) in the same area of the draft.

Perfectly understandable, I like Greene more myself and feel he's been somewhat overlooked up until this point. I don't believe, however, that the stigma of the Cpatts and the Tavon Austins should automatically count against other raw prospects, and who is to say they still want develop at this point? The certainty of inevitable failure is what irks me the most, but gentlemanly disagreement and varying player assessments are some of the finer aspects of dynasty.

I totally agree that guys like CP and Tavon could still develop and break out, I didn't mean to imply I felt certain they'd inevitably fail. Its just differing levels of risk tolerance and different owners managing it in their own ways. In devy drafts I'll shoot for the highest ceiling and won't touch someone without the physical attributes and potential skillset of a WR1 or RB1. But by the time these guys declare for the draft, I need a certain comfort level with their established skill set to take them in the 1st of a rookie draft, flashes aren't enough for me at that point in the process. After the 1st round I'll take the measurables guys without a clean projection, though.

[RightlegTucker]

I totally agree that guys like CP and Tavon could still develop and break out, I didn't mean to imply I felt certain they'd inevitably fail. Its just differing levels of risk tolerance and different owners managing it in their own ways. In devy drafts I'll shoot for the highest ceiling and won't touch someone without the physical attributes and potential skillset of a WR1 or RB1. But by the time these guys declare for the draft, I need a certain comfort level with their established skill set to take them in the 1st of a rookie draft, flashes aren't enough for me at that point in the process. After the 1st round I'll take the measurables guys without a clean projection, though.

I wasn't referring to you specifically Conn, I thought you were very fair in your assessment. My remark was more directed at inflammatory comments like "Cpatt 2.0", it's not fair to Montgomery and to a smaller extent it's not fair to Patterson either to write him off after two seasons.

[bigchiefbc]

I totally agree that guys like CP and Tavon could still develop and break out, I didn't mean to imply I felt certain they'd inevitably fail. Its just differing levels of risk tolerance and different owners managing it in their own ways. In devy drafts I'll shoot for the highest ceiling and won't touch someone without the physical attributes and potential skillset of a WR1 or RB1. But by the time these guys declare for the draft, I need a certain comfort level with their established skill set to take them in the 1st of a rookie draft, flashes aren't enough for me at that point in the process. After the 1st round I'll take the measurables guys without a clean projection, though.

I wasn't referring to you specifically Conn, I thought you were very fair in your assessment. My remark was more directed at inflammatory comments like "Cpatt 2.0", it's not fair to Montgomery and to a smaller extent it's not fair to Patterson either to write him off after two seasons.

Whoa there, buddy. You're injecting your own hidden meanings and biases into what I said. Who ever said that "Cpatt 2.0" is insulting or inflammatory? I think Montgomery and CPatt ARE similar players, in that they're physical freaks who are great in the open field, but lack fundamentals and will be a project at the NFL level. They're both going to have to have "designed plays" for them to have early impact.

I never said, nor implied, that it was time to write off CPatt, but that he's a long-term project and his lack of fundamentals is a hindrance to instant NFL success, and I think Montgomery may have the same problem. Doesn't mean they suck or are worthless. Don't assume hidden subtexts in what people write.

[AS3Dynasty]

I think you guys are all spot on, here. The trouble that a lot of us (of maybe it's just me?) have, is exacting a little bit of patience with these guys.

Refined wide receivers obviously have more breakout appeal early on, as their superior route running, and general understanding of the game are more difficult to exploit. When you're taking a guy that's built with the cloth that resemble the likes of CPatt, Tavon Austin, etc...we just have to be patient. If you're going to draft one of these guys, do so without expecting results for about 3 years.