MHS831

I have read that he is NOT an elite edge, but to be fair to you and against my point, there is this by Mayock ( I respect Mayock):

I have been saying, You have to use him properly. We have no evidence that Evero would--so the risk is a bit higher. He is not going to dominate a position, but if you use his versatility to give him an unfair advantage (mismatches, element of surprise) that could make him good--which begs the question, could that not also apply to other players with similar skill sets who were not asked to be hybrids in college? I love Walker the kid and would love to have him if he works out--I am just nervous about it. Fair to him? No, but people here who wanted Bryce said his height was not an issue and there is tape of him throwing from his toes--the NFL is a different game.

Thanks--we need to do this for every player we consider. "Looks like Tarzan plays like Jane" is all I needed to hear.

good thread--we need to bring this kind of opportunity to the surface.

It is a good point. Is Walker an early to mid first round LB? Edge? I would say no in both cases, but is he a top hybrid player? yes.

Ironically, some said his position versatility in college might project to an inability to fit in at the next level--we compared him to Chinn, if you recall. Critics wondered if Simmons could focus on a specific position and if so, would he be a first round talent at that position? The same is being said about Walker this year, fwiw. So you have to ask, "Was his versatility the thing that made him a good/great college player, or was he elite at LB?" On the other hand, Jerry Hughes had 5 sacks in 3 seasons with the Colts and then went to Buffalo where he had 25 sacks over the next three seasons-- I would watch film and see if his skill set is what we are looking for at LB. I am guessing that we have already done that.

He is a beast at a 4-win team in Arizona and I think he could be a beast in the NFL--the comments have to make you want to know more. This time of year, there are smokescreens, tips of icebergs, and nothing burgers all over the place. I think the higher you pick, the more you have to research these kinds of things. The issue is this: Does he LOVE football if he does not watch it on TV and he does not watch film on his own time? That could mean nothing, but it is a red flag that could be connected to his love for the game, his attitude, and his commitment to the game. Some compared it to their jobs--but unless you LOVE your job--loved it as a child and aspired to be in that job when you are older--it is not the same thing. I was reading comments by other fans about it. One fan, an LSU alumni, compared him to Jamarcus Russell. He said this situation reminds him of that---a great talent in college that carried him and made him the #1 overall pick. However, what worked in college was not enough in the NFL. Five years later, the NFL has a rookie cap and he is sleeping on his mother's couch after blowing about $40m. It could be nothing, but it would probably be enough for me to go a different direction in the draft, since I don't think he is worth the #8 pick anyway.

In college, I would go to the grill and get a burger and drink after we practiced and watched film for 4 hours (combined--3-7pm) then I would go watch film from 7-9 with my burger and drink--it was voluntary--a senior captain was usually running things. I would listen to the older guys--usually there were 5 or so players in the room--and they taught me how to "watch" film. At 9, I would leave to go to study hall (required for freshman) until 10:30. That was my day during the season. I could not learn enough. The players who were in the film room were our best players, for the most part. I was usually the only freshman and there were 37 of us. During this time, I went from 7th to 2nd on the depth chart at my position. The guys in the film room (that I can remember): 2 All-Pros in the NFL (Colts and Eagles), one LB for the Seahawks, one Bronco. The best athlete on our team was a S who did not watch film; he went to Green Bay and was cut after one season. So that is what I base my opinion on. If TMac thinks he can compete with the Jeffersons and Chases--heck, even the Adam Thielens of the NFL with that approach, he is probably mistaken. I would look into his film study habits because it reflects his commitment and attitude. That is why I heard something different than others on this thread. I can tell you, that every time you advance in Football, the competition gets 100x more challenging. What was OK at 4-win Arizona might not be OK in the NFL. Not dismissing others for thinking his productivity (about 80 yards per game vs. decent teams) proves that his approach is no red flag, but you played, if I am not mistaken, in college. Nor is it fair to assume that my experience is applicable to every other situation--but it does explain my difference in perspective.

I see 2 CBs and 1 S--I do not see a T, and I think most true fans probably have an OL of some sort in the mix....With Brown Brown Wharton and Robinson, I am not seeing the need for 2 DTs...Have we addressed our Edge concerns? Not based on college production Young, Zavala, Mays, Luvu, Ekwonu, Hubbard, M. Jackson, Coker

boom or bust--not worth the risk--was he boom or bust at TexAM? he sorta busted based on his potential.

