Tavon Wilson - Lightning Rod o'Controversy (Poll)

[patsfan06]

Here's the thing Sciz. Its not about the player its about the slot. Clearly Bill liked the kid based on his own evaluations enough to think he was the 3rd best S in the draft. And its also clear that Bill, at least, thought there might be other teams who agreed with him, and who would grab him before his next pick.

My question is, SO WHAT?. Even if you assume that SD would have picked him. Even if you assume that he's a good enough player to eventually become a starter. What I'm trying to figure out is what about this kid makes him THAT much better than the half dozen other safety prospects that would have been there at 62 who had measurables and production at LEAST as good as Wilson,and some much better.

I'm sure it wouldn't have been the first time someone grabbed a player BB was targeting. I keep thinking that if he had taken the risk, he MIGHT have been rewarded. But even if SD DID pick him, its not exactly the end of the world. Its not exactly like Wilson is the kind of player that projects to one you just HAVE to have.

Its always risk vs reward. The risk was a player who, at best, could be clumped in with a number of other guys that might get scouped, and the reward might have a decent DE/DT prospect (ie Reyes) or at least a much better trade value than the one they got from GB and STILL walk away with a decent DB prospect

EXPECTATIONS: at this slot BB HAS to project this kid as a future starter by his 2nd year. Given what we know right now, that outcome would be surprising. BUT I surely hope it will happen.

"So what that Green Bay traded up to get Clay Matthews. He wouldn't fit our scheme anyways."

That is what Pats fans do. If San Diego picked Tavon Wilson at 49 cause we passed on him at 48 and he became a star in year one or two people would whine nonstop here.

Sure there is an element of "blind faith" when it comes to the draft, but Bill Belichick does his research, he knows much more about these players than all of us here, along with all of the media combined. It's unfair to Bill, the team and it's fans to assume that just because some so called "experts" thought he was going to be a 6th round guy, they were right. Patriots have their finger on the pulse of the league and that is why they have been so successful for the past 10 years.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's the thing Sciz. Its not about the player its about the slot. Clearly Bill liked the kid based on his own evaluations enough to think he was the 3rd best S in the draft. And its also clear that Bill, at least, thought there might be other teams who agreed with him, and who would grab him before his next pick.

My question is, SO WHAT?. Even if you assume that SD would have picked him. Even if you assume that he's a good enough player to eventually become a starter. What I'm trying to figure out is what about this kid makes him THAT much better than the half dozen other safety prospects that would have been there at 62 who had measurables and production at LEAST as good as Wilson,and some much better.

I'm sure it wouldn't have been the first time someone grabbed a player BB was targeting. I keep thinking that if he had taken the risk, he MIGHT have been rewarded. But even if SD DID pick him, its not exactly the end of the world. Its not exactly like Wilson is the kind of player that projects to one you just HAVE to have.

You can make this argument with any pick. Why did we HAVE TO HAVE Jones? What if someone else was going to take him? So what. We could have traded down (or not traded up) and gotten another guy with similar measurables and production. Same with Hightower, Gronk, Mayo, everyone ever drafted.
If he is the guy you want you take him.
You are taking your opinion that the wrong guy was selected and trying to turn it philosophical.
BB thought Wilson was the best pick, and that is who he wanted. Same with Jones and Hightower. He did not want to risk trading down, because this is the guy he wanted, clearly well above any other S. Dispute the rating if you wish, but to dispute the philiosphy is to say no player is worth pulling the trigger for.

Its always risk vs reward. The risk was a player who, at best, could be clumped in with a number of other guys that might get scouped, and the reward might have a decent DE/DT prospect (ie Reyes) or at least a much better trade value than the one they got from GB and STILL walk away with a decent DB prospect

But this is the player he wanted, and the risk of losing him was greater than the reward of trading out, in BBs judgment. You act as if BB didn't consider risk and reward and made the pick out of some irrational reasoning, simply because you don't understand what he sees in the player.

EXPECTATIONS: at this slot BB HAS to project this kid as a future starter by his 2nd year. Given what we know right now, that outcome would be surprising. BUT I surely hope it will happen.

I would add 'potential' in front of future starter, because there is no way that any NFL team is so misguided to think a 2nd round pick has a 100% chance (or anything close to that) or meeting the expectation of a good pick in that slot.

