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

[Nick_gb]

19 minutes ago, Norm said:

Hey I've barely drank since Monday lol that's going to change tonight. Just about to get home from vacation

 

And that helps the pain though

Wtf is a vacation without drinking? That aint my vacation, nope! 😂

[ThatJerkDave]

21 minutes ago, Nick_gb said:

Wtf is a vacation without drinking? That aint my vacation, nope! 😂

I think most people call it "rehab"

[Norm]

43 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I think most people call it "rehab"

It's what I've been calling it the entire time no joke

[HighCalebR]

3 hours ago, vegas492 said:

Very true.

I didn't like the Gary pick at the time, and I REALLY didn't like the Savage pick.  Jenkins shocked me, but from the little tape I saw of him, I knew he would be a good player.

To me, it seemed like GB was drafting an athlete and not a player with Gary and Savage.  They've both proved me wrong so far, and I hope they still do.  

Savage had the film that showed he belonged for sure. 2017 and 2018 were dang good years.

[craig]

Gary's health will be a huge question.  He played a lot of snaps, but he missed chunks of the season, too.  And after a guy hurts his ankle, I sometimes wonder how much in subsequent game(s) he's playing at sub-optimal.  

Would also be cool to see if he was able to sustain his pressure rate over a full season.  Having it be excellent for a subset of a season is one thing; over a full season is something more. 

Also curious to see how his snap-count might be this season?  Last year, he played 44% of snaps.  Z 84%, Preston 79% (Sullivan 71%, Lowry 59%..).  Is his pressure rate perhaps boosted by playing selectively in pressure snaps?  If he plays more snaps, will he run tired more often?  Or if he's playing more snaps, might he get better reads on o-linemen and get better pressure?  

Sacks:  Pressure is great, and sacks come in small quantities and with some fluke luck involved.  Still, sacks can make a huge difference.  Will he get a higher volume of actual sacks?  

Would sure be great if he could emerge as a real star who played tons of snaps, made tons of plays, including lots of sacks.  

[TransientTexan]

22 minutes ago, craig said:

but he missed chunks of the season

he missed 1 game. 

as for the pressure metrics, they are per-pass-rush snap, so it's not going to be skewed by differing opportunities. 7 sacks in the final 10 games would put him top-10 if he kept that up for 17g. The only question is his endurance if they ramp up his snap count.  

 

[ThatJerkDave]

Thing is, we don't even have to worry about his snap count because of both Smiths so if any of them need a rest, we have it covered.  So for at least one year, we should have fresh doodz to rotate.

[vegas492]

What I really want is for someone to teach Gary and Z the strip sack move.  Z's okay at it, but when they are closing, they gotta target that throwing arm and chop down on it.  It's an artform.

 

[R T]

15 hours ago, craig said:

Heh heh.  RT, not to belabor this!  :):). But again, I think you keep faulting FANS on this account.  It's fine to fault the fans for overvaluing a pickup too much, or getting too enthused about a barely-above-minimum guy, I get that.  But it was Gute and MLF who made the decision to sign the player.  So if you don't like a move, don't fault the fans, fault MLF and Gute for electing to sign the player.  (Heh heh, although doubtless MLF and Gute are perhaps a little more realistic in their expectations relative to some hyperbolic fans!  . 

Uglem makes a Morrison analogy, "one-down LB"...  MLF may be an idiot, but his scouting eval was VERY different from Uglem's one-down Morrison analogy.  Almost completely different, since Morrison was more thumper/run, while MLF talked about Campbell more from length, speed, and TE-coverage angle. 

I'm not much of a PFF expert, but I've certainly seen some cases where PFF was giving Packer defenders negative grades, while the coaches were saying they were grading well.  That may imply either of several things.  1.  The Packers have an incompetent grading system.  2.  PFF's scoring system is sometimes variably incompetent?  3.  Coach-speak is bogus, and their "graded well" may be relative to very low expectations or just be PR falsehood.  4.  Maybe the Packers can grade their own guys better than PFF, because they know the specific expectations and play calls; but perhaps for an outside guy the Packers can NOT grade any better than PFF?  Anyway, my thought it is that the Packers scouting may be better than PFF, at least as regards function for the Packers defense?  

I'm not at all assuming Campbell will be any good or make much difference.  Just reminding that it was MLF and Gute who thought he'd be good enough and helpful enough to be worth the (very modest) deal. 

Well you belabor this point, you answered your own question. 🙂 It is not Gutes out there claiming every back of the roster signing from another team is going to take the Packers to the SB because he is just soo much better than any of the players they currently have in that position room. 

Not for or against bringing in the player to compete, if Gutes thinks it is a good idea I'm not killing him for it. He even stated in his post draft comments that they missed out on some LB's on day 3 that got selected just ahead of them and would still probably add someone to that room. The signing should not be a surprise. What I'm not crazy about is bringing in a marginal player and handing him the starting job, which is basically what they did when they paid that signing bonus. He should have to win the job, he has done nothing in 5 seasons that says otherwise. Iron sharpens iron, yet the Packers removed the competition in that position room before TC even started. Personally do not believe that is a good thing. 

[Refugee]

16 minutes ago, R T said:

Well you belabor this point, you answered your own question. 🙂 It is not Gutes out there claiming every back of the roster signing from another team is going to take the Packers to the SB because he is just soo much better than any of the players they currently have in that position room. 

Not for or against bringing in the player to compete, if Gutes thinks it is a good idea I'm not killing him for it. He even stated in his post draft comments that they missed out on some LB's on day 3 that got selected just ahead of them and would still probably add someone to that room. The signing should not be a surprise. What I'm not crazy about is bringing in a marginal player and handing him the starting job, which is basically what they did when they paid that signing bonus. He should have to win the job, he has done nothing in 5 seasons that says otherwise. Iron sharpens iron, yet the Packers removed the competition in that position room before TC even started. Personally do not believe that is a good thing. 

