Packers 1st round selection, #12 overall: Rashan Gary, DE

[Heyjoe4]

I was worried about his lack of production in college after the Packers selected him last season. Unfortunately he didn't put it to rest during his rookie campaign.

No he didn’t. Opportunities come to players two ways - those created by the scheme and how a player is used, and those created by the player. Either way, it seems boom or bust time for him. Or they carry him, and he becomes “just a guy”. That’s not what we want to happen with a #12 pick.

 

[AmishMafia]

Even in college, he wasn’t known as a guy that got to the QB a lot, at least not as measured by sacks. But you use the #12 pick for something. Whatever that is, I hope we find out this year.

He didn't get many pressures either. Anyway you measure it he was not a very productive pass rusher.

I preferred a plethora of players over Gary personally, but with the depth chart stacked much heavier against Gary last year than Burns or Sweat it is only logical they had more output as rookies.

With Gary clearly our #3 now, this year is put up or shut up for him to prove his stock.

Even if you normalize the production, Gary is still way behind.

Burns/Gary/Sweat

Snaps Played per tackle 19.1/22.8/9.56
QB Hits. 29.9/239/36.8
Sacks. 63.7/239/68.3
TFL. 95.6/159/59.7


And my way of thinking, Gary had it easier:

• playing with 2 red hot stud pass rushers that got more pass blocking attentio
• Playing greater percent of snaps on passing downs when Z moved inside
• Not getting worn down - fresh legs late in games when OLine getting fatigued

 

[Jerellh528]

I preferred a plethora of players over Gary personally, but with the depth chart stacked much heavier against Gary last year than Burns or Sweat it is only logical they had more output as rookies.

With Gary clearly our #3 now, this year is put up or shut up for him to prove his stock.

I also preferred a plethora of players over him, also a bit concerning that a player taken 12 overall couldn’t make more noise on the depth chart that was stacked “against” him, like at least take away most of Fackrells snaps. But either way, you’re correct, this year for him is put up or shut up.

 

[tynimiller]

Again, never said he performed up to expectations, merely stating you cannot expect a #4 on the depth to out perform others that were higher on their respective teams.

Dude has two years MAX to deliver, this is a year HE MUST show improvement or the complaints are going to start having serious justification.

 

[tynimiller]

Fackrell also is a better player than many give him credit for. Is he going to be a superstar: NO. Is he a solid guy: YES. I don't think there are many teams where Fackrell wouldn't be a threat to any teams #3 on a depth chart.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

As of now, after only one year, all the fears about Gary have proven true. He has two more years to prove everyone wrong but this shortened off-season isn't going to help.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Either way, it seems boom or bust time for him.

In my opinion it would be too early to consider Gary a bust if he didn't have a significant impact this season but should definitely be considered reason for concern.

Again, never said he performed up to expectations, merely stating you cannot expect a #4 on the depth to out perform others that were higher on their respective teams.

Gary should have worked as evidence that it's not a great idea to use early rounders on backups. Unfortunately Gutekunst made that mistake once again this year.

 

[tynimiller]

In my opinion it would be too early to consider Gary a bust if he didn't have a significant impact this season but should definitely be considered reason for concern.



Gary should have worked as evidence that it's not a great idea to use early rounders on backups. Unfortunately Gutekunst made that mistake once again this year.

He has made it very evident he will adhere to their board, no matter of position...to a fault honestly it appears.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He has made it very evident he will adhere to their board, no matter of position...to a fault honestly it appears.

It's a terrible approach to not factor position of need into selections. It seems Gutekunst forgot about that after his first draft.

 

[tynimiller]

It's a terrible approach to not factor position of need into selections. It seems Gutekunst forgot about that after his first draft.

To go a step further what concerns me is he now showed he will even force up his board regardless of present need. It is one thing to set still and pick according to board only...but to push up and do so is concerning for the present.

 

[AmishMafia]

It's a terrible approach to not factor position of need into selections. It seems Gutekunst forgot about that after his first draft.

If you are drafting less talented players to fill your current needs you are build a team filled with inferior talent. You cannot win a championship in the NFL if you draft for need.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

If you are drafting less talented players to fill your current needs you are build a team filled with inferior talent. You cannot win a championship in the NFL if you draft for need.

How is it any better to draft "talented" players that can't get on the field? I'm not arguing to draft lesser talent, but you can't seriously tell me that Marquise Brown, Dexter Lawrence, or Jeffrey Simmons wouldn't have been FAR better picks at positions of need on this team.

Let's not try and pretend that Rashan Gary was some elite prospect; he is an elite athlete, but was not an elite football player in college.