 

[Ring 6]

Belichick has had enough bad DB picks over the last few years that I'm reluctant to give him the benefit of doubt on the Wilson pick. But, when you look at Wilson's resume (3 yr starter for BCS Conference team , team captain with solid size and speed measurables), my opinion is it looks more like the 2nd round pick the Patriots made him than the UDFA the "draft experts" made him.

This is such a subjective process powered by hype. Kids actually do slip through the cracks which is why it is likely that a Pro-Bowler or two will emerge from this year's UDFA class.

You should take a look back at the DB picks
Dowling started day 1 before being injured
McCourty started day 1, probowl starter and 2nd team all pro as a rookie
Chung solid starter, and good return on a 2 so far
Meriwhether, started 40 games when to 2 probowls
Sanders long time contributor, outplayed draft slot
Wilhite 4th round pick that made contibutions, started at times.
Butler bad pick
Wheatley, bad pick, possibly due to injuries possibly not
Hobbs long time starter on good football teams that had excellent defenses when he was the starter

That is going back a long way, and any objective analysis would call that a very good drafting performance.

 

[Observer]

Well, one thing is for sure - we are going to find out whether our FO throws darts in the dark hoping something will stick or if they really know more than most how to evaluate talent. (I am not too optimistic given the track record for drafting DBs.)

The other alternative is that they have given up trying to evaluate a DB because whatever they get mostly suck anyway. Might as well pick names from a hat at that point.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, one thing is for sure - we are going to find out whether our FO throws darts in the dark hoping something will stick or if they really know more than most how to evaluate talent. (I am not too optimistic given the track record for drafting DBs.)

The other alternative is that they have given up trying to evaluate a DB because whatever they get mostly suck anyway. Might as well pick names from a hat at that point.

Please expand on the terrible record you see with DB draft choices that you think should have BB throw names in a hat because a random guess would be better than he and his staffs exhaustive scouting process.
I already gave you a headstart above by listing pretty much every recent pick of consequence, so it shouldn't be too hard for you.

 

[patfanken]

You can make this argument with any pick. Why did we HAVE TO HAVE Jones? What if someone else was going to take him? So what. We could have traded down (or not traded up) and gotten another guy with similar measurables and production. Same with Hightower, Gronk, Mayo, everyone ever drafted.
If he is the guy you want you take him. You are taking your opinion that the wrong guy was selected and trying to turn it philosophical.

I have to disagree with your interpretation. This is an entirely DIFFERENT situation than Jones Gonk, and Mayo. All those players "popped" in some respect They had skills or physical abilities, or production that stood out and made them worth a high pick. Even those that ultimately failed, like Chad Jackson fit that description.

BB thought Wilson was the best pick, and that is who he wanted. Same with Jones and Hightower. He did not want to risk trading down, because this is the guy he wanted, clearly well above any other S. Dispute the rating if you wish, but to dispute the philiosphy is to say no player is worth pulling the trigger for.

Thanks for stating the obvious AJ. But the question I'd like answered is what skill, physical ability or production did Wilson show that separated him from the rest of the S class. If Bill had decided that Wilson was truly a "must have guy" in the middle of the 2nd round, there HAD to be something that "popped" for him and his personnel guys. I'd like to know what it was.

But this is the player he wanted, and the risk of losing him was greater than the reward of trading out, in BBs judgment. You act as if BB didn't consider risk and reward and made the pick out of some irrational reasoning, simply because you don't understand what he sees in the player

.Hey Andy, we are fans. Its our job to question the activities of the teams we follow. Bill is not capricious or a fool. However in this case, given what we know, and the "current wisdom", I think its fair to question the move, and ask for more than the standard line as to why he made it. I am curious as hell to figure out what motivated him to choose this player

I would add 'potential' in front of future starter, because there is no way that any NFL team is so misguided to think a 2nd round pick has a 100% chance (or anything close to that) or meeting the expectation of a good pick in that slot.

Did you miss the caps where I led with EXPECTATIONS. OF COURSE, no team thinks a 100% of their 2nd round picks will become "starters". However when teams draft a kid in the 2nd round 100% do so with the EXPECTATION that they will....and then hope for the best.

If BB draft Wilson in the 2nd round, I have to believe that its HIS expectation that he will eventually become a starter or someone who gets 50% or more of the defensive snaps on the regular D. Its hard to tell what a "starter" is on defense anymore with all the sub packages

 

[Ring 6]

I have to disagree with your interpretation. This is an entirely DIFFERENT situation than Jones Gonk, and Mayo. All those players "popped" in some respect They had skills or physical abilities, or production that stood out and made them worth a high pick. Even those that ultimately failed, like Chad Jackson fit that description.

