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

[Leader]

Yeah....so @AlexGreen#20 What are you saying? Is this your best contribution? 

[AlexGreen#20]

3 minutes ago, spilltray said:

Just because they are seeing the field doesn't mean they SHOULD be. Green Bay is in the lucky position of having two guys in front of Gary who are outright good. They aren't forced to play Gary. Is it fundamentally different from Aaron Rodgers? Most teams don't have the luxury to not throw someone like Gary into a major role right away and we are lucky we have the opportunity to work with him this way 

 

Edit: Not to mention he looks fine in what snaps he is getting. If forced into a larger role, I'd bet Gary would be "contributing".

1. We're playing the Smiths a ridiculous number of snaps. Among DL (The Smiths are considered LBs on FO) they would be 8th and 10th in snap percentage, and it's only that low for Z because he keeps having to come out for injury. More concerning is that we're also playing Clark the 7th most defensive snaps by percentage. Our front group has 3 guys in the top 10. Don't tell me there aren't snaps available for the 12th overall pick. 

2. You shouldn't be "forced" to play the 12th overall pick. You should be excited at the idea. You should be trying to get him in the game to contribute.

3. Yes it's different than Aaron Rodgers. You only play 1 QB per snap. Your 1 QB plays every snap. You play 2 OLBs and 1 3T per snap, and each of those positions routinely sub out for rest in the middle of drives, or at least they should be.

4. He doesn't look fine in the snaps that he's getting. He looks unproductive as hell. He's gotten 160 defensive snaps and PFR has him at 1 sack, 1 Knockdown, and 1 Hurry. His sack was against Elijah Wilkinson (PFF's leader in the clubhouse with 9 sacks allowed on the season already!!!) and his knockdown was a play where he was beaten and the QB was flushed out of the pocket to his side.

5. We give Fackrell crap last year for his awful pressure rate, but that was still 18 pressures on 623 snaps. Gary has 3 in 160. Fackrell's awful year last year is going to be 50% better than Gary's on a per snap basis, so it's not like he's even contributing efficiently in his limited role. 

[coachbuns]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. We're playing the Smiths a ridiculous number of snaps. Among DL (The Smiths are considered LBs on FO) they would be 8th and 10th in snap percentage, and it's only that low for Z because he keeps having to come out for injury. More concerning is that we're also playing Clark the 7th most defensive snaps by percentage. Our front group has 3 guys in the top 10. Don't tell me there aren't snaps available for the 12th overall pick. 

2. You shouldn't be "forced" to play the 12th overall pick. You should be excited at the idea. You should be trying to get him in the game to contribute.

3. Yes it's different than Aaron Rodgers. You only play 1 QB per snap. Your 1 QB plays every snap. You play 2 OLBs and 1 3T per snap, and each of those positions routinely sub out for rest in the middle of drives, or at least they should be.

4. He doesn't look fine in the snaps that he's getting. He looks unproductive as hell. He's gotten 160 defensive snaps and PFR has him at 1 sack, 1 Knockdown, and 1 Hurry. His sack was against Elijah Wilkinson (PFF's leader in the clubhouse with 9 sacks allowed on the season already!!!) and his knockdown was a play where he was beaten and the QB was flushed out of the pocket to his side.

5. We give Fackrell crap last year for his awful pressure rate, but that was still 18 pressures on 623 snaps. Gary has 3 in 160. Fackrell's awful year last year is going to be 50% better than Gary's on a per snap basis, so it's not like he's even contributing efficiently in his limited role. 

Gary certainly isn't doing much regardless of his situation and whether or not he ever will is certainly up for debate.  That being said, this wouldn't even be an issue if TJ Watt was our pick instead of King a couple years ago.   King (when healthy) has been ok but Watt would certainly look good with the Smiths and Clark right now.  Missing on a pick usually means paying for it somehow down the road.  Drafting is certainly not a science how to get it right but when it goes badly it shows down the road.  Let's hope Gary gets it sooner than later.  

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

Gary certainly isn't doing much regardless of his situation and whether or not he ever will is certainly up for debate.  That being said, this wouldn't even be an issue if TJ Watt was our pick instead of King a couple years ago.   King (when healthy) has been ok but Watt would certainly look good with the Smiths and Clark right now.  Missing on a pick usually means paying for it somehow down the road.  Drafting is certainly not a science how to get it right but when it goes badly it shows down the road.  Let's hope Gary gets it sooner than later.  

Remind me again why we all consider Brian Burns too small but TJ Watt is somehow just right for this Pettine defense?

Also, King is having a pretty damn good year, 1 TD allowed, but 3 INTs and a FF with a passer rating against of 78?

Edited November 22, 2019 by AlexGreen#20

[TheBitzMan]

2 hours ago, coachbuns said:

Gary certainly isn't doing much regardless of his situation and whether or not he ever will is certainly up for debate.  That being said, this wouldn't even be an issue if TJ Watt was our pick instead of King a couple years ago.   King (when healthy) has been ok but Watt would certainly look good with the Smiths and Clark right now.  Missing on a pick usually means paying for it somehow down the road.  Drafting is certainly not a science how to get it right but when it goes badly it shows down the road.  Let's hope Gary gets it sooner than later.  

Say it with me..."we wouldn't have both of the Smiths if we had Watt"

We would also be down an above average starting corner, who is not a "miss" of a pick. 

