The 2026 Draft Thread - 1st Round - 7th overall

I do not believe Lemon is capable of playing Z. Defenders will pin him to the sideline or straight up out of bounds if he's asked to run a route up the sideline.

I also want to stress that his 40 time was around 4.5, it was hand timed and not laser, and in order to get that he ran with such maximum exertion that his eyes were closed. That's not his play speed.

I think he's slot only.
 
Always Commander Never Captain said:
I do not believe Lemon is capable of playing Z. Defenders will pin him to the sideline or straight up out of bounds if he's asked to run a route up the sideline.

I also want to stress that his 40 time was around 4.5, it was hand timed and not laser, and in order to get that he ran with such maximum exertion that his eyes were closed. That's not his play speed.

I think he's slot only.
Click to expand...
I think he is primarily a slot. But a Z is the same thing, in essence, just aligned outside.

Still off the LoS.

an outside corner could be more skilled at press techniques than a slot corner. But he’s still off, and you can use motions to get him more wiggle room.

He didn’t get obliterated by press, anyways. That’s a large scale exaggeration.

I wouldn’t start him at Z, and I’d very rarely want to utilize him on the line of scrimmage. But he’d absolutely be able to transition out there.

My only hesitation is that he is 5-11 with shorter arms and NFL outside corners who are strong in press could be problematic in his first year or two.

His release package is fine. And he’s solidly built. He just needs to refine it and not get bumped with a bit more consistency to be a full time Z
 
I watched 6 Ohio State games this morning focused mostly on Styles.

I think he will be a good player. I get it albiet some hyperbole from Todd McShay that he's the safest player in this draft. I think he's going to be anything from good to great. If I was forced to bet, I'd go great. Now that doesn't mean he's my top want at 7 -- but that's nothing to do with him but all about do I want a MLB that high. It's also a slow burn position often -- Devin Lloyd is great now but he wasn't great as a rookie, plenty of examples like that.

I'll start with my issues with him.

A. Lacks a mean streak. So many of their players ironically have a bit of a mean streak including Sonny's brother.
B. Too afraid to overpursue -- he puts the breaks on his runs too much in fear of overshooting the play. It's fine but he overdoes it.
C. I'd love to see more of him flattening players to secure the tackle, he has to the physique to do it.
D. He's a beat behind on some passing plays

I've watched some of his interviews and he comes too like too much of a nice guy, too humble. And I wonder if that's part of the issue. You watch Caleb's interviews in contrast, he's mature like Sonny, but he has a big ego. And while the ego can be off putting, I think you might need some arrogance to excel.

What I liked

A. Range, he can cover some serious ground. And his instincts are good enough -- read and react. Not elite instincts but to my eyes they are good.

B. His length is on display and big time. While he doesn't have the traditional spash plays -- his diving tackles are things of beauty. It's like watching a short stop, like Ozzie Smith for those who might recall that era with a lot of range. Some really spectacular diving tackles -- does it laterally and from behind.

C. He runs with TEs effortlessly. It was freakish for me to watch considering this team don't major in LBs who can do that.

D. As a pass rusher he comes at the QB fast. You see the 4.4 speed

E. There are some glimpses of thumping tackles, you got them on occasion. So his coaches IMO just have to bring it out of him more. But you do see the occasiional tackle with attitude

F. He doesn't miss tackles


Mixed:

A. Shedding tackles sometimes he does it effortlessly, and sometimes gets lost in the wash

B. As a pass rusher, sometimes it looks like he has a plan and sometimes he is just trying to run by guys

C. His tackling style gets the job done, but for a dude with his agility he should be able to get lower, he tackles high, sometimes he will just push the player without bringing them down. It works in college but will it in the pros.

Overall, though really good player IMO. A true sideline to sideline tackler, with good enough coverage ability and a good blitzer. My main hesitation is that is he good enough to take at 7 considering he plays a low premium position. And with a win now window, do they have the patience to work in a rookie MLB?
 
skinsinparadise said:
I watched 6 Ohio State games this morning focused mostly on Styles.

I think he will be a good player. I get it albiet some hyperbole from Todd McShay that he's the safest player in this draft. I think he's going to be anything from good to great. If I was forced to bet, I'd go great. Now that doesn't mean he's my top want at 7 -- but that's nothing to do with him but all about do I want a MLB that high. It's also a slow burn position often -- Devin Lloyd is great now but he wasn't great as a rookie, plenty of examples like that.

I'll start with my issues with him.

