Does Antonio Williams have Amon-Ra St. Brown Vibes?

April 29, 2026

by David Earl

Antonio Williams vs. Amon-Ra St. Brown

.@ClemsonFB WR, Antonio Williams, is a name to remember this week during the #nfldraft When you know; you know. a gifted router. #BaldysBreakdowns pic.twitter.com/cumVGRD1Fn

— Brian Baldinger (@BaldyNFL) April 20, 2026

While Brian Baldinger is not comparing the two in the clip above, listening to him discuss Williams along with what I wrote in my rookie wide receiver breakdown struck a comparison of Clemson wide receiver Antonio Williams and Detroit Lions star Amon-Ra St. Brown, based on their pre-draft profiles when entering the NFL. Williams was selected by the Washington Commanders in the third round (No. 71 overall) of the 2026 NFL Draft, while St. Brown went to the Lions in the fourth round (No. 112 overall) in 2021.

Two Slot Technicians with High Floors

When NFL teams evaluate mid-round wide receivers, they often look beyond raw measurables for players who can contribute immediately through polish, football IQ, and yards after catch. Antonio Williams and Amon-Ra St. Brown (from USC) fit this mold remarkably well. Scouts and analysts have drawn direct parallels between the two as compact, slot-oriented receivers who win with technique rather than overwhelming size or elite deep speed. 

Both entered the draft as undersized but savvy playmakers projected as high-floor contributors—reliable No. 3 or slot options who could exceed expectations in the right system. St. Brown famously slid but quickly became a Pro Bowl-level star for Detroit thanks to his route precision and toughness. Williams’ profile suggests a similar trajectory as an elusive YAC threat in a creative offense.

Physical Similarities and Athletic Testing

The two share strikingly similar builds that raised comparable pre-draft questions about their ability to win against physical NFL cornerbacks.

• St. Brown (2021) measured 5’11½”, 197 pounds, with arms around 30⅜” and hands 9⅛”. His athletic testing showed average long speed (estimated 4.5–4.6 range) but solid explosiveness, body control, and agility.
• Williams (2026) checked in at 5’11½”, 187 pounds, with arms 30¾” and hands 9¼”. He posted a stronger 4.41-second 40-yard dash (with a 1.55 10-yard split), a 39.5” vertical, and a 10’4” broad jump, highlighting better burst and lower-body explosion.

Both lack elite length or “wow” size, leading to concerns about contested catches and press coverage. Williams tested a tick faster and more explosive in some drills, while St. Brown entered slightly heavier. Neither was viewed as a burner who would stretch the field vertically on every play; instead, they relied on short-area quickness and route savvy.

Playing Style: Shared Strengths in the Slot

The core of their games overlaps significantly. Both project primarily as slot/movement receivers who excel through:

• Precise route running with tempo, body control, and the ability to settle into zone windows or create subtle separation on crosses and pivots.
• Strong YAC ability as Williams is an “elusive run-after-catch” threat with wiggle and toughness in traffic; St. Brown similarly created yardage after the catch with shiftiness and physicality.
• Reliable hands and football intelligence, allowing them to find soft spots and contribute in West Coast-style or spread schemes right away.
• Versatility, including some return experience (punt returns for both) and potential in creative packages.

Scouts noted that Williams graded similarly to pre-draft St. Brown from the slot, with comparable performance against man and zone coverage. Production-wise, both were solid but not always dominant deep threats, often working underneath due to scheme or quarterback play. Williams led Clemson in key receiving categories in strong seasons, much like St. Brown’s reliable USC output.

Key Differences Coming Out of College

While the parallels are strong, differences emerge in athletic testing and projection nuances:

• Athleticism and Speed — Williams showed superior straight-line speed and explosion at the Combine, potentially giving him a slight edge in creating separation or turning short throws into big gains. St. Brown was lauded more for overall toughness and blocking willingness.
• Slot Emphasis — Some reports peg Williams as more of a “slot-only” prospect with twitchy stop-start ability, while St. Brown was seen as a versatile piece who could align outside in certain situations and contribute as a lead blocker.
• Comps and Ceiling — Pre-draft, St. Brown drew comparisons to polished technicians like Robert Woods. Williams has drawn Christian Kirk or Zay Flowers vibes alongside the St. Brown nod, with some scouts highlighting his Clemson production in big moments. Williams’ slightly better testing could translate to more big-play upside, though both were viewed as role players rather than WR1 prototypes.