They are only different because you don't like the pick. BB feels this player has the ability to be value at the 48th pick. You seem to not want to accept that, and feel he simply abandoned his own philosophy for some bizarre reason.

Thanks for stating the obvious AJ. But the question I'd like answered is what skill, physical ability or production did Wilson show that separated him from the rest of the S class.

I don't know. I did not evaluate, interview, study, work out and analyze the guy like I got paid millions a year to do so and my livlihood depended on doing it well.

If Bill had decided that Wilson was truly a "must have guy" in the middle of the 2nd round, there HAD to be something that "popped" for him and his personnel guys. I'd like to know what it was.

Well clearly that was the case. I don't know why you demanding to know the reason on this pick changes anything.
Or are you saying there was no reason and he just said WTF lets do something stupid?

.Hey Andy, we are fans. Its our job to question the activities of the teams we follow.

That is our JOB? In what way? I don't think I have a responsibility to question the activities of the team, and I am sure that it wouldn't accomplish anything if I did. Are you seriously telling me that you hope to influence BB by complaining about the pick?

Bill is not capricious or a fool. However in this case, given what we know, and the "current wisdom", I think its fair to question the move, and ask for more than the standard line as to why he made it. I am curious as hell to figure out what motivated him to choose this player

The key phrase is 'given what we know'.
Do you really expect that you not liking the pick will result in BB calling a press conference to open up the scouting process and explain to you how they evaluated the player, and then go on to describe the draft process and how he concludes whether to take a player or trade down? Really?
There is no way you are going to know what BBs thought process was. You know that, so its kind of a disingenuous rationalization for complaining.

Did you miss the caps where I led with EXPECTATIONS. OF COURSE, no team thinks a 100% of their 2nd round picks will become "starters". However when teams draft a kid in the 2nd round 100% do so with the EXPECTATION that they will....and then hope for the best.

Do you have that much objection to me clarifying that many 2nd round picks don't meet expectations so those picks are not made as expected to fill a starter role, but POTENTIALLY should be added in front of it?

If BB draft Wilson in the 2nd round, I have to believe that its HIS expectation that he will eventually become a starter or someone who gets 50% or more of the defensive snaps on the regular D. Its hard to tell what a "starter" is on defense anymore with all the sub packages

I agree, but as I am saying you have to temper that with the reality that 2nd round picks do not always work out. He didn't make the pick because he felt it was 100% that Wilson will become a 'starter' but because the chance was a good as you can expect at 48, which may be 50%.

 

[JMarr]

Here's the thing Sciz. Its not about the player its about the slot. Clearly Bill liked the kid based on his own evaluations enough to think he was the 3rd best S in the draft. And its also clear that Bill, at least, thought there might be other teams who agreed with him, and who would grab him before his next pick.

My question is, SO WHAT?. Even if you assume that SD would have picked him. Even if you assume that he's a good enough player to eventually become a starter. What I'm trying to figure out is what about this kid makes him THAT much better than the half dozen other safety prospects that would have been there at 62 who had measurables and production at LEAST as good as Wilson,and some much better.

I'm sure it wouldn't have been the first time someone grabbed a player BB was targeting. I keep thinking that if he had taken the risk, he MIGHT have been rewarded. But even if SD DID pick him, its not exactly the end of the world. Its not exactly like Wilson is the kind of player that projects to one you just HAVE to have.

Its always risk vs reward. The risk was a player who, at best, could be clumped in with a number of other guys that might get scouped, and the reward might have a decent DE/DT prospect (ie Reyes) or at least a much better trade value than the one they got from GB and STILL walk away with a decent DB prospect

EXPECTATIONS: at this slot BB HAS to project this kid as a future starter by his 2nd year. Given what we know right now, that outcome would be surprising. BUT I surely hope it will happen.

No, it's not all about the slot he was taken in. That's only if you're talking about a BPA-based draft strategy. Even though none of us has a clue how the Pats set up their board any given year, it's safe to assume that this draft was very "need" oriented.

What are you not understanding about the idea that BB seems to have felt that Safety was a very high priority, he took the one that he liked the most in that slot, and that apparently he liked Wilson enough not to risk anyone else grabbing him between 48 and 63?