After the first pick, I could get on board with this.

thanks for sharing-this would send some Huddlers to a bridge....I try to see the logic, and Morgan is still pretty much an unknown--do we know for a fact that Tepper was not lurking last year?

When you put it this way, wow. They had a team.

It is all good folks. As I said, not questioning his performance as much as his work ethic. I have explained it. Every first round prospect has stats. 50% become successful. His comments are areas I would look into. You can disagree and pull out all the numbers you want, but they do not mean squat if you don't bring a hunger to learn and get better to the NFL. Does he have that? You nor I know, but the comments I have seen from him are concerning. That is it--this is not an argument anyone can win, so think what you want and I will too. I do appreciate these debates, however. The best time of the year and we should be locking horns about it at times.

That is what I am saying, but my reasons were based on his comments that suggested his work ethic might not be strong. I said read the tea leaves--we don't have facts--but as I stated, when you go from college to pros, there is no formula that says he will be a good WR--so you interview, measure, tape and watch film. 50% of first rounders succeed in the NFL--and I would wager that those who succeed are the most dedicated, if all things are equal--and the way the scrutinize these players, they pretty much are. Did he not say that he does not watch film except during the position sessions? That is what I heard--not what you said. Hear me out--it is about ATTITUDE and WORK ETHIC. Do you think Morgan will agree with his perspective? There are two ways you get better--You practice on the field and you learn in the film room. It helps you avoid mistakes and discuss tendencies etc. It is literally half your job during the week. In college, when the coaches were at home in their beds, there were always 4-5 players in the film room while the custodians were cleaning up. It was nothing to see a teammate walking out of the field house at midnight. You can only practice like 2 hours per day, but there was no limit to unsupervised film sessions. Please don't lecture me about watching film in college unless you did it. You simply do not understand the implications behind what he was saying.

YOU brought up stats, as I did. Now you want it to be about something else. Secondly, the point was does he love football. Do you think college success equates to NFL success if a player is not dedicated to the craft? He could be the real deal, but this shifted from his work ethic and attitude to stats. Stats means that he had some degree of success vs. the competition he faced. I am not saying he can't play--I am saying that I would not want a player who had that kind of approach to preparation. I don't owe anyone an explanation and you really are not in a position to make excuses for him--you don't know. I am saying "red flag." Sorry if that upsets you. To prove his attitude, you went with college stats--I can tell you that every level you elevate--from High School to college and college to pros--there is a process of elimination that is so strong, only 1 out of 100 high schoolers get scholarships to college, and only 50% of the first round draft picks succeed in the NFL. So no, I do not want a person in the first round who brags about not watching game film religiously. This is not about how good a player he was in college--if that is your point, nobody is disagreeing with you. However, since you went stats, I wanted to look to see how he did in big games against big players last year. He was not bad--but nothing said top 10 pick to me. There are players in this draft who had great stats and are day 3 players. Edge Antwaun Powell-Ryland is a day 3 prospect. He had 16 sacks in 12 games and averaged about 4 tackles per game--better than some rated higher. Should he not be a first or second round pick, based on his college production? TMac ran a good 40 at his pro day and made some announcement about not wanting to hear more about it. However, if he did not run before then, people rely on his game tape to estimate his speed-he was faster than people thought and he felt it was his place to announce it to the media. Meanwhile, Restrepo plays FASTER than his 40 time and people were shocked to see a 4.8. There is enough beyond your stats to suggest that investing a top 10 pick on him could backfire. That is all people were saying. Was he a good college player--yes, but he would have been the fourth or fifth WR last year. I think Jax loves him, so it may not matter.

No, and you have good points--however, part of his appeal is the 50/50 ball--how he wins those--when pressured it would seem that the QB would rely on a tall WR who can grab those passes--but I can't say that I saw the game. However, the original post presented stats--so I used stats to analyze his effectiveness in big games and against top level CB play. It is a team sport and when you struggle, it is rarely just you, as is the case when you have a 300-yard day. So if you use stats to present your case, I will examine the stats.

