Panthers will bring Tetairoa in for a visit

[tukafan21]

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Did you watch that Colorado game? I did. Despite being blown out Arizona ran the ball 34 times to only 26 passing attempts. Why? Because their OL absolutely could not protect the QB. They gave up more sacks (7) than they had in their six games prior to that one. It's hard to complete passes from your back or while you're running for your life and that was what they were dealing with in that game. Its like when Greg Olsen only had 4 catches for 41 yards and 0 TDs on 9 targets in SB50. Yeah, if you're just looking at the boxscore you might say that he got shutdown but if you actually watched the game you'd never talk about that because of the overall situation in the game. It wasn't that simple.

All of this too, I tried to keep mine on the box score game logs myself, since too many people only want to see the raw numbers and not game flow and the WHY of things.

People who didn't watch every Arizona game the last 2 years also just can't understand how much the offense as a whole took a step back after the coaching change.  The play design and calling was atrocious and the QB play dropped off a cliff.

I've said it before but not sure people cared... about halfway through the season T-Mac tweaked his ankle.  He came out for a play or two to get looked at but went right back in and that was it.

But the Arizona fan based was openly rooting for him to just shut it down for the year after that game because they all felt the team was screwing his draft stock and he was better off not playing than going out there and having his QB/coaches let him down.  I wish I had a video reel of all the times our QB just missed him when he was WIDE open and even just an average pass would have lead to a TD, instead it was an incomplete pass that landed 10 feet away from him.

[LinvilleGorge]

Just now, La Pantera said:

I don’t put a lot into the ‘not watching film’ controversy. He was a freshman, just shooting the poo. 
 

but with that said, I still see him as a possession-50/50 jump ball guy. With questions about his ability to separate at the pro level.

Bingo. I'm not pounding the table for T-Mac. I absolutely think he has the tools to be a good NFL WR. Great? Eh... I'm not sure I'm confident about that.

[tukafan21]

Just now, MHS831 said:

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. 

How about the stats I presented then?

[MHS831]

26 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

lol, I love when people make posts like this.

First things first, people keep pointing to the Colorado game and "what he did vs Hunter" so I'll keep pointing out that Hunter barely even played in that game because he was injured, was in and out in the first half and didn't play a snap in the 2nd half.  This was brought up a week or two ago and I think it was that T-Mac was targeted 5 times when Hunter was in coverage, catching 3 of them as well as drawing a pass interference call on him too.

Beyond that, it's also just disingenuous to point to that game this year when we had a terrible coaching staff and our QB played terribly all year, while ignoring the 9 rec, 107 yards, and TD that he put up against Colorado the year before when Hunter was healthy and played the full game, including the TD catch being in 1 on 1 coverage against Hunter.

That big ASU rivalry game where he only had 68 yards (and a TD btw)?

Okay, so if I give you that game, do I then get to count the 11 rec, 266 yards, and TD that he had in the game against ASU in 2023?

He played 15 games against ranked teams in his 3 years and had 90 rec, 1,227 yards, 9 TDs.

Which means during his college career, he averaged 82 yards per game against ranked teams, and you happened to conveniently call out 3 games where he had less than that average and a game that didn't even play out in the way you are insinuating it did.

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. 

 

Edited Sunday at 06:33 PM by MHS831

[tukafan21]

7 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

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.  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?  

He 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. 

 

So....

You use stats to say why you don't like someone, then tell another poster to present their stats and you'll look at it... but when I use stats to directly refute your stats about him in games vs ranked teams, as you looked at a 4 game sample and I showed you the full 15 game log against ranked opponents, you basically say stats don't matter as much as other things.

Okay.

Also, he wouldn't have been the 5th WR taken last year, he MIGHT have been the 4th, but that's because he would have been in direct competition with Odunze for the 3rd off the board, which means even if he did go 4th, it likely would have been right around the Top 10 anyways, but still a very legitimate shot at going 3rd before Odunze anyways.

Edited Sunday at 06:38 PM by tukafan21

[MasterAwesome]

I’m not making any arguments for or against McMillan. But to those saying WRs don’t need to watch film - is there no benefit to studying the opposing CB he’s going to be lined up against? I would think any matchup-based positional battle can benefit from studying film on the opposition. Especially a top WR who can expect to be shadowed by the #1 CB…if they can learn the CBs tendencies, strengths/weaknesses, etc and use that to exploit their matchup, that’s a part of film study.

[tukafan21]

2 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I’m not making any arguments for or against McMillan. But to those saying WRs don’t need to watch film - is there no benefit to studying the opposing CB he’s going to be lined up against? I would think any matchup-based positional battle can benefit from studying film on the opposition. Especially a top WR who can expect to be shadowed by the #1 CB…if they can learn the CBs tendencies, strengths/weaknesses, etc and use that to exploit their matchup, that’s a part of film study.

Show me one person who has said WR's don't need to watch film?

We've said it's not as important as other positions, which is true, because there is much less for a WR to study on film than any other position.

Also... he never once said he doesn't watch film, he literally in that clip says he watches it, it's just not something that he loves to do.  Lots of people love their jobs but don't love ALL aspects of it, how is this any different?

[Basbear]

7 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I’m not making any arguments for or against McMillan. But to those saying WRs don’t need to watch film - is there no benefit to studying the opposing CB he’s going to be lined up against? I would think any matchup-based positional battle can benefit from studying film on the opposition. Especially a top WR who can expect to be shadowed by the #1 CB…if they can learn the CBs tendencies, strengths/weaknesses, etc and use that to exploit their matchup, that’s a part of film study.

 Brother NFL is now all meetings and film study during the 8-10 hours these players are "working". During the 6 daily film watch, Im sure CBs will be studied. Not everyone needs to luke or Peyton. 

Edited Sunday at 06:48 PM by Basbear

[MHS831]

25 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Bingo. I'm not pounding the table for T-Mac. I absolutely think he has the tools to be a good NFL WR. Great? Eh... I'm not sure I'm confident about that.

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.

2 minutes ago, tukafan21 said:

Show me one person who has said WR's don't need to watch film?

We've said it's not as important as other positions, which is true, because there is much less for a WR to study on film than any other position.

Also... he never once said he doesn't watch film, he literally in that clip says he watches it, it's just not something that he loves to do.  Lots of people love their jobs but don't love ALL aspects of it, how is this any different?

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.

[Lurk21]

He could be ok but we can't afford to have Kelvin Benjamin all over again. Not at pick 8...

[CmC2k]

11 minutes ago, Lurk21 said:

He could be ok but we can't afford to have Kelvin Benjamin all over again. Not at pick 8...

Rookie Kelvin Benjamin was a stud. It's a shame his career went the way it did because I had such high hopes for him after that season. 

[Lurk21]

6 minutes ago, CmC2k said:

Rookie Kelvin Benjamin was a stud. It's a shame his career went the way it did because I had such high hopes for him after that season. 

He was but that work ethic ran him right out the league fast!

[Tr3ach]

1 hour ago, MHS831 said:

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. 

He's not even that great at true contested catches.  A handful of people are going to find ways to spin or ignore everything for their love of this guy and that's fine.  No one will know who's right for a while. 

[LinvilleGorge]

49 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

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.

He's a projected 1st round pick, likely high 1st round pick. Teams are going to absolutely POUR through his background. They're going to talk to everyone they can find who knows this guy. Current and former teachers, current and former coaches, current and former teammates, current and ex-girlfriends, current and former friends, and on and on. If the guy is lazy and/or doesn't love football they'll find out.