Edit: There's also a good chance that the Pats tried to trade out of 48 and simply couldn't.

 

[Observer]

Please expand on the terrible record you see with DB draft choices that you think should have BB throw names in a hat because a random guess would be better than he and his staffs exhaustive scouting process.
I already gave you a headstart above by listing pretty much every recent pick of consequence, so it shouldn't be too hard for you.

I will only augment your own list of "objective" analysis with my subjective interpretation:

You should take a look back at the DB picks
Dowling started day 1 before being injured : (My interpretation: did not contribute, vindicated those that claimed he was "injury-prone").

McCourty started day 1, probowl starter and 2nd team all pro as a rookie:
(My interpretation: Cannot mention 2nd year performance because he stunk badly enough that he had to be moved to safety, conceding his spot to Sterling Moore et. al.)

Chung solid starter, and good return on a 2 so far
(My interpretation: Good starter, worth his money and pick)

Meriwhether, started 40 games when to 2 probowls
(My interpretation: Sucked so bad in spite of the accolades that he had to be shipped out in favour of Sergio Brown et. al.)

Sanders long time contributor, outplayed draft slot
(My interpretation: Good value, worth his draft spot)

Wilhite 4th round pick that made contibutions, started at times.
(My interpretation: Wilhite had to start because others sucked badly)

Butler bad pick
(My interpretation: did not live up to his draft spot)

Wheatley, bad pick, possibly due to injuries possibly not
(My interpretation: add another one to the list)

Hobbs long time starter on good football teams that had excellent defenses when he was the starter
(My interpretation: ancient history and still only an average contributor)

That is going back a long way, and any objective analysis would call that a very good drafting performance.

My interpretation: You seem to think that if someone can start on the team, it is a good draft pick. I do not subscribe to that thinking.

 

[Husse]

As far as the pick goes it's a headscratcher for fans.

I don't expect Wilson to ever be more than a solid starter, maybe with potential to be more. And I think that in itself is his biggest upside.

My interpretation is that he is consistent, something this team badly needs in the secondary. The safety position has been a revolving door as far starting players, you can't even rely on Patrick Chung who has played 22 of 32 regular season games the last two seasons. That stability in itself might make the secondary better because of the consistency and not having to adjust to different players back there all the time.

He might not be the flashy pick that might go to the HOF or be out of the league in 3 years. He is a known commodity that is durable and has started all games for Illi the last 3 years. Low floor and low ceiling kind of guy.

I have no problem with that draft-stategy, Bill will rely on his play-makers in the front 7 instead.

 

[Marqui]

As far as the pick goes it's a headscratcher for fans.

I don't expect Wilson to ever be more than a solid starter, maybe with potential to be more. And I think that in itself is his biggest upside.

My interpretation is that he is consistent, something this team badly needs in the secondary. The safety position has been a revolving door as far starting players, you can't even rely on Patrick Chung who has played 22 of 32 regular season games the last two seasons. That stability in itself might make the secondary better because of the consistency and not having to adjust to different players back there all the time.

He might not be the flashy pick that might go to the HOF or be out of the league in 3 years. He is a known commodity that is durable and has started all games for Illi the last 3 years. Low floor and low ceiling kind of guy.

I have no problem with that draft-stategy, Bill will rely on his play-makers in the front 7 instead.

Yea based on the Merriweather release, the Steve Gregory signing, and now the Wilson pick it seems to me like Belichick has given up on trying to find playmakers at safety and is just trying to get some reliable stability back there.

 

[Ring 6]

My response to your comments in bold

I will only augment your own list of "objective" analysis with my subjective interpretation:

