Yeah, you can discount that. Tackles isn’t a great stat and doesn’t really tell you much.
Wait. You include low tackles in your response to his supporters but then toss it out when it isn't convenient to your argument?
I wouldn’t call him the best at his position at all. Beasley out played him.
Beasley improved over the course of the year. I don't think D's schemed with him in mind for most of the season. Banks was the best and most active of the returning LBs and the most "proven" at any position on D.
I’m stating my opinion, yes. I’m also providing actual examples of his poor play
Did I miss other examples or are you referring to tackles?
and the opinions of professional scouts.
FPI? That's a collation of data with some subjective attempts to "normalize" for competition and other factors. Were there other links to scouts?
And they all seem to point in the same direction.
I don't have an opinion about what the NFL thinks of Banks. To be honest though, I don't think him being an R1/R2 level LB is any more absurd than Richardson or Levis being called top 5 QBs... and for essentially the same reasons. It takes more than measurables to make a great player. Some players are great in spite of the lack of elite measurables. All three of those guys have good measurables.
He’s athletic for sure. But he reacts slow and gets lost in coverage frequently
Now you're talking. I think you could substantiate that if you took the time. But the NFL seems to be hyper-focused on "potential" since Josh Allen. Levis and Richardson have physical talent to be sure. But neither has proven to be particularly good in the mental part of the game.