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

[Title Town USA]

He rubbed some teams the wrong way during interviews and didn't respond well to questions about being kicked back inside.

That is irrelevant as obviously the Packers liked what they heard from the young man.

 

[DoURant]

The leading candidate in this line of speculation would be Metcalf.

That guy must have 0% body fat

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Every year we have NFL prospects who have great measurables but their college production was lacking. Or players who had great measurables but questionable work ethic or desire. I wish someone would compile a list of players who commonly had these scouting reports and examine how their NFL production worked out. And compare it to some kind of control group.

I would think some draft blogger has done this.

I think you would find that it produces a mixed bag of results. So many ongoing variables go into what will eventually lead to a successful Professional Football Player. They could have a list of 100 pre-draft things and a player could tick 99 of the boxes and still fail. Throw on top of that, the organization he ends up with and the coaches and teammates that surround him have a huge influence. If you could take each of the first 12 guys drafted last night and project their life in 10 years had they been drafted by each of the 32 teams, I would expect the 32 outcomes for each player would vary from a little to a whole lot.

Pick the guy that ticks the most boxes, cross your fingers and hope he continues to tick them and others with your team.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That guy must have 0% body fat

2% was the number I heard, which is absurdly low if not unhealthy. His body is alien even by NFL standards. He's among the most freakish of all freaks of nature that pass through this game...or something else.

 

[Dantés]

They all have questions. Some are just much bigger than others.

Questions about Savage are - "is he big enough to survive the rigors of the NFL?" Questions about Gary are "why doesn't he play very well?" That is a huge difference in questions.

"Why doesn't he play very well?" and "why doesn't his production match his film?" are two different questions in my opinion. When I initially watched him, months ago, "playing well" wasn't a major concern, so much as translating his impressive play into production. This might seem like semantics, but I do think there is a difference.

 

[scotscheese]

[QUOTE="scotscheese, post: 830924, member: 9400"]i haven't realy gotten involved too much in the draft talk, as i really don't know enough college ball to have an informed position.

this is one guy who i can't remember being mentioned, so can understand people being disapointed, but very few here seem to be giving him the chance to prove himself and have already declared him a bust. i'm not gonna say he's one or the other cos i really don't know.

with our new coaching changes, lets hope we manage to get the best out of him, welcome to lambeau Gary

Wait...What... we need to have an informed position to post here? Since when ?

Seriously though I agree with you 100%. I can understand why some people don't like certain picks but give the guy a chance.[/QUOTE]
it's either that or rant like a madman and no one will take me seriously, ye know using caps lock obsessing on one player in the draft and so on.....

 

[RRyder]

The counterpoint is who the heck knows what is going to happen with Gary. He was a first round talent on probably 99% of the big boards in the country. Be happy we didn't draft a tackle from Alabama.... I mean Alabama St in the 1st Rd. Obviously the Texans saw more than most teams did. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Hunter should have been a top 5 pick 3 years ago, he's playing like one, which means you, me and everyone else that didn't have him as one is a freaking moron, and don't know how to evaluate talent.

You dont get to just cherry pick guys. As Amish asked what about the countless other guys that fit the physical profile but sucked in college and then proceeded to continue to suck in the NFL?

Theres a risk/reward equation. Those types of guys get taken past the top half of round one because the reward outweighs the risk. Not because the reward has no chance of comming to fruition

The argument that "hes big and fast so hes a fine pick because he might work out if he learns how to play football" is a valid point for guy drafted past the top of the draft. Not for a guy a 12

 

[GleefulGary]

You dont get to just cherry pick guys. As Amish asked what about the countless other guys that fit the physical profile but sucked in college and then proceeded to continue to suck in the NFL?

Theres a risk/reward equation. Those types of guys get taken past the top half of round one because the reward outweighs the risk. Not because the reward has no chance of comming to fruition

The argument that "hes big and fast so hes a fine pick because he might work out if he learns how to play football" is a valid point for guy drafted past the top of the draft. Not for a guy a 12

In this draft, I think it is.

I'm just curious, who would you have taken?

 

[Dantés]

You dont get to just cherry pick guys. As Amish asked what about the countless other guys that fit the physical profile but sucked in college and then proceeded to continue to suck in the NFL?

Theres a risk/reward equation. Those types of guys get taken past the top half of round one because the reward outweighs the risk. Not because the reward has no chance of comming to fruition

The argument that "hes big and fast so hes a fine pick because he might work out if he learns how to play football" is a valid point for guy drafted past the top of the draft. Not for a guy a 12

I don't agree that there is one hard and fast rule for where guys with talent, but lacking production, ought to be drafted. They all have to be assessed individually, and against the backdrops of their individual classes.

For example, Joey Bosa under-produced in the pass rushing department during his final college season (5 sacks in 12 games). But the ability was obvious on tape and he went #3 overall.

Ed Oliver underperformed in pass rush production as well (3 sacks in 9 games). But the ability and talent outweighed that concern.

And then there's the context part. Gary was not my 1st choice at #12, nor was he the Packers' choice (we might assume). But who were the alternatives? Who ought to have been picked instead? Hard to say. My top choices were wiped off the board.

 

[DoURant]

The argument that "hes big and fast so hes a fine pick because he might work out if he learns how to play football" is a valid point for guy drafted past the top of the draft. Not for a guy a 12

For you to discredit everything Gary has worked for to become an NFL player, much less a first round pick, just because you don't like him and imply that "he needs to learn how to play football" speaks volumes from a guy sitting in his recliner, posting on a sports board. If he didn't know how to play football, I don't think he would be headed to the NFL.