You should take a look back at the DB picks
Dowling started day 1 before being injured : (My interpretation: did not contribute, vindicated those that claimed he was "injury-prone").
sustaining an injury as a rookie does not mean the talent evaluation was bad
McCourty started day 1, probowl starter and 2nd team all pro as a rookie:
(My interpretation: Cannot mention 2nd year performance because he stunk badly enough that he had to be moved to safety, conceding his spot to Sterling Moore et. al.)
he started all season at corner. he was moved to safety in sub because our safeties stunk. even with your comment his first 2 years are a good return on a late 1, anyone would agree with that
Chung solid starter, and good return on a 2 so far
(My interpretation: Good starter, worth his money and pick)
ok
Meriwhether, started 40 games when to 2 probowls
(My interpretation: Sucked so bad in spite of the accolades that he had to be shipped out in favour of Sergio Brown et. al.)
If you are saying that a player who plays 4 years for a team, is a starter for 3 and cuts released in the 5th is a bad pick and indicates a poor ability of evaluation of talent at his position, then you clearly are interested in defending your point by any means and not arriving at the truth
Sanders long time contributor, outplayed draft slot
(My interpretation: Good value, worth his draft spot)
ok
Wilhite 4th round pick that made contibutions, started at times.
(My interpretation: Wilhite had to start because others sucked badly)
Huh? see above, you aren't even trying for honesty here. Was what we got from Wilhite a good return on a 4?
Butler bad pick
(My interpretation: did not live up to his draft spot)
agreed, but we can also agree it was a consensus that he was widely believed worthy of that spot. your argument is that the Wilson picks stinks because BB doesnt know how to evaluate DBs. In this case, everyone pretty much agreed
Wheatley, bad pick, possibly due to injuries possibly not
(My interpretation: add another one to the list)
yup bad pick and the percentage of bad is still way lower than the norm
Hobbs long time starter on good football teams that had excellent defenses when he was the starter
(My interpretation: ancient history and still only an average contributor)
excellent return on a 3. If you go back to Wheatley you should go back to the guy beofre him.
That is going back a long way, and any objective analysis would call that a very good drafting performance.

My interpretation: You seem to think that if someone can start on the team, it is a good draft pick. I do not subscribe to that thinking.

What are you doing when you draft? Trying to not find starters?
This track record is very good, regardless of your vague attempts to disparage it.
Feel free to find as many other teams as you wish and list their DB draft choices and compare.

 

[Deus Irae]

As far as the pick goes it's a headscratcher for fans.

I don't expect Wilson to ever be more than a solid starter, maybe with potential to be more. And I think that in itself is his biggest upside.

My interpretation is that he is consistent, something this team badly needs in the secondary. The safety position has been a revolving door as far starting players, you can't even rely on Patrick Chung who has played 22 of 32 regular season games the last two seasons. That stability in itself might make the secondary better because of the consistency and not having to adjust to different players back there all the time.

He might not be the flashy pick that might go to the HOF or be out of the league in 3 years. He is a known commodity that is durable and has started all games for Illi the last 3 years. Low floor and low ceiling kind of guy.

I have no problem with that draft-stategy, Bill will rely on his play-makers in the front 7 instead.

I think the Patriots are pretty high on Chung as a playmaker. I think they love year 1 McCourty and probably expect him back. I think they were sold on Dowling (had him starting out of the blocks) and expect him to return to that role. Looking at it that way, and looking at Arrington as the nickel unless he's beaten out, I see a team that just needs a James Sanders in the defensive backfield to settle it down, and probably thinks that McCourty and Chung will be able to make a fair amount of big plays.

Having said that, I won't be shocked if they draft a safety high again next year.

 

[Husse]

I think the Patriots are pretty high on Chung as a playmaker. I think they love year 1 McCourty and probably expect him back. I think they were sold on Dowling (had him starting out of the blocks) and expect him to return to that role. Looking at it that way, and looking at Arrington as the nickel unless he's beaten out, I see a team that just needs a James Sanders in the defensive backfield to settle it down, and probably thinks that McCourty and Chung will be able to make a fair amount of big plays.

Having said that, I won't be shocked if they draft a safety high again next year.

Yes, I contemplated editing the post and adding that the secondary does have its share of playmakers, but decided I was too lazy to do it. Your point is absolutely correct in my opinion.

 

[TomPatriot]

As far as the pick goes it's a headscratcher for fans.

I don't expect Wilson to ever be more than a solid starter, maybe with potential to be more. And I think that in itself is his biggest upside.

My interpretation is that he is consistent, something this team badly needs in the secondary. The safety position has been a revolving door as far starting players, you can't even rely on Patrick Chung who has played 22 of 32 regular season games the last two seasons. That stability in itself might make the secondary better because of the consistency and not having to adjust to different players back there all the time.

He might not be the flashy pick that might go to the HOF or be out of the league in 3 years. He is a known commodity that is durable and has started all games for Illi the last 3 years. Low floor and low ceiling kind of guy.

I have no problem with that draft-stategy, Bill will rely on his play-makers in the front 7 instead.

