1[12]: Rashan Gary [EDGE; Michigan]

[PACKRULE]

2 hours ago, Gopher Trace said:

 Gary is more like Cam Jordan athletically, IMO, and it's worth noting that Jordan did not hit his stride until year three. I hope Packer fans exercise patience (even if I know better) because Jordan is one hell of a player now, but did not make much impact right away.

in the land of green and gold there is never patience Gary will either be a bust or HOFer after game one! Then 3 years later no one will go back with the exception of Outpost to go look over everyones posts. But he will only pull his own comments for his own glorification:)

 

[MacReady]

Just now, PACKRULE said:

in the land of green and gold there is never patience Gary will either be a bust or HOFer after game one! Then 3 years later no one will go back with the exception of Outpost to go look over everyones posts. But he will only pull his own comments for his own glorification:)

 

At least I don't think a kicker can't kick a touchback when he wants to. 

[MrBobGray]

Gary's ceiling is real. The effort, the football IQ, the athleticism and the frame are all there. His inability to really turn the corner at the moment limits his outside rush potential and he needs a lot of work as a pass rusher, but personally I feel better about his odds to become a stud than to bust relative to your average rookie pass rusher. 

[craig]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

So we're going to assume health for Gary when we saw how it limited Perrys career? The guy had what 19 sacks over two seasons? When healthy, dude was an above average starter. He just wasn't consistently healthy.

As I noted, the "if healthy" is a hypothetic condition for the discussion!  Clearly "assuming health" doesn't apply to anybody.  

Duh, of course we all understand that any guy can get injured at any time.  Thus the floor for every single player you draft is complete washout bust.  Anybody might get injured.  

Because we all understand that, it's not helpful for discussion.  "Floor" discussions are more worthwhile to discuss how risky a guy is, EVEN APART FROM INJURY.  

Yes, it's certainly true that some guys have higher injury-risk than others.  Gary is in that group, given his shoulder history, plus with the positions he's likely to play, plus his physical style.  

 

[MrBobGray]

32 minutes ago, craig said:

As I noted, the "if healthy" is a hypothetic condition for the discussion!  Clearly "assuming health" doesn't apply to anybody.  

Duh, of course we all understand that any guy can get injured at any time.  Thus the floor for every single player you draft is complete washout bust.  Anybody might get injured.  

Because we all understand that, it's not helpful for discussion.  "Floor" discussions are more worthwhile to discuss how risky a guy is, EVEN APART FROM INJURY.  

Yes, it's certainly true that some guys have higher injury-risk than others.  Gary is in that group, given his shoulder history, plus with the positions he's likely to play, plus his physical style.  

 

You're misunderstanding him.  His point was that Perry was much better than you're giving him credit for, when he was healthy.  You stated that you felt a healthy Gary had a floor of Nick Perry, but went on to use Perry's career numbers (despite the fact that he was anything but healthy) to paint him as a much lesser player than he was.

[craig]

Ah, got it.  You and Alex are right on that, then.  Apologies.  

[boratt]

Everything I read about Gary, he’s not the personality type to use performance enhancers. So many guys who come out with these weirdly sculpted bodies and put up ridiculous numbers. Gary is just naturally unnaturally strong. 

Gary is the heaviest player in combine history to run sub 4.6. He had a really good shuttle and solid 3cone for his weight. People comparing him to the ultra stiff non athletes, I don’t see it.

And he’s 20 pounds heavier than gholston coming out, ran a tenth of a second faster and jumped 3 inches higher. They had comparable shuttle/3cones at their 20 pound weight differences. I don’t see the undersized Gholston as a good comparison.

Perry is probably the best comparison but Gary is an inch and a half taller, has an inch longer arms, and is a little heavier. So Gary has some significant length advantages that will come into play in the trenches. And it shows up. Gary has a violent and effective two arm punch that regularly stands OL up and creates separation. Perry has the power but couldnt get that kind of separation. Gary also has a beastly one arm jab and drive move that he does that I’ve never seen Perry do. He one arm continues to push a guy straight back. His power and length give him that ability. 

Gary gets into the body of lineman, stand them up, separates and then closes. That will translate to the NFL.

