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

[cannondale]

4 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

This was always the danger of taking Gary in my eyes.  I figured he wasn't going to produce much his rookie year, which means a quarter of the rookie contract is just kinda gone by default.  Given that rookie contracts and their absurd value comparatively is a big part of why 1st round picks are so valuable, this is a tough cost to swallow.  The hope is Gary makes up for the lost time by harnessing his physical gifts and becoming an elite pass rusher, but that just means the pressure is enormously high for him to make meaningful improvements quickly; if you take that guy, his development needs to be priority #1 and personally I feel that means giving him snaps even if he isn't ready.  You know he's not going to perform, but you do it because the teaching tape off a guy's failures is hugely valuable.  No better way to show Gary what not to do than to show him film of him doing it and failing.  If you take that guy and then keep him on the bench, I really feel that you've just compounded the problem.  Now you took a guy that was already a 3 year + option prospect and reduced his ability to be ready in year 2. Gary didn't need an NFL S&C program the way some college guys do, and he didn't need to get his head on straight or adjust to life as a pro.  His one, glaring issue was a lack of development and now he's not even getting the snaps to work on it.

Can't argue with a single thing you said. And another thing that needs saying. It's not Gary's fault he was drafted where he was. By all accounts, he has apparently done everything the right way. 

[HighCalebR]

5 minutes ago, cannondale said:

The first 25% of this 'investment' is most certainly is a fail. I followed that up with saying if his progress continues at a glacial pace he will bust completely. If that's bust talk by me, so be it. Am I pulling stuff out of the air or just looking at his lack of production in college along with his lack of success thus far in the pros ?

Say what you will, but am I more crazy than the fans that say he just needs time to succeed based on absolutely nothing other than he runs fast for a guy his size ?

That's mostly fair, there is the 5th year option if he pans out. Big test for the coaching staff.

Luckily we're doing alright without him so far.

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, TheBitzMan said:

We must have different definitions of OUTRAGEOUS then. Their snaps aren't outrageous compared to the rest of the league here are the snap #'s among Edges...

• Whitney Mercilus - 93.7% (636)
• Chandler Jones - 93.6% (760)
• Bud Dupree - 91.4% (657)
• Von Miller - 89% (591)
• Khalil Mack - 86.2% (612)
• TJ Watt - 86.2% (620)
• Shaq Barrett - 85.1% (616)
• Harold Landry - 85% (600)
• Leonard Floyd - 83.4% (592)
• Preston Smith - 82.9% (558)
• Dante Fowler - 81.4% (581)
• Z. Smith - 81.1% (546) 

They are 10th & 12th in the league in snap % but are both the lowest on this list in regards to TOTAL SNAPS. They are already off of the field 20% of the time, how much more do you want them to rest?

 In regards to Fackrell he offers more versatility and experience than Gary does at this point. As I said Gary could suck but I wouldn't say this snap count thing says that he does. 

 

 

They should be playing every bit of those snaps. A defensive stud should be capable of playing 80% of snaps. Gary is fighting with Fackrell for 20%. 

When you look to many of our past 1st rounders/early 2nd dating back to Ted, we're a proactive drafting team, not reactive. I don't think anyone in that building would be shocked to see the snaps Gary got so far. He'll probably replace Fackrell as the clear #3 next year and if he comes to camp with more of an arsenal of moves, maybe he starts eating into the Smiths' reps. His rookie year has gone as expected to me, I see no reason for others to be up in arms about it, as long as I have value by the end of the rookie deal, I couldn't give a crap if he was the #1 pick or #32. What he does in his rookie year is irrelevant if I get that value.

[Gopackgonerd]

2 hours ago, coachbuns said:

Yeah, Matthews and Perry were so good we let them both walk.  We had the choice of King who was always hurt in college and Watt.  Not saying King was the worst ever draft pick as he hasn't been by any means.  Just saying production wise which is all one can do to compare … King hasn't done the job Watt has. 

2 years ago before we let them go. Perry coming off 11 sacks.I dont wanna harp on it too much on it because it's a broken record of a topic. But I dont blame them making the choice to help the secondary that was in shambles going into the year over EDGE. 

[Arthur Penske]

3 hours ago, cannondale said:

By sticking to the facts.

The facts are that he's about half way through his rookie season and many players take some time to develop.