 

[RRyder]

In this draft, I think it is.

I'm just curious, who would you have taken?

Honestly trading back to 20 and taking Savage probably wouldve been the best move but that's hindsight I guess. If staying put honestly probably any number of players taken after him. I could list them all but theres still at least 5 guys on the board that I wouldve taken over Gary if that is any kind of indication about how I feel about him

 

[Dantés]

Honestly trading back to 20 and taking Savage probably wouldve been the best move but that's hindsight I guess. If staying put honestly probably any number of players taken after him. I could list them all but theres still at least 5 guys on the board that I wouldve taken over Gary if that is any kind of indication about how I feel about him

I think we could poke holes in any one of those players that you would have preferred.

 

[RRyder]

For you to discredit everything Gary has worked for to become an NFL player, much less a first round pick, just because you don't like him and imply that "he needs to learn how to play football" speaks volumes from a guy sitting in his recliner, posting on a sports board. If he didn't know how to play football, I don't think he would be headed to the NFL.

Theres been of ton of guys that have been drafted that dont know how to play football in large part because they're bigger, stronger and faster then their competition and some NFL team assumes they can teach them how to play. It's quite litteraly not an uncommon occurrence

And btw we are all just random people posting on a forum. It would be like if I said you're just in the opposite side of the equation that will talk themselves into liking every pick without useing rational thought while chilling in a basement.

We all have different opinions.

 

[RRyder]

I think we could poke holes in any one of those players that you would have preferred.

Can poke holes in litteraly any prospect. It's a matter of which holes you prefer to overlook and at what point in the draft you'd consider overlooking them

 

[Dantés]

I know we all understand that Gary is a freak athlete, but I just wanted to throw out some tidbits.

At 6'4" 277 lbs, Gary's vertical, broad, forty, and short shuttle would by 88th, 67th, 49th, and 43rd % results respectively going back to 2000... among running backs.

His vertical jump is also an 81st % results as a wide receiver.

His forty is a 29th % result among defensive backs.

As an interior defensive lineman, Gary's lowest test result is in the 92nd%.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Honestly trading back to 20 and taking Savage probably wouldve been the best move but that's hindsight I guess. If staying put honestly probably any number of players taken after him. I could list them all but theres still at least 5 guys on the board that I wouldve taken over Gary if that is any kind of indication about how I feel about him

There are 5 guys still on the board that you would have taken at #12 instead of Gary? Really? Who? It isn't like the 11 teams picking ahead of the Packers tonight are listening.

 

[Dantés]

Can poke holes in litteraly any prospect. It's a matter of which holes you prefer to overlook and at what point in the draft you'd consider overlooking them

Correct. But what I mean is that I think you could make equally strong cases against almost everyone taken after Gary.

 

[RRyder]

There are 5 guys still on the board that you would have taken at #12 instead of Gary? Really? Who? It isn't like the 11 teams picking ahead of the Packers tonight are listening.

No not 5 guys still available i wouldve selected at 12. But also I was completely against taking Gary at 12. Just 5 guys still available I wouldve selected over Gary.

Taking Gary at say 30 or say 44 (which for the 5 guys would be most applicable here) is different then taking them at 12

 

[PackAttack12]

There are 5 guys still on the board that you would have taken at #12 instead of Gary? Really? Who? It isn't like the 11 teams picking ahead of the Packers tonight are listening.

It's funny when someone is asked to list who they would take, and then they come back with "well there are 5 guys I would have taken", and not one name comes up.

 

[RRyder]

Correct. But what I mean is that I think you could make equally strong cases against almost everyone taken after Gary.

I simply disagree with that. The holes with Gary are much easier to pick apart as they're most everything related to his actual ability to play

Then again depends on your ability to argue

 

[Dantés]

I simply disagree with that. The holes with Gary are much easier to pick apart as they're most everything related to his actual ability to play

Then again depends on your ability to argue

As I explained to Amish, I've thought that he can play from the moment I turned on his tape back in January. The production is the question-- i.e. what does he need to do to finish more plays in the backfield?

However, I understand that not everyone sees prospects the same way.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

If you look at the tape Gary is one of those "more disruptive than productive" guys. His play allowed guys like Chase Winovich, Maurice Hurst, Devin Bush, and Jabrill Peppers to make plays on the ball. If he can do the same thing in Lambeau, both Smiths along with Clark should be able to stuff the stat sheet.

 

[DoURant]

Then again depends on your ability to argue

I'll give you credit, you are pretty good at it, LOL

 

[RRyder]

It's funny when someone is asked to list who they would take, and then they come back with "well there are 5 guys I would have taken", and not one name comes up.

If you want a list of players I wouldve preferred to Gary either selected after or still available here ya go

Wilkins
Lindstrom
Burns
Lawrence
Bradbury
Simmons
Faint
Savage (got him at least)
Dillard
Brown
Sweat
Abram
Taylor
Ford
Greedy
Smith Jr
Metcalf
AJ Brown

(those last 4 I'm up in the air about)

No I wouldn't have taken most of those guys at 12 either and yes everyone has holes as prospects. Some holes are just easier to overlook and every one of those guys I'd rather have over Gary (except the last 4 possibly)

 

[RRyder]

As I explained to Amish, I've thought that he can play from the moment I turned on his tape back in January. The production is the question-- i.e. what does he need to do to finish more plays in the backfield?

However, I understand that not everyone sees prospects the same way.

Fair enough