MHS831

Thanks for this....This is the upside, and people like McShay and scouts see things that I am not trained to see. Specimens, workout warriors, developmental--he says that he has things to work on and he is only 20--why not stay in school for another season? To be fair, this excites me in that he could be a diamond in the rough. But at #8? Remember, about 15 of the 32 GMs/teams/scouting departments pick guys who underperform every year. Having said that, with Clowney and Wonnum and Jones on the roster now, Williams would have some mentors for a season and would be ready to take over as the Alpha edge in 2026. However, I wonder "which edge?" Most 4-3 prototypes that convert to a 3-4 play the strong side, not the pin your ears back side. I dunno. Maybe I just can't see it yet.

I hope you are right--while I see his potential, I do not see the value on film--my untrained eye.

I would also add that, aside from drafting what may be a raw, developmental player, he is 20. He had an injury-plagued year, and was second-team all SEC. He is opting to come out when he could have stayed and improved his status and refined his technique. So he is developmental. Next, he sure fits the profile for a 4-3 DE and not a 3-4 Edge. So will we be drafting a developmental 20-year old and playing him out of position? And the comparisons to Myles Garrett: Garrett ran a 4.65 at his Tex AM pro day. Mykel ran a 4.75 at his pro day.

And now that the offense is better (should be with a WR addition or two) and the defense can stop the run (on paper for now), teams will be forced to throw it more. If our personnel is geared towards stopping the run as a priority, then the obvious reaction will be that we are forcing the pass. Without addressing pressure from the edge (I think we have from the DL), are we forcing the offense to expose another weakness? Can our LBs cover? Can our CBs stay healthy and reduce penalties? Do we have a free safety? How good is our nickel? I think offense is easier to rebuild because you can control the action when you design plays. Defenses have to react to the play, so it is harder.

This is, in my view, how the teams "overthink" it. First, they make comparisons to someone based on measurements and timed workouts. Myles Garrett in this case, wherein if someone had put Williams beside the #1 overall draft pick in 2000, Courtney Brown out of Penn State, both 6'5", both around 260, etc. one might be equally impressed. I think it might hurt his stock. Brown stayed injured, playing in 61 games over 6 seasons in the NFL and totaled 19 sacks. Beware of any comparison between a prospect and a known commodity. That is cherry picking and it gives you a false image of the actual player. Compare Williams' accomplishments in college to Myles Garrett--very different. Even by comparing him to Courtney Brown, Williams falls embarrassingly short of his accomplishments. This is not to say that anyone is right or wrong--nobody knows for sure at this point, but it is to say no two players, no two situations, and no two coaching staffs are alike. All this to support your point--who is to say that he will reach his potential and exceed his actual performance? To me, it seems that success in college is the best predictor of success in the NFL, but rarely does someone improve their degree of success in the NFL from college. There could be variables associated with our measuring sticks--such as sacks--that were not part of his responsibilities in college, but in this case, we are acknowledging run stopping abilities and assuming pass rushing abilities. If he was not often rushing the passer in college, it seems he would be behind in the technical and mechanical aspects of rushing the passer, making him developmental. Do we want "developmental" at #8? Not saying anyone is right or anyone is wrong, just questioning the logic applied when reaching conclusions.