You believe that very modest contract guarantees a starting spot?  I don’t see it that way.  Although Campbell has the most experience in that room and thus, a leg up, he will still have to compete. If Martin completely out plays him in the preseason, which is totally possible, I don’t see the coaches holding the young player back for a vet on a minimum contact.

I think Gute and Barry have a plan in mind for what they want their ILBs to do and getting some experience and coverage ability in that room is pretty appealing at that low number. I doubt he is an all pro but I would not be surprised if he plays the role they envisioned for him and if he grabs the starting spot, he will have earned it. 

[craig]

12 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Thing is, we don't even have to worry about his snap count because of both Smiths so if any of them need a rest, we have it covered.  So for at least one year, we should have fresh doodz to rotate.

Last year, it was 84%/79%/44% for Smiths and Gary.  That sums to 207%, or basically 2.07 of the big-three OLB per snap.  

In an ideal world where all three stayed fully healthy every snap of every game, I could envision an increased usage of all-three snaps?  For example, what if 1/3 of snaps played all three together?  Shifting 84/79/44 to 84/79/70 would sum to 2.3/snap.  

I like the idea of playing all three together on 1/3 of the snaps.  Whether that's 84/79/70 or 83/70/80 or whatever, I don't care.  But finding ways to use all three and stunt and stuff, without getting killed in run or having them get overwhelmed playing inside that often, could be fun and hypothetically effective.  

Obviously in the National Injury League they aren't really likely to sum to 233% of snaps.  But as coaches always say, you want your best players on the field. 

[R T]

19 minutes ago, Refugee said:

You believe that very modest contract guarantees a starting spot?  I don’t see it that way.  Although Campbell has the most experience in that room and thus, a leg up, he will still have to compete. If Martin completely out plays him in the preseason, which is totally possible, I don’t see the coaches holding the young player back for a vet on a minimum contact.

I think Gute and Barry have a plan in mind for what they want their ILBs to do and getting some experience and coverage ability in that room is pretty appealing at that low number. I doubt he is an all pro but I would not be surprised if he plays the role they envisioned for him and if he grabs the starting spot, he will have earned it. 

So the Packers, who are scraping together every thousand they can to just make it through the season are going to pay a LB 1M signing bonus to stand on the sidelines for the whole game. The 1M signing bonus guaranteed him a roster spot, backup LB's need to be core ST's players, Campbell doesn't play ST's. Unless you think the Packers are stupid, they didn't pay him and guarantee a roster spot for him to watch games from the sidelines, they paid him to start on defense.  

Edited June 15, 2021 by R T

[Refugee]

33 minutes ago, R T said:

So the Packers, who are scraping together every thousand they can to just make it through the season are going to pay a LB 1M signing bonus to stand on the sidelines for the whole game. The 1M signing bonus guaranteed him a roster spot, backup LB's need to be core ST's players, Campbell doesn't play ST's. Unless you think the Packers are stupid, they didn't pay him and guarantee a roster spot for him to watch games from the sidelines, they paid him to start on defense.  

I think it’s safe to say he’ll make the 53, he’s probably better right now than the other ILBs although that remains to be seen. Who knows if he can help us on ST but he increases the depth of talent in arguably the weakest and definitely greenest room on our team. For a minimum contract, that’s a solid deal. He will be competing with Martin for a starting position and may the best gopher win.

[MrBobGray]

I do think one of the biggest challenges for Joe Barry this year is going to be figuring out how to get all three of Smith, Smith and Gary on the field together with some regularity.  All three of those guys are in the best 11 on defense, so every snap you have one of them off the field you're losing effectiveness.  Yeah, obviously you need some level of rotation to keep those guys fresh, you want your edge guys playing with explosiveness, but it's not at all unreasonable to be aiming for 75% of snaps for all three.  You'll make up some of that in the pressure package, but it feels a bit like the key to the front seven this year is going to be finding ways to get Z lined up inside that don't compromise the run defense.  Idle nonsense musing thoughts of the morning are something like having Z heads up on the center, Clark in a 2i on one side, Slaton in a 4i on the other, and Gary and Preston wide.  Sort of force a 1v1 in the middle similar to an under front, but on the center rather than the guard.  Lot of slanting and stunt possibilities there, and Z can and has blown up a lot of plays coming through the center.  

[packfanfb]

42 minutes ago, R T said:

So the Packers, who are scraping together every thousand they can to just make it through the season are going to pay a LB 1M signing bonus to stand on the sidelines for the whole game. The 1M signing bonus guaranteed him a roster spot, backup LB's need to be core ST's players, Campbell doesn't play ST's. Unless you think the Packers are stupid, they didn't pay him and guarantee a roster spot for him to watch games from the sidelines, they paid him to start on defense.  

I mean, have you seen our ILB room? Not sure why this signing is getting talked about so much. It's a good move. Campbell isn't an all-star, which is why he got a whopping $1M in guarantees. Our ILB core currently consists of Barnes, Martin, Summers, Burks and some other training camp bodies. Summers and Burks are basically ST guys only, maybe Summers is at least playable on defense, but barely. So, we literally had 2 ILBs in that room who you'd be comfortable with playing on defense, both are 2nd year players, and Martin, while flashing at times last year, was very inconsistent. Again, it didn't have to be Campbell, but adding a journeyman to that room who's done it on a consistent basis for more than 1 season is a good thing. Be happy.