[Packerraymond]

18 minutes ago, cannondale said:

The first 25% of this 'investment' is most certainly is a fail. I followed that up with saying if his progress continues at a glacial pace he will bust completely. If that's bust talk by me, so be it. Am I pulling stuff out of the air or just looking at his lack of production in college along with his lack of success thus far in the pros ?

Say what you will, but am I more crazy than the fans that say he just needs time to succeed based on absolutely nothing other than he runs fast for a guy his size ? Because there simply isn't any other data that suggests he will. I guess we could check his 6th grade tape.

That's not how it works, if you say "I want my rookie to have 150 Packerraymond completely arbitrary, meaningless, value points" by the end of his rookie deal. I don't need him to get a minimum of 30 a year. It can go 5-20-25-40-60 for all I care.

When the contract is expired or terminated, you judge the value you got. Not 1 year in. If Gary stays on the current course, total bust obviously, but this new trend of judging rookies after year 1 is odd, the talk used to be how you didn't draft for need to plug and play.

[cannondale]

4 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

The facts are that he's about half way through his rookie season and many players take some time to develop.

5 years and counting ....

[MacReady]

Vince Biegel is having a hell of a year when everybody wanted him cut because he was a bust and he was a 4th round pick.  Lol. 

Let's cut Gary and watch him turn into a Hall of Fame player. 

[cannondale]

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

That's not how it works, if you say "I want my rookie to have 150 Packerraymond completely arbitrary, meaningless, value points" by the end of his rookie deal. I don't need him to get a minimum of 30 a year. It can go 5-20-25-40-60 for all I care.

When the contract is expired or terminated, you judge the value you got. Not 1 year in. If Gary stays on the current course, total bust obviously, but this new trend of judging rookies after year 1 is odd, the talk used to be how you didn't draft for need to plug and play.

That's 99% of the argument ..... since his arrival at Michigan.  And no, I'm not willing to just shrug off a lost year from Top 12 picks. 

[Packerraymond]

23 minutes ago, cannondale said:

That's 99% of the argument ..... since his arrival at Michigan.  And no, I'm not willing to just shrug off a lost year from Top 12 picks. 

Well I'm just telling you over the course of a GM career you're going to end up with FAR more busts by being on the clock and thinking "who can help me this year" versus "who's going to be the best player at his peak."

[AlexGreen#20]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Well I'm just telling you over the course of a GM career you're going to end up with FAR more busts by being on the clock and thinking "who can help me this year" versus "who's going to be the best player at his peak."

I think you would probably end up with fewer busts drafting, "who can help me right now" rather than "who has the highest ceiling"

[coachbuns]

2 hours ago, TheBitzMan said:

Except you insinuated we would have the Smiths and Watt and we are paying for EDGEs because we missed on the King pick...Nice try though.

 

Nothing to suggest because we were so weak at the position we still wouldn't have signed the Smiths.  My original thought still stands ... Smiths, Watt, Clark would be a hell of a front.  King when healthy and on the field has been average if not slight above average.

[pacman5252]

I want to start off saying, Gary has been semi disapointing  (between taking him over guys I wanted, etc). With that said, to defend the pick;

I get the 25% argument, but it isn't the be all end. No matter what, due to tags we still have control of Gary for his entire career if we want, which there is value in, either in having control of a plus pass rusher or as a trade asset (see Oakland/KC/Hou/SEA getting picks for pass rushers who were expiring).

In addition, we're paying him 2.8M. That is what over the hill players get on deal 2-3, so you can argue he is technically still a value contract, even as a part time player.

 

Hopefully he improves a lot

 

[Packerraymond]

23 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I think you would probably end up with fewer busts drafting, "who can help me right now" rather than "who has the highest ceiling"

Yes the motto always is, draft for need, not BPA. 

I know you dislike Gary but you're smarter than this when it comes to football, I've seen it with my own eyes. You can dislike the pick or prospect and still understand the philosophy behind it.

[Packer_ESP]

10 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Yes the motto always is, draft for need, not BPA. 

I know you dislike Gary but you're smarter than this when it comes to football, I've seen it with my own eyes. You can dislike the pick or prospect and still understand the philosophy behind it.

To be fair, he didn't say you would end up with a better team, just fewer busts. Different concepts.