 

[AmishMafia]

How is it any better to draft "talented" players that can't get on the field? I'm not arguing to draft lesser talent, but you can't seriously tell me that Marquise Brown, Dexter Lawrence, or Jeffrey Simmons wouldn't have been FAR better picks at positions of need on this team.

Let's not try and pretend that Rashan Gary was some elite prospect; he is an elite athlete, but was not an elite football player in college.

I was against drafting Gary and I agree with you on him being only an elite athlete. I would say he is a medocre football talent. I was pulling for Simmons, BTW. But my board is not Gutes board.

There is risk in every player.

But to draft lower rated players because of need is foolish. Imagine if every year in the draft you reach for a player that is a 6.2 instead of the BPA at 6.7. Eventually you have an overall team that is 6.2. It takes a 6.5 to make the SB.

Players are constantly getting injured and you never know where you next position of need is going to be. And you need to draft with the long term talent level in mind and not just patching every hole.

So yes. I would rather take a playmaker who likely will ride the pine for a year or 2 than a player who can merely hold his own.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If you are drafting less talented players to fill your current needs you are build a team filled with inferior talent. You cannot win a championship in the NFL if you draft for need.

Position of need should definitely factor into a draft pick with smart teams selecting players that present the best value.

 

[Heyjoe4]

He didn't get many pressures either. Anyway you measure it he was not a very productive pass rusher.




Even if you normalize the production, Gary is still way behind.

Burns/Gary/Sweat

Snaps Played per tackle 19.1/22.8/9.56
QB Hits. 29.9/239/36.8
Sacks. 63.7/239/68.3
TFL. 95.6/159/59.7


And my way of thinking, Gary had it easier:

• playing with 2 red hot stud pass rushers that got more pass blocking attentio
• Playing greater percent of snaps on passing downs when Z moved inside
• Not getting worn down - fresh legs late in games when OLine getting fatigued

I hadn’t thought of that. Certainly by mid-season, opposing Ds were focusing on the Smith Bro’s. That should have made it easier for Gary. Well, if he was on the field......

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I was against drafting Gary and I agree with you on him being only an elite athlete. I would say he is a medocre football talent. I was pulling for Simmons, BTW. But my board is not Gutes board.

There is risk in every player.

But to draft lower rated players because of need is foolish. Imagine if every year in the draft you reach for a player that is a 6.2 instead of the BPA at 6.7. Eventually you have an overall team that is 6.2. It takes a 6.5 to make the SB.

Players are constantly getting injured and you never know where you next position of need is going to be. And you need to draft with the long term talent level in mind and not just patching every hole.

So yes. I would rather take a playmaker who likely will ride the pine for a year or 2 than a player who can merely hold his own.

I don't think anyone is arguing to take a lesser talent over a greater talent; it's disingenuous to try and make that the discussion. There were plenty of players just as talented as Gary in the 2019 draft. Sheer physical talent is worth something in the NFL but as an actual football playing prospect, there were other guys that would have helped this team more in both the short- and long-term. To your example, no sane talent evaluator had Gary as an 8.0 and everyone else as a 6.0.

 

[AmishMafia]

I don't think anyone is arguing to take a lesser talent over a greater talent; it's disingenuous to try and make that the discussion. There were plenty of players just as talented as Gary in the 2019 draft. Sheer physical talent is worth something in the NFL but as an actual football playing prospect, there were other guys that would have helped this team more in both the short- and long-term. To your example, no sane talent evaluator had Gary as an 8.0 and everyone else as a 6.0.

You would be surprised. This has been an ongoing argument for years. But there are posters here who believe that you draft only players at a position of need. And that you would pass up a better player for a lesser player because of need. And that NFL teams don't grade players but rank them in order 1 to whatever like websites.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And that NFL teams don't grade players but rank them in order 1 to whatever like websites.

True, NFL teams rank prospects in different tiers. Therefore position of need should definitely factor into a selection except in the rare case (Rodgers being one of them) there's only a single player left in the remaining top tier.

 

[mradtke66]

True, NFL teams rank prospects in different tiers. Therefore position of need should definitely factor into a selection except in the rare case (Rodgers being one of them) there's only a single player left in the remaining top tier.

I'm torn on this.

Like you, I really wanted something at the WR position and I'm not exactly thrilled with taking a RB in the second round.

The inverse of that, is if the FO really rated the available WRs as a tier or two below who they did end up picking, reaching for a WR could potentially sent them back years.

I dunno, maybe I feel "cautious pessimism," if there is such a thing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The inverse of that, is if the FO really rated the available WRs as a tier or two below who they did end up picking, reaching for a WR could potentially sent them back years.

In my opinion there's no way that Dillon presented the best value at #62, especially considering the Packers having Jones and Williams atop the depth chart at running back.