Gary’s length/power (which is more dangerous than just power) will set up his speed. And with no where for the QB to go because we have Clark/Daniels inside, I can see a bunch of rookie speed rush sacks too. Gary has elite burst and average bend. His speed will really only be fully appreciated if it’s complimented by inside pressure because he needs that target to be just a touch deeper for him to get sacks. He’s walking into the perfect situation for his skillset because that’s what he’s going to get with this Packers interior rush.

JJ Watt’s best college season was 7 sacks his junior year. He went on to have a bunch of 15-20 sack NFL seasons. 

Gary is very different from Watt in that Watt is more of a polished pass rusher with some more bend. Gary, though, has similar length, point of attack shock and much better closing speed so I can see what Gary does adding up to a bunch of 10 sack seasons in the NFL. 

And as far as this season, right now, I really believe he’s walking into an ideal scenario to rack up sack numbers because of the way the interior rush compliments his speed rush. I see a 10 sack part time pass rush specialist as a rookie. 

[boratt]

And I even think we’re gonna see a couple rushes where Gary just throws an NFL lineman. I saw him convert speed to power on college that way, where he just tossed a guy, so I do think we’re gonna see a couple of those in the NFL too. 

[deathstar]

Definitely believe “turning the corner” is overvalued.

[craig]

I wonder how many sacks come from turning the corner rushes, and how those rank for QB-holding-ball times?  

Even if perhaps overrated, I'd imagine it might help if you've got the capacity, even on plays where you don't actually get the sack.  I think the threat perhaps constricts the clock in QB's head?  I think it might also be increasingly useful the better your secondary is?  Takes a certain amount of seconds to run the arc, but if the secondary is better able to hold coverage, times that might not have gotten home with weak secondary might increasingly with improved secondary?  Perhaps the threat of pressuring around the edge to some variable degree improves the capacity to use inside moves?  If the tackle is setting up even a little bit wider to protect the outside rush?  Perhaps also some pocket compression/folding benefit?  Perhaps the more threatened the tackle feels, the more aggressively he backs up to protect his angles, and the more that corner of the pocket folds in? Also taking away rollout capacity?  Which might be increasingly useful the better your interior rush is?  Often with outside rush pressure, the QB can avoid incipient pressure by stepping into pocket or rolling away from the pressure.  But if pressure is coming up the middle and from the other edge, moving away from approaching pressure from one direction might move you right into somebody else's pressure.  I imagine the threat of outside pressure, if it pulls the tackle a bit further outside to protect against it, might also perhaps open some lanes for ILB or safety blitzes too, right?  Dumb post just talking to myself, I think; but a self-reminder how integrated a good defense is.  

 

[deathstar]

I think running really fast around a tackle while bending has value, but I find that when it comes to edge defenders it's the end-all be-all of their evaluation. Why is that warranted? Are there any statistics that say a player who regularly turns the corner has a higher sack rate and is a part of better defenses? Or is it old coach language - "Gets in the QB's head!" when in reality the quarterback is just thinking of stepping up a little bit to avoid the rush if someone isn't immediately open.

[snackattack]

2 hours ago, deathstar said:

Definitely believe “turning the corner” is overvalued.

I dont quite see it that way. Having that bend significantly increases your chances of winning on the edge 1v1. Its a premium trait when combined with good get off and is hard to be overvalued imo. “Turning the corner” is the reason gary was picked 12th instead of top 5. If he could bend we would be comparing him to julius peppers instead of nick perry.

That said, i would agree that gary can still be damn good without having that trait. I think in pettines system a lot of his pass rush wins will come from the inside rather than the edge. I think he will be a great run defender on the edge with some success rushing the passer there. I wouldnt feel as good about the pick if he was going to be asked to be a capers system OLB.

[deathstar]

6 minutes ago, snackattack said:

Having that bend significantly increases your chances of winning on the edge 1v1.

Its a premium trait when combined with good get off and is hard to be overvalued imo. 

“Turning the corner” is the reason gary was picked 12th instead of top 5. 

1. Can you point me somewhere that verifies this?

2. What is the definition of this trait? At what point do you say someone can "turn the corner" or can't?

3. You don't believe it's any of the other number of reasons that have been written about as to why he's overvalued? Or that you believe the only reason he didn't produce sacks at Michigan was because he couldn't "bend"?