A. Lacks a mean streak. So many of their players ironically have a bit of a mean streak including Sonny's brother.
B. Too afraid to overpursue -- he puts the breaks on his runs too much in fear of overshooting the play. It's fine but he overdoes it.
C. I'd love to see more of him flattening players to secure the tackle, he has to the physique to do it.
D. He's a beat behind on some passing plays

I've watched some of his interviews and he comes too like too much of a nice guy, too humble. And I wonder if that's part of the issue. You watch Caleb's interviews in contrast, he's mature like Sonny, but he has a big ego. And while the ego can be off putting, I think you might need some arrogance to excel.

What I liked

A. Range, he can cover some serious ground. And his instincts are good enough -- read and react. Not elite instincts but to my eyes they are good.

B. His length is on display and big time. While he doesn't have the traditional spash plays -- his diving tackles are things of beauty. It's like watching a short stop, like Ozzie Smith for those who might recall that era with a lot of range. Some really spectacular diving tackles -- does it laterally and from behind.

C. He runs with TEs effortlessly. It was freakish for me to watch considering this team don't major in LBs who can do that.

D. As a pass rusher he comes at the QB fast. You see the 4.4 speed

E. There are some glimpses of thumping tackles, you got them on occasion. So his coaches IMO just have to bring it out of him more. But you do see the occasiional tackle with attitude

F. He doesn't miss tackles


Mixed:

A. Shedding tackles sometimes he does it effortlessly, and sometimes gets lost in the wash

B. As a pass rusher, sometimes it looks like he has a plan and sometimes he is just trying to run by guys

C. His tackling style gets the job done, but for a dude with his agility he should be able to get lower, he tackles high, sometimes he will just push the player without bringing them down. It works in college but will it in the pros.

Overall, though really good player IMO. A true sideline to sideline tackler, with good enough coverage ability and a good blitzer. My main hesitation is that is he good enough to take at 7 considering he plays a low premium position. And with a win now window, do they have the patience to work in a rookie MLB?
Click to expand...
This has been my take with Styles, too. Love the player. But man, for a guy with that physicality why isn’t he thumping? The answer is the way he tackles.

He is high on the ball carrier and is strong enough to kind of guide these guys down.

But sometimes he lacks the same shoulder/foot technique and the “spring” that is required to lay a hit with proper hip motion and making contact at the rib cage.

Instead he just kind of runs into them and they fall over.

As I’ve said before, I’d get him a rugby tackling coach and move on. I’ve been trying to shake the soft tackling thing from my mind and I can’t.

But I’d still take him at 7 if no Love. But I think he may have moved even to/below Tate for me. And Delane and Downs are hot on his heels.
 
KDawg said:
This has been my take with Styles, too. Love the player. But man, for a guy with that physicality why isn’t he thumping? The answer is the way he tackles.

He is high on the ball carrier and is strong enough to kind of guide these guys down.

But sometimes he lacks the same shoulder/foot technique and the “spring” that is required to lay a hit with proper hip motion and making contact at the rib cage.

Instead he just kind of runs into them and they fall over.

As I’ve said before, I’d get him a rugby tackling coach and move on. I’ve been trying to shake the soft tackling thing from my mind and I can’t.

But I’d still take him at 7 if no Love. But I think he may have moved even to/below Tate for me. And Delane and Downs are hot on his heels.
Click to expand...

Yeah he has it in him, you see it at times. But not enough. He's tall so I think the tackling high bit just might come with the turf.

I didn't realize how many diving tackles he had until just watching all those games in a row, so his version of splash plays to my eyes is that.

But yeah if I had to pick two things to fix with him:

A. Go lower with the tackles, bring the player down with more force

B. Too concerned about overpursuing-over shooting the play -- take more chances on that front.

I can sort of see why some here (not you) see him oddly as a tweener. He's not a tweener at all. But he looks like he can play edge or safety based on his athletic profile. I think he can do more than just play MLB but I don't hold that against him the way some do because he is IMO good straight on middle linebacker if that's all he does.

But yeah he can cover guys in the slot. And can rush the passer some too. All of which lol is good not bad.
 
KDawg said:
This has been my take with Styles, too. Love the player. But man, for a guy with that physicality why isn’t he thumping? The answer is the way he tackles.

He is high on the ball carrier and is strong enough to kind of guide these guys down.

But sometimes he lacks the same shoulder/foot technique and the “spring” that is required to lay a hit with proper hip motion and making contact at the rib cage.