There might be a case to be made for not selecting a wide receiver based on the prospects left on the board at that point but it would have been smarter to address a position in need of an upgrade instead of selecting another backup.

 

[AmishMafia]

I don't think anyone is arguing to take a lesser talent over a greater talent; it's disingenuous to try and make that the discussion.

To make my point:

In my opinion there's no way that Dillon presented the best value at #62, especially considering the Packers having Jones and Williams atop the depth chart at running back.

There might be a case to be made for not selecting a wide receiver based on the prospects left on the board at that point but it would have been smarter to address a position in need of an upgrade instead of selecting another backup.

The Packers do not select best value, which means to draft for need, but BPA.

If they had Dillon rated higher than any other player, they absolutely should have picked him.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Position of need should definitely factor into a draft pick with smart teams selecting players that present the best value.

I agree. Does any team really follow a BPA approach when drafting? Few, if any, is my guess. And drafting for need doesn’t mean drafting inferior players just because there is a need. That’s reaching in a draft. Even the best teams have areas of need, and the good ones use the draft (or FA) to fill those needs.

 

[Heyjoe4]

To make my point:


The Packers do not select best value, which means to draft for need, but BPA.

If they had Dillon rated higher than any other player, they absolutely should have picked him.

I think Dillon is a unique case. Gluten was likely looking ahead to FA in 2021 and seeing Jones walk (Prioritizing Bakh and Clark). So he’s further solidified The run game for 2020, and bought some insurance for 2021. Assuming Dillon is gone by the time GB picks in round 3, grabbing Dillon at #62 was the right move. It is a bit of a reach, but not much.

 

[Heyjoe4]

In my opinion there's no way that Dillon presented the best value at #62, especially considering the Packers having Jones and Williams atop the depth chart at running back.

There might be a case to be made for not selecting a wide receiver based on the prospects left on the board at that point but it would have been smarter to address a position in need of an upgrade instead of selecting another backup.

I think Dillon was an insurance pick for 2021, assuming they don’t resign Jones in 2021. And Dillon is a very good player. A bit of a reach at #62, yes, but not much. He would have been gone by the time the Packers selected in round three, IMO.

That doesn’t excuse an otherwise horrible draft. Trading up to take Love makes no sense to me, unless Gluten knows something about Rodgers that we don’t. Taking another average TE in round three makes no sense to me. Other than Dillon, the only other pick I like this year is Runyan.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers do not select best value, which means to draft for need, but BPA.

That's a pretty tortured perspective on the meaning of "value". But let's set that aside.

There's a perspective that Gary was a luxury pick after signing the Smiths, not an area of need, and therefore he must have been perceived as the best player avilable by the people who drafted him, irrespective of the other needs.

Not so fast, in light of the following:

1) The Smiths took too many snaps last season, both at 84%. 75% is a better number to keep from getting gassed and faking injuries to get a time out which we definitely saw on a couple of occasions.

2) Even with those high snap counts from the Smiths, Facrkrell and Gary still combined for 64% snaps.

3) The snap counts for all 4 players totaled about 230%. That means on average three of them were on the field for 30% of the snaps, a Pettine preference, stated a couple of times. It would have been more than 30% if Gary had played more like a #12 pick, but that's besides the point in assessing need.

4) When you look at who's on the roster other than Clark and Z. Smith who can bring pressure from 3-tech in nickel/dime being run 75-80% of the time, you're left saying, "uh, uh, uh...." I would not have surprised me if Z. Smith took as many snaps at DT as OLB, whether standing up or hand in the dirt, if Gary was up to the task on the edge. Pettine also discussed Gary playing that DT position eventually where you would see him and Z. bouncing in and out of that spot.

5) And yet, even with only a 30% snap count with the hoped for three-headed monster going forward as the core and defining character of this defense, that's a 75% snap count for each of the Smiths and Gary with a little chip in from the #4. More than 30% with all three on the field? Then more chip in from the #4. Fackrell was supposed to be that #4, not the other way around.

Drafting Gary was not about having a rotational guy, injury backup, or simply "the best player available"--the Smiths and Gary were all intended to be in essence starters at those 75% snap counts, give or take. That's a bit of a high count to expect from a rookie edge. Many first rounders at the position are not 3-down players as rookies. But you would have expected at the time of the pick that you'd get that in year 2. Whether Pettine expects that now is TBD.

These three guys, together with Clark, were intended to be the engine of this defense, playing aggressivley up front. Yeah, from Pettine's perspective, the need quotient was pretty high with this pick. It was intended to buy, in essence, a nickel/dime pass rushing DT with Z. Smith or Gary, not some backup.