Having now watched tape on him, I think I finally get why they drafted him. Everything he does poorly or inconsistently, can be taught, coached or cured and he can significantly improve in those areas. Everything that can't be coached, he does fairly well. He has Ed Reed size and speed and durability, great desire, is immensely coachable and can overcome adversity. Give a good coach all that and he should be able to give you a productive player in return.

 

[State]

Having now watched tape on him, I think I finally get why they drafted him. Everything he does poorly or inconsistently, can be taught, coached or cured and he can significantly improve in those areas. Everything that can't be coached, he does fairly well. He has Ed Reed size and speed and durability, great desire, is immensely coachable and can overcome adversity. Give a good coach all that and he should be able to give you a productive player in return.

This is an excellent point. The coaching staff at Illinois left a lot to be desired. For half of Wilson's career it was really bad.

His native skills and size can't be taught, but the paltry scheme can be adjusted.

This is another reason Illinois had the first round player taken at WR. The team is like the Patriots of the late 1970s and early 1980s: the talent's there but they can't put it together.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

McCourty started day 1, probowl starter and 2nd team all pro as a rookie:
(My interpretation: Cannot mention 2nd year performance because he stunk badly enough that he had to be moved to safety, conceding his spot to Sterling Moore et. al.)

We can go back and forth on a lot of these players, some of it is subjective, some of it is looking at the rest of the league, some of it is luck, some of it is poor picks.

But on McCourty, I have no idea how you could interpret anything close to what you did. It's like you're using a German dictionary to translate French to Korean.

Yes, he struggled his second season, but he was not moved to safety for poor performance, nor did he "concede" his spot.

If performance was truly the issue, he would have been benched. Kyle Arrington tied for the lead league in interceptions but was still benched when he performed poorly. McCourty never did.

The only games McCourty did not start at corner were the ones he was injured for. If he was available, he started at corner.

He didn't even play at safety until week 17. Even after that point, he continued to start at his usual left cornerback spot. Against the Ravens in the AFCCG, he played more snaps at corner than safety according (35 vs. 31 according to ESPN).

McCourty also started the Super Bowl at left cornerback, only moving to safety in sub packages, and played every single snap. I don't have an exact snap count breakdown of positions for the Super Bowl and I'm not willing to re-watch it for this conversation, but for what it's worth, starting safety Ihedigbo played 61 of 73 snaps vs. 30 for Moore and 25 for Molden, which means a lot of McCourty's snaps were at corner.

The guy who starts every single game he's available at the position, even after he's moved somewhere else to help out part-time, is not the guy who has lost his job due to performance, especially to the guy who didn't even play half the game.

 

[patchick]

...I see a team that just needs a James Sanders in the defensive backfield to settle it down...

Having now watched tape on him, I think I finally get why they drafted him. Everything he does poorly or inconsistently, can be taught, coached or cured and he can significantly improve in those areas. Everything that can't be coached, he does fairly well. He has Ed Reed size and speed and durability, great desire, is immensely coachable and can overcome adversity. Give a good coach all that and he should be able to give you a productive player in return.

OK, put those together and then consider that the safety prospects most fans seemed to favor, Trumaine Johnson and George Iloka, both had question marks about attitude and temper. Honestly, the cupboard was pretty bare if you wanted a smart, steady leader with safety experience to qb your secondary.

Of course, it's perfectly possible to love the player but hate the pick, or the lack of a trade down before making it. (Like hate the sin, love the sinner?)

 

[Jmacz]

Just from an eye test, and doing a little research on the kid, I actually like him. He ran a 4.50 which is average speed, but considering the last two safety's we drafted (Brandon Meriweather and Pat Chung) both ran a 4.49 speed shouldn't be a problem. He seems to have good closing speed, and is a solid tackler. Can't really tell much about his coverage skills, but he seems to put him self in the right place at the right time a lot. Typical BB type of player imo. He doesn't do anything really special, but he's pretty good at everything.

Remember Eugene Wilson was also a CB/S prospect coming out of Illinois, that worked out pretty well.

 

[unoriginal]

He has Ed Reed size and speed and durability

One would hope so! Ed Reed clocked at 4.57 in his private workouts, nothing to get excited about.

Meanwhile, the twitter rumor was Tavon Wilson clocked in the mid 4.4s during his private workouts, which is why he shot up the boards.

So if he has better than Ed Reed speed, he has worse-than-Ed-Reed recognition and technique, as you implied.