Can Seattle Seahawks Receiver Mike Williams Go From Bust To Superstar?
Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images
T.J. Houshmandzadeh can talk all he wants about not getting beat out by any other receiver in Seattle. The fact of the matter is, there was a good reason the Seattle Seahawks went with former USC stud Mike Williams.
Williams gives the team size, physicality, and play-making ability. All the jaunts and jives about him being a bust, being slow, or not having good work ethic can die with the lingering memories of his sluggish body in Detroit, Oakland or Tennessee.
That's the past, and now this guy is simply committed to making plays (and money, we would assume) in the NFL, and after being reunited with former USC head coach Pete Carroll, it looks like he's well on his way to ridding himself of that fairly acquired "bust" label.
Williams displayed solid speed and playmaking throughout this past off-season, while also routinely performing well against corners in preseason action.
With Houshmanzadeh now out of Seattle and in Baltimore, Williams is primed to breakout (finally), as the No. 2 option in Seattle. And when you take a closer look at his main competition for targets in Seattle's passing game (Deion Branch, Golden Tate and Deon Butler), you have to like his chances even more.
Last time we checked, this potential fantasy stud (and definite fantasy sleeper) was available in nearly 80 percent of all standard fantasy football leagues.
Just like we all found after he was selected 10th overall by the Detroit Lions, nothing about Williams is a sure thing. But if his recent play can shed any light, he's poised to have easily his best season as a pro, and should give the Seahawks their most potent offensive weapon outside of their running backs.
Look for Williams late in drafts as a WR4 with a high ceiling, while we feel he could start the season as a moderate WR3 in most leagues, with limitless potential that could propel him to a WR2 spot by the end of the season.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?