I have this --not sure about the OT NE takes, but Campbell does seem to fit....short arms and all--he can play. Jeanty the Raiders is a near lock--but the pick that is interesting to me is Jax. I have Jax taking Graham, like you. But I keep hearing the rumor that they really want TMac. I see Sanders falling. Some say, "there is always a team that will reach" and that is a valid point. This top of the draft is weird in that most teams have a starting QB. if he gets passed Cleveland, he could fall. The Giants have 2 QBs added to the roster and will want to give them weapons. I don't see them doing to Russell what Atlanta did to Cousins. Lotta folks think they will jump on Sanders, but they have a hall of famer and a good backup--to take Sanders, they would have to pass on Hunter or Carter---too much risk. After that, NE has a QB, Jax has a QB, Raiders have a QB, and the Jets COULD feel that they have a QB in Fields--after Cleveland, I think the Jets are the next possible landing spot, and I am not sure they will take him--Fields was pretty good in Pittsburgh before Wilson took over. Panthers have a QB, and you could even argue that New Orleans now has a QB in Carr--but the chance that they might take Sanders will be enough to get the Colts or Steelers to call Dan Morgan. If the Colts have given up on Richardson, it probably will be the team that needs a QB in best position to move up--not sure how they feel about Jones--I could see a rebirth like Geno Smith if they gave him a complete offense. It is possible they are happy about Jones and Pittsburgh trades up.

Well said. we usually develop our opinions based on the websites we frequent, highlight reels, discussion boards, and NFL Network. In that process, we call ourselves "informed," but we really are not. Unfortunately, neither are the experts. It still blows my mind that first rounders have successful careers 53% of the time, and second rounders are about half of that. So as hard as we (and they) pound the table for this player or that player, it is a crap shoot in the first round and in the second, it is worse than the odds playing craps in Vegas. And they (the experts) have combines and pro days and interviews etc. and they still suck at it. All that to say, I am wrong as much as the GMs are-that should make me feel good, but it does not. You have to recall who you pounded the table for in the drafts four or five years ago and see where they are now. Acting like I know and they do not is stupid, so I hope that they see what I cannot. I think the best chance of hitting a home run in round 1: Jeanty.

I said I am old school. With ya.

not the same thing. And it is "Were" his shoelaces tied differently? I did not ask for anyone's approval--never do. Crazy hair is not about money. Funny Shorts are not about money-since you asked. Dollar signs are about money. Here is what I should have explained because I assumed everyone already understands this: Somebody is going to reach for Sanders. Some team, their fans, and their GM are looking for a QB to get them to the next level. He shows up with Diamond Necklaces, talking about how he is mentally superior to everyone else, wearing a dollar sign shirt--if that is what your looking for, he is your guy. On your next job interview, tie your shoelaces differently, make your hair look crazy, and wear funny looking shorts--and a shirt with a huge $ sign on the back. Good luck.

Just watched Sanders at his Buffalo showcase (pro day to mortals). He had a dollar sign on the back of his shirt. I am old school, and that would bother me if I were a GM--he is destined to be a mediocre QB on many boards, so why would you make a team think $$$ is your motivation? He is already a millionaire. His dad is a millionaire. We get it, but maybe a football on your shirt would have been more appropriate. I am sure someone will say "But that is his symbol or trademark." I don't know that it is, but if so, he chose it. His towel on the field had a $ too--in college, when most of your team is not making bank. I just smell entitlement. Talk me out of it.

Addison is a good example of a late bloomer who found his niche. We just cant draft another Everette Brown.

I thin Good comparison--But Barno was a sixth rounder---so Shemar is much riskier, which illustrates your point.

We have added DTs/DEs that can get to the QB and collapse the pocket. for that reason alone, our pass rush should be better. Most QBs nullify a 9 tech by stepping up. Take that away

And you have to think of roster spots--When I was in college the coach said, "This is the depth chart. Look at it closely--some will be happy, some will be upset. Understand that by the end of the season, this will look totally different. So save this until December, and compare it to the depth chart then." So I tend to think of the bottom of the roster that way--does a player show that he is trying to become a starter? I did see it in Johnson a bit and in Hardy a lot. I am not seeing it with these guys. I also consider the fact that Clowney will be gone in 2026 and Wonnum will not be under contract. We have Jones for two years. So if we add an edge in 2025 and again in 2026, we should be fine. That is why part of me wants to take our time and see if anything materializes, but I just don't see it. I have more faith in Barno, fwiw.

This is all I could find---and it is quoting Joe Person as the source. https://sports.yahoo.com/article/georgia-edge-rusher-receiving-major-111524875.html