Ok, yeah while I get what you are saying - I don't believe that 'vision' is some innate ability that you either have or don't have. There are dozens of variables that contribute to whether or not a LB is meeting ball-carriers at the LOS and padding them up - it's ambiguous and nearly impossible to summate that ability as just 'vision'. It's also absurd, to me, to suggest that a light bulb can't come on for a LB that allows him to develop into something special post-high-school career. But I'm not trying to have a semantics battle either, my only original point was that we haven't seen enough out of Booker to know if he has anything at all. He was injured in the first half of the season opener! Did you expect 3 TFLs and a pick-six in that amount of play?
What you say about Baker "seeing it" also narrowly contradicts your own assertion that Booker doesn't "see it" - because the coaching staff had Booker starting over Baker following an entire spring and fall camp.
I would also attribute Grant's lack of development to a processing handicap - I think it was very obvious from day 1 that he was a physical specimen that couldn't handle the mental load of MLB. But I'm trying to avoid coming off as condescending, I totally get what you mean - Katzenmoyer had it, AJ had it, Lauranaitis had it, Shazier, Rolle, Lee, etc. That animalistic instinct and understanding of the game coupled with a creatine-phosphate dependent muscle system found in 2% of humans. It's rare, it's special - but the coaches had to see something in Booker to give him the first shot over Baker last year, when it was so obvious that Baker was/is a freak.
People tried to say the same things about Gareon Conley after the MSU game, and about Taylor Decker after Kahlil Mack stole his lunch money - that they didn't get it, they didn't see it, they didn't have the high ceiling. But as long as we have the best coaching staff in America, I trust that the guys going in have plenty of vision and will end up on an NFL roster.