[AlexGreen#20]

9 minutes ago, deathstar said:

1. Can you point me somewhere that verifies this?

2. What is the definition of this trait? At what point do you say someone can "turn the corner" or can't?

3. You don't believe it's any of the other number of reasons that have been written about as to why he's overvalued? Or that you believe the only reason he didn't produce sacks at Michigan was because he couldn't "bend"?

1.

From a mathematical standpoint:

Danielle Hunter (6.95), Von Miller (6.7), Myles Garrett(Didn't do it), Frank Clark (7.08), Dee Ford (7.07), Chandler Jones(7.07), Ryan Kerrigan(7.18), TJ Watt (6.79) were the edge rushers with 13 sacks or more. According to Mockdraftable a 7.08 3-cone would be in the 70th percentile among edge rushers candidates.

Obviously that's not a perfect study of the discussion, but it's at least somewhere in the direction.

From a football standpoint:

There's really only two (or three) ways to get to the passer. You can go through a Tackle, or you can go around a Tackle. Some might say you can win with your hands, or off counters, but those are moves that you need to setup by threatening him with either your power or your speed.

You need to be able to bend when you go around the tackle. It's how you change direction quickly, and more importantly,  it's how you change direction without presenting a large target that an offensive tackle can land a target on. 

+++

2.

From a mathematical standpoint, you're usually looking at a combination of 3-cone and 10 yard split. That's how fast they can get their first two steps and then their ability to change direction.

From a football standpoint, you look at their pass rush opportunities, and then you look at their pass rush wins. How are they winning? Are they winning off of hustle sacks, or are they winning by being able to dip and bend.

+++

3.

Why does it have to be only one thing? Why can't we acknowledge that he was not put in an ideal position to rack up counting stats, and also struggled to put up those counting stats because he wasn't able to turn on a tight radius and present a small target?

[deathstar]

12 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1.

From a mathematical standpoint:

Danielle Hunter (6.95), Von Miller (6.7), Myles Garrett(Didn't do it), Frank Clark (7.08), Dee Ford (7.07), Chandler Jones(7.07), Ryan Kerrigan(7.18), TJ Watt (6.79) were the edge rushers with 13 sacks or more. According to Mockdraftable a 7.08 3-cone would be in the 70th percentile among edge rushers candidates.

Obviously that's not a perfect study of the discussion, but it's at least somewhere in the direction.

From a football standpoint:

There's really only two (or three) ways to get to the passer. You can go through a Tackle, or you can go around a Tackle. Some might say you can win with your hands, or off counters, but those are moves that you need to setup by threatening him with either your power or your speed.

You need to be able to bend when you go around the tackle. It's how you change direction quickly, and more importantly,  it's how you change direction without presenting a large target that an offensive tackle can land a target on. 

+++

2.

From a mathematical standpoint, you're usually looking at a combination of 3-cone and 10 yard split. That's how fast they can get their first two steps and then their ability to change direction.

From a football standpoint, you look at their pass rush opportunities, and then you look at their pass rush wins. How are they winning? Are they winning off of hustle sacks, or are they winning by being able to dip and bend.

+++

3.

Why does it have to be only one thing? Why can't we acknowledge that he was not put in an ideal position to rack up counting stats, and also struggled to put up those counting stats because he wasn't able to turn on a tight radius and present a small target?

1. I don't believe sacks indicate pass rush ability. 13 or more plays per year those guys tackled the quarterback before he passed - but did they win more than players like Za'Darius Smith and his 22nd percentile 3 cone? It's likely due to the unavailability of pressure stats and I understand the limitations there. Another thing - Gary's 3 cone put him in the 66th percentile, is that a huge difference from the 70th? Enough to say he can't turn the corner?

2. Is Gary's 92nd percentile 10 yard split enough to make up for his merely above average 3 cone? 

3. It doesn't have to be one thing, I was addressing snack's assertion that it was the reason why he wasn't a top 5 pick. I agree with your ideal position statement and that he struggled to put up sacks, but I'm not sure the reason is because of his bend.