[Packerraymond]

3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Murray: Contributing

Bosa: Contributing

Williams: Contributing more than Gary

Ferrell: Contributing more than Gary

White: Contributing

Jones: Contributing

Allen: Contributing

Hockenson: Contributing more than Gary

Oliver: Contributing more than Gary

Bush: Contributing

Williams: Injured in preseason

+++++

Wilkins: Contributing more than Gary

Lindstrom: Injured in week 1

Haskins: Seems to suck. Probably not contributing more than Gary.

Burns: Contributing

Lawrence: Contributing

Bradbury: Contributing more than Gary

Simmons: Contributing since he's been cleared.

Fant: Contributing

Savage: Contributing

Dillard: Contributing

Howard: Contributing

Jacobs: Contributing

Brown: Contributing

Sweat: Contributing

Abraham: Injured in week 1

Tillery: Contributing more than Gary

Collier: Not contributing

Baker: Playing but terrible.

McGary: Playing, but mediocre

Harry: Taken off of IR after Week 8.

 

 

Let's cut one of the Smith's then so we can get get Gary to "contributing" cause if Williams, Ferrell, Wilkins and even Hock are "contributing" your definition must mean, mediocre at best player being forced into the lineup on mediocre at best teams.

Gary could be mediocre at best without one of the Pro Bowl level EDGE players hogging snaps in front of him.

[cannondale]

4 hours ago, spilltray said:

First off, first round picks are 5 years, not 4. Second, even high picks need time to transition, and Gary was raw enough, this is a situation it makes sense to not rush it.

 

It doesn't matter how high they are picked, most rookies aren't really ready year 1. Some contribute, but it's a bonus more than the norm.

The fifth year is expensive. So while it's a great idea, it's not a bargain. Because it's not cheap, for the sake of this discussion, not really part of the rookie deal. I also highly doubt he was drafted with the intention of a redshirt year. That's reserved for QB's. Rationalizing that while other first round picks are contributing is beyond my comprehension. Contributions from guys on rookie deals is how you succeed. Also, the longer this thing moves at a glacial pace, the more likely he busts completely

Edited November 22, 2019 by cannondale

[cannondale]

3 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

High picks do not always correlate to a finished product on the field. Some players are quite close to a finished product out of the box (like Nick Bosa) while some are high picks for the athletic potential and everyone knows they need work. the Packers picked a 'high-upside - needs work' guy. If Gary isn't doing much by the middle of NEXT season, I might be seeing a possible fail. At this time the grade is incomplete.

It doesn't matter if you haven't come to terms with what you call a lost season, the Packers and outside scouts all knew he needed plenty of work and Gute took the pick anyway, because he fitted what they wanted, a high RAS guy (9.95) who is a bigger type of pass rusher, not a (listed as) 6'5", 250lb Brian Burns type, but a more powerful 6'4", 277.

Who didn't produce against college talent, and hasn't produced against pro talent. The rest of the talk about Gary is strictly hopes and dreams because the facts haven't changed.

[TheBitzMan]

Gary could suck or he could be great, the question is who are you taking off the field to get him snaps? Him not getting snaps is not evidence that he sucks, the Packers just have more EDGE depth than just about any other team in the league. 

I don't really think this is that hard. 

[cannondale]

2 minutes ago, TheBitzMan said:

Gary could suck or he could be great, the question is who are you taking off the field to get him snaps? Him not getting snaps is not evidence that he sucks, the Packers just have more EDGE depth than just about any other team in the league. 

I don't really think this is that hard. 

What ? The only thing right about your post is that it isn't that hard. The Smith's outrageous snap count is well documented. The Giants won Super Bowls by rotating DL . Gary isn't good enough or he would be playing much more, thus making the Smiths healthier and more productive and the defense much better. Fackrell has 80 more snaps that Gary and it's not because he brings Pettine an apple every day.

[Arthur Penske]

How can anyone have such strong feelings like 10 weeks into a rookie season?

[cannondale]

1 minute ago, Arthur Penske said:

How can anyone have such strong feelings like 10 weeks into a rookie season?

By sticking to the facts.

[AlexGreen#20]

19 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Let's cut one of the Smith's then so we can get get Gary to "contributing" cause if Williams, Ferrell, Wilkins and even Hock are "contributing" your definition must mean, mediocre at best player being forced into the lineup on mediocre at best teams.

Gary could be mediocre at best without one of the Pro Bowl level EDGE players hogging snaps in front of him.

Fine, take those names off and we're still doing badly

[coachbuns]

1 hour ago, TheBitzMan said:

Say it with me..."we wouldn't have both of the Smiths if we had Watt"

We would also be down an above average starting corner, who is not a "miss" of a pick. 

Say it with me .. we wouldn't have needed a Smith and the dollars involved if we had Watt.  Kings above average sometimes and when he's not hurt.  Didn't say he was a miss, just said the pick wasn't what it could have been when compared to what Watt has done.  Nice try though.

Edited November 22, 2019 by coachbuns

[coachbuns]

32 minutes ago, TheBitzMan said:

Gary could suck or he could be great, the question is who are you taking off the field to get him snaps? Him not getting snaps is not evidence that he sucks, the Packers just have more EDGE depth than just about any other team in the league. 

I don't really think this is that hard. 

And we had to pay big time through free agency for it … it isn't that hard.  Point being, didn't need to spend through free agency like we did if Watt was there instead.  Jury still on on King when he's in and healthy.