It is a leap--but we have to read the tea leaves. Think job interview, not golf. If he said, "I never watch football on TV and I only watch film when I have to..." That does not suggest a love for football. Maybe he loves playing football--you are right--but the tea leaves say he does not. My son never watched basketball on TV and liked playing it. As a sophomore, playing on varsity, he was all-county as a 5-11 forward. So I get it. It baffled me. I wonder if Dan Morgan watched film? I wonder if he watched football on TV? How much can you love football if it only interests you when you are playing? I see it as a red flag--but you could be right--but if I am spending a first round pick and millions on a player, this would bother me.

You bring up good points that could be looked into more carefully. I heard what he said--you have gym rats and film rats--and they are the people who are willing to do more than they need to do instead of what they are merely required to do. Stats? Yes. They beat New Mexico, Northern Arizona, Utah, and Houston. They were playing from behind (passing) vs. non starters quite a bit. He had a 300-yard game against New Mexico. A 200-yard game vs. a weak WVU team (6-6) during which they were playing from behind (passing more). Impressive, nonetheless. However, how did he do vs. Colorado and Hunter at CB? 38 yards. Maybe he should have watched more film. What about the big rivalry game vs. ASU at the end of the season? 68 yards. What about the big win vs. Houston, a team that was ranked 10th at the time? 50 yards. Brigham Young was ranked 14th when they played. 78 yards. these are not bad numbers, but against the top teams, he was pretty pedestrian. To me, that is why you watch film--you watch for tells or mistakes your opponent makes--you look to find some way to beat your opponent. His stats were good, but if you take out the two games vs. bad teams, (over 500 yards) he averaged about 80 yards per game on a team that was throwing a lot because they were behind a lot. If you look at the game where he was facing the equivalent of a #1 CB in the NFL, he got shut down.

Princely is supposed to go off the board between about 35 and 50, which suggests that the Panthers could move up for him--especially if they move back in round 1. I REALLY like this edge for the Panthers. Not sold on Walker (love the kid), Stewart (big ole bowl of NOPE), Williams (too much unknown about him, but he is a stud)... The film shows a pass rusher who operates best with his hand in the dirt in wide alignments where he can maximize his length and burst. His third-down impact jumps off the screen – the way he embarrassed Georgia's right tackle with a lightning-quick first step before countering inside showcases exactly what he brings to an NFL front. Moving him around the formation unlocks his versatility - he's got the juice to threaten the edge and enough savvy to loop inside on stunts, creating constant confusion for protection schemes. When studying his season-long progression at Ole Miss, his technical growth under position coach Randall Joyner stands out. Early in the year, he was winning primarily on pure athleticism. By November, he was setting up tackles with deliberate rush plans, shown perfectly in that three-game stretch where he racked up six sacks using three different signature moves. The consistency in high-leverage situations - third downs, two-minute drills, red zone - demonstrates a rusher ready to contribute in crucial passing situations from day one. After breaking down over 500 snaps, Umanmielen's blend of physical skills and technical refinement suggests a player whose development is still on a sharp upward trajectory. His dominance against SEC competition wasn't just about winning with athleticism - it was his ability to string together multiple rush moves and counter effectively when his initial plan failed. In the right system that lets him pin his ears back and hunt quarterbacks from wide alignments, he has the tools to become one of the premier pass rushers in this class. This suggests he is a learner and will work to get better. Now, the other teams that like him according to this tweet --Atlanta (picking 46th in round 2), Tampa Bay (picking 53rd in round 2), and Green Bay (picking 54th in round 2) will pick before the Panthers in Round 2. If you see Carolina trading up in in round 2 to around 43-44-45, it will cost them both 4th rounders (estimate). However, if they have a S, Edge, and WR on days 1 and 2, the fourth rounders would be worth it.

I d take him off my board after watching this---he does not have the humility and work ethic--he will get embarrassed as a pro.

I am warming to the idea for the reasons you give--he is a "sure thing" compared to those you name--you can use him all over--like a WR if needed--he is a dawg and baller. And there is no real top drawer edge rusher there at 8--a hybrid and 2 underperformer/high risk players

And the sleeper in all this is Egbuka.

You peaked my interest. He is now on my "list" of players to research.