Instead he just kind of runs into them and they fall over.

As I’ve said before, I’d get him a rugby tackling coach and move on. I’ve been trying to shake the soft tackling thing from my mind and I can’t.

But I’d still take him at 7 if no Love. But I think he may have moved even to/below Tate for me. And Delane and Downs are hot on his heels.
Click to expand...

I like Styles a lot. But I also might go Carnell Tate over him because of:

A. Premium position
B. Need

And while I don't like to draft to need, Tate is close enough to some of these prospects that its hard to ignore. And the hole at WR right now is the size of Grand Canyon.

Even though some draftniks disagree, I think there is a shot he makes it to 7.

 
skinsinparadise said:
I like Styles a lot. But I also might go Carnell Tate over him because of:

A. Premium position
B. Need

And while I don't like to draft to need, Tate is close enough to some of these prospects that its hard to ignore. And the hole at WR right now is the size of Grand Canyon.

Even though some draftniks disagree, I think there is a shot he makes it to 7.

Click to expand...

If that happens, it’s likely Love is on the board. If not, this is worst case scenario.
 
KDawg said:
If that happens, it’s likely Love is on the board. If not, this is worst case scenario.
Click to expand...

It keeps changing as far as rumors and will see how it plays out and of course rumors-buzz could end up BS.

1. QB
2. Bailey

3. Cards wild card: Reese or an O lineman
4. Titans: Love or pass rusher (Reese or Bailey)
5. Giants: Styles or Love or O lineman -- darkhorse Tate
6. Browns: O lineman or Tate

This team I am getting the vibe wants to trade down as long as its not far down the board. But might not be able to pull off the trade.

If they trade down, wouldn't shock me if its Bain. I think if you add a pick it mitigates the risk.
 
KDawg said:
I think he is primarily a slot. But a Z is the same thing, in essence, just aligned outside.

Still off the LoS.

an outside corner could be more skilled at press techniques than a slot corner. But he’s still off, and you can use motions to get him more wiggle room.

He didn’t get obliterated by press, anyways. That’s a large scale exaggeration.

I wouldn’t start him at Z, and I’d very rarely want to utilize him on the line of scrimmage. But he’d absolutely be able to transition out there.

My only hesitation is that he is 5-11 with shorter arms and NFL outside corners who are strong in press could be problematic in his first year or two.

His release package is fine. And he’s solidly built. He just needs to refine it and not get bumped with a bit more consistency to be a full time Z
Click to expand...

The problem with Z vs Slot for him is horizontal space. If he's close to the boundary then it's harder for him to release and separate. If he's too close to the sideline he will get ridden over there more often. I fully disagree with the point about press, he did get obliterated by press, it is not an exaggeration. Saying otherwise is downplaying a large risk with Lemon.

Earlier in this thread I charted every snap between Lemon and a press corner in Moore. [<---Link to post] Once Moore figured out how Lemon released, it was alarming how Lemon could not handle it. Physical coverage is capable of steering him way off course.

I think if we drafted Lemon, then in training camp Amos and Amik would eat him up but he would do well against Sainristil. Lemon has plus or minus match-up potential in the NFL. There are some opponents that he can eat up and some that will make him invisible.

The ability to play through physical coverage has been elevated to one of the most important aspects of a WR to me. It's why both Dotson and Doctson failed.
 

Washington Commanders​

Picks: Nos. 7, 71, 110, 147, 187, 209

What's the best-case scenario for the Commanders at No. 7?

A team that is willing to trade up calls them, allowing the Commanders to recoup a Day 2 draft pick. Washington enters the draft with six picks but has only two in the first three rounds to replenish a roster that badly needs youth. It's doubtful the Commanders will want to move back more than a few spots -- there are players they like who could help them and will be available in the top 12. But with only one QB expected to be drafted in the top 10, GM Adam Peters said at the combine that it will be difficult to entice any team to move up. -- John Keim
 
skinsinparadise said:
B. Need
Click to expand...
When will you learn, you DON'T DRAFT FOR NEED!!!!!!

/sarcasm (if it wasn't obvious by my posting history.)

I 100% agree with you, FWIW. Though you said you "might" go Tate over Styles. I WOULD go Tate over Styles 100% of the time, for both of the reasons you mentioned.
 
skinsinparadise said:

Washington Commanders​

Picks: Nos. 7, 71, 110, 147, 187, 209

What's the best-case scenario for the Commanders at No. 7?