Draft grades reflected this: Both earned mid-round projections (Day 2–3 range) with “starter upside” as efficient slot pieces, though St. Brown carried a bit more “safe floor” reputation despite sliding.

Injury History: A Notable Contrast

Injury durability provides one of the clearer differences in their pre-draft profiles.

• Amon-Ra St. Brown – dealt with some issues at USC, including a sports hernia that required surgery before the 2020 season (he recovered and performed well) and a shoulder sprain in the 2020 Pac-12 Championship Game. He was generally viewed as durable enough, with no major long-term red flags that tanked his stock. His college availability was solid outside those instances.
• Antonio Williams – had a more checkered injury history at Clemson. He was limited by various injuries to just four regular-season games in 2023 (triggering a redshirt). In 2025, he suffered a hamstring injury early in the season opener against LSU (exiting in the first quarter), which caused him to miss time and ended a long reception streak. There were also reports of other nagging issues in prior years. He ultimately misssed a bowl game to prepare for the draft. These soft-tissue and availability concerns were noted by coaches and scouts, though many viewed the injuries as non-structural and manageable for a skilled player.

St. Brown’s pre-draft injury profile appeared cleaner overall, potentially contributing to teams viewing him as a lower-risk pick despite the similar physical/athletic limitations. Williams’ history added a layer of caution for some evaluators.

Bottom Line: High-Floor Archetype with Proven Upside

Coming out of college, Antonio Williams and Amon-Ra St. Brown looked like near identical in being compact, technically sound slot receivers having excellent YAC ability, route polish, and the intelligence to contribute early. Similar measurables, slot projections, and mid-round grades fueled this comparison, even as Williams brought a bit more testing pop and St. Brown more noted toughness.

The main differences lie in Williams’ slightly superior speed metrics and more documented college injury concerns (i.e., hamstring and prior limitations) versus St. Brown’s relatively cleaner availability. St. Brown’s NFL success proves this archetype can far exceed expectations when paired with opportunity and coaching.

If Williams stays healthy and lands in a high-volume passing attack that values slot creativity, which fits David Blogh’s offensive scheme, he has the tools to follow a similar path from mid-round “safe” pick to trusted contributor. The parallels aren’t identical, but they’re close enough to make Williams an intriguing prospect worth watching closely in Washington.

Antonio Williams Consensus Scouting Report

NFL evaluators largely viewed Antonio Williams as a polished, high-floor slot receiver with immediate rotational upside rather than a boom-or-bust prospect. At 5’11½”, 187-190 pounds, he tested well with a 4.41-second 40-yard dash, 39.5” vertical, and 10’4” broad jump, showcasing twitch, fluidity, and strong short-area quickness. 

Strengths highlighted across reports included:

Strengths include being a precise route running with tempo, fakes, and body control to create separation, especially inside leverage and in the middle of the field. Has elite YAC ability being elusive with wiggle, vision, and toughness after the catch. Reliable hands, football intelligence, and natural feel for zone coverage and settling into windows.

Weaknesses noted consistently were his slot-only projection, limited long speed and vertical threat (low average depth of target), struggles against press coverage at the line, and a history of injuries that raised minor durability questions. 

Overall Consensus Grade and Projection: Most analysts slotted him as a Day 2 pick (late 2nd to 3rd round) equating to high-level backup with starter upside or an eventual average NFL starter. He ranked around WR11–WR16 overall and inside the top 70–75 prospects on big boards. Scouts praised his production at Clemson despite inconsistent quarterback play and scheme limitations, projecting him as a reliable chain-mover and creative play-caller’s weapon in spread or West Coast offenses. 

Player Comparisons: The most frequent comp was:

• Christian Kirk, another undersized, savvy slot technicians with a strong YAC and route polish
• Zay Flowers, with similar slot explosiveness and elusiveness
• Darnell Mooney or Tyler Lockett, being a twitchy underneath threat
• Occasional nods to Khalol Shakir, Jayden Reed, or even a more productive St. Brown.

In conclusion, the consensus painted Williams as a technically sound, scheme-versatile slot specialist whose ceiling is a trusted WR2/3 in the right system, provided he stays healthy and refines his release against press. His selection at No. 71 overall by the Washington Commanders aligned well with this evaluation thus being good value for a ready-to-contribute piece with proven NFL traits.

 

Note: Total evaluation comparisons between Williams 2026 draft profile and St. Brown’s draft profile compiled through the assistance of an AI tool through Grok.