A team that is willing to trade up calls them, allowing the Commanders to recoup a Day 2 draft pick. Washington enters the draft with six picks but has only two in the first three rounds to replenish a roster that badly needs youth. It's doubtful the Commanders will want to move back more than a few spots -- there are players they like who could help them and will be available in the top 12. But with only one QB expected to be drafted in the top 10, GM Adam Peters said at the combine that it will be difficult to entice any team to move up. -- John Keim
Click to expand...
In my opinion, Keim is WRONG. That's not the best case scenario. He's definitively wrong and he needs to sit there and be wrong and bask in his wrongness. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Uh Oh No GIF by CBC



The ideal situation for the Commanders is the top player on their board, whoever that happens to be, is available to them at #7 and they can pick that player. That would be a blue-chip prospect who would project to a consistent all-pro or at least pro-bowl level player. You are less likely to find that by trading down.

Without any question, THAT is the best case scenario.

Trading Down and acquiring more picks is absolutely an option. I'm not generally in favor of it because it's almost certainly going to move the team out of the top tier of players. Absolutely agree that it is an option which should be considered (and then in my opinion discarded depending on who is available.) But it ABSOLUTELY NOT the best case scenario.

Keim is absolutely allowed to have an opinion. It's also Galdi's opinion. And many others. ALL WRONG. At least in my opinion. And I don't think any of them have any more foundation for their opinion than I have for mine, or SIP has for his, or any poster on this board has for their opinion. Now, if they were a former GM, HC or executive, that would give them more expertise and therefor there opinion would be worth more.


1775934356239.png
 
The way that's written- Trade down because this team requires an infusion of youth and the Commanders don't have enough picks - changes the philosophy of the draft from BPA to need.

We often argue about BPA vs. need strictly in terms of players. In this case, BPA vs. need would be a question of quantity vs. quality. If we trade down only because you need more players and not because we don't love our options then it feels more likely we will make the wrong choice. Stick to the board. If there are three players at your pick that you value as worthy of that pick then make the pick unless someone offers to overpay with a Mike Ditka or Hershel Walker style trade offer. If the trade offer is "fair" on the value chart then don't do it. The trade should be massively in our favor if they are asking us to forgo a top ten talent.
 
Voice_of_Reason said:
I

Keim is absolutely allowed to have an opinion. It's also Galdi's opinion. And many others. ALL WRONG. At least in my opinion. And I don't think any of them have any more foundation for their opinion than I have for mine, or SIP has for his, or any poster on this board has for their opinion. Now, if they were a former GM, HC or executive, that would give them more expertise and therefor there opinion would be worth more.
Click to expand...

I know lol you hate this because as far as you are concerned Keim doesn't know anymore than you do or name that random fan about what they want to do. But knowing his style -- I'd put money that someone in that building told him that's what they see as best case scenario, he's hinted the same in some of his podcasts.

But if so, its basically them wanting to have their cake and eat it too -- dropping just a few spots and nailing one of their top guys, anyway, sounds great but what are the odds it happens?

But intutively it makes sense, lets say they drop down to 9 and still get Delane or Downs, etc, awesome, but I doubt that will manifest.
 
burgold said:
The way that's written- Trade down because this team requires an infusion of youth and the Commanders don't have enough picks - changes the philosophy of the draft from BPA to need.

We often argue about BPA vs. need strictly in terms of players. In this case, BPA vs. need would be a question of quantity vs. quality. If we trade down only because you need more players and not because we don't love our options then it feels more likely we will make the wrong choice. Stick to the board. If there are three players at your pick that you value as worthy of that pick then make the pick unless someone offers to overpay with a Mike Ditka or Hershel Walker style trade offer. If the trade offer is "fair" on the value chart then don't do it. The trade should be massively in our favor if they are asking us to forgo a top ten talent.
Click to expand...

Coming from someone who isn't a trade down guy generally. The ideal time to trade down is if you got multiple guys with the same grade more or less and in a slight trade down, you still get that guy. That's what I took the point as. That is, not trading down to lets say pick 16 but a small trade down.

To me its can they have their cake and eat, it too. Keim said trade down just a little saying doubtful beyond just a few spots, so basically top 10.

If so, that to me feels like they aren't sold on just one player in that range and if so that jives with general draft media thoughts about this draft -- is Tate, Downs, Delane, McCoy, Styles, etc miles off each other as prospects?

But yeah if it was a big trade down, it would be quanity over quality. Small trade down, I take as they think the quality would be the same. Sounds great in theory, but you are unlikely to get a haul for example to trade down from 7 to 9.

But yeah lets say if you told me I can have Downs at 7 or Delane at 9 with an extra 3rd. I'd take Delane with the extra third. But I wouldn't bypass Love, Tate or probably Styles at 7 for a slight trade down unless all of them would still be on the board.

As someone who doesn't like the idea of trading down, I am not inflexible on it, if the draft went funky and lets say 2 O lineman went early bumping players down, I wouldn't hate trading down 2-3 spots depending on what players are there -- for me its all about what players are there. But I am not interested in trading down to the mid first round -- but if its 2 or 3 spots I'd be good with it depending on who is there.
 
Last edited:
skinsinparadise said:
I know lol you hate this because as far as you are concerned Keim doesn't know anymore than you do or name that random fan about what they want to do. But knowing his style -- I'd put money that someone in that building told him that's what they see as best case scenario, he's hinted the same in some of his podcasts.

But if so, its basically them wanting to have their cake and eat it too -- dropping just a few spots and nailing one of their top guys, anyway, sounds great but what are the odds it happens?

But intutively it makes sense, lets say they drop down to 9 and still get Delane or Downs, etc, awesome, but I doubt that will manifest.
Click to expand...
Ok, let's play this out: Even if he heard something from somebody inside the organization, which I VERY much doubt, even that has to be taken with a grain of salt. Because let's say that they believe the best case is they get (pick your favorite player here, Tate, Love, Styles, Bain, Bailey, whoever.) There is literally no way they would let THAT cat out of the bag. And if they felt they HAD to say something, the easiest is "we're exploring all options, we'd like to trade down and still get our guy."

Which is as close to a nothing statement as anything anybody could ever say. Literally every team in the NFL would say that.

So if he heard that from somebody, it's the equivalent of coach speak nothingness.

I still don't think he heard it, but if you think he did, there's nothing either of us can do to prove it one way or the other. He'll never divulge if he heard it or not. I think it's media group-think. I think it's his opinion. Shared by just about every media member. I'm not sure why ESPN has their beat reporters provide opinions, but they do. So he gave his opinion which just about everybody in the media has been saying OVER and OVER and OVER again.

And in this case, I think his opinion is wrong. And quite frankly, I very much doubt that the team sees it that way. They must have SOME player they want to pick at 7, unless there just isn't anybody at all that excites them at all. The question is, is that player going to be there when they pick. But assuming there is one player who really excites them, then the best case scenario is that player falls to them.

If that player doesn't fall to them, then the next best case scenario might be to trade down and get another guy they have ranked in the same tier. I still don't love that, but it could be the way they are thinking.
 
Voice_of_Reason said:
Ok, let's play this out: Even if he heard something from somebody inside the organization, which I VERY much doubt, even that has to be taken with a grain of salt. Because let's say that they believe the best case is they get (pick your favorite player here, Tate, Love, Styles, Bain, Bailey, whoever.) There is literally no way they would let THAT cat out of the bag. And if they felt they HAD to say something, the easiest is "we're exploring all options, we'd like to trade down and still get our guy."

Which is as close to a nothing statement as anything anybody could ever say. Literally every team in the NFL would say that.

So if he heard that from somebody, it's the equivalent of coach speak nothingness.

I still don't think he heard it, but if you think he did, there's nothing either of us can do to prove it one way or the other. He'll never divulge if he heard it or not. I think it's media group-think. I think it's his opinion. Shared by just about every media member. I'm not sure why ESPN has their beat reporters provide opinions, but they do. So he gave his opinion which just about everybody in the media has been saying OVER and OVER and OVER again.

And in this case, I think his opinion is wrong. And quite frankly, I very much doubt that the team sees it that way. They must have SOME player they want to pick at 7, unless there just isn't anybody at all that excites them at all. The question is, is that player going to be there when they pick. But assuming there is one player who really excites them, then the best case scenario is that player falls to them.

If that player doesn't fall to them, then the next best case scenario might be to trade down and get another guy they have ranked in the same tier. I still don't love that, but it could be the way they are thinking.
Click to expand...

Any conversation about the media with Voice_of_Reason

'
 
I just can't see any of the OL being drafted before our pick. They say Mauigoa is better suited for inside and Fano is hardly ever mentioned in top 10.Without either getting drafted before us our pickings are getting slim maybe Downs,Delane or Bain.
 
If Tate is there at 7 you take him, anyone else you listen if a trade down is in play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 10, Members: 0, Guests: 10)

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top