Packers Huddle

I think it's OK to say Simmons would've been more of an instant impact pick, and maybe even better overall pick than Gary.

But when Gary has developed into such a stud, it's weird to make a mountain out of this particular molehill. IF Gary had busted, THEN I'd totally agree with yoop.

Especially if you wanna use hindsight to the max: The actual ideal scenario would have been to get both Gary AND Simmons. The latter went just two picks before our Savage pick. Spending a little more (1st, 3rd and 4th) to trade up a few spots higher could've netted us both Simmons and a 4th rounder for the cost of Savage and Sterny. THAT woulda been sweet!

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 14:33

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 14:03

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 13:55

100% Belief is not production though... Their production was not "studly"



One can "believe" that if they want to, but we will never know as both Smiths lived up to their contracts in year 1 and played VERY well.



Signal of disbelief? How about prudent roster building? We signed 2 mediocre production players with high potential and to ensure we had the talent at edge rusher we also drafted an edge rusher at 12. This was both for 2019, but also beyond. Roster building is not a short term endeavor. With the Edge position being all but bare going into the 2019 offseason it was prudent to get all 3 for both that year and beyond. While it may be questionable to some, it doesn't make it a bad or ridiculous move.

I am saying they had a plan...and it worked great. You dont have to feel the need to defend the FO in this debate. I think they did well! We are just debating the plan. You are saying they lacked over the top production in Washington and Baltimore...I am agreeing with that. And that made the FO need to spend a 12 in case one of them busted out. Thats where i disagree. They had confidence in the Smiths, thats why they shelled out 100m.

I am saying the contracts the Smiths received were not contracts that implied the Packers would need to "hedge their bets" (your words). I am not claiming the Smiths had production that warranted their contracts, I am saying the Packers were VERY confident they would work in their system and be what they needed...so they paid them to fill those spots. They were right! Good job Gutey!

Next, the Gary pick was then for much needed depth, and for someone who could contribute a few years down the road. I know this because he wasnt expected to play immediately, as we knew he was raw talent that needed to hone his craft, and it was a pick for the future.

It was not that the org was unsure of how the Smiths would play so they picked the same position at 12 overall. You do not give the contracts the FO gave to those players unless they were really sure. If they gave that kind of money just to take a flyer on a couple scrubs, they should be fired. Luckily, thats now what happened.

No blind defending going on, simply looking at the situation as it was in 2019 and the reasons behind the moves.

They paid 100m for potential, but that potential was not a sure thing, just as they spend the 12th pick on Gary for potential and again, not a sure thing. They were looking for 3 studs and got it!

The contracts were shelled out because the cupboard was bare at Edge and we were not in the running for a top tier Edge that year. Gary was picked to hedge the bet of either one of the Smiths not panning out, in part. All 3 did pan out and it work out beautifully!

Absolutely was the Gary pick also a pick for depth as well as a starter, whether year 1 or in the future. Thankfully we didn't even have to see if he could start year 1.

Again, don't forget potential, that's what they paid for in the Smiths potential. Potential always has a chance not to pan out. There are no sure things and it gets FOs fired if they believe there are and build a roster that way.

every draft pick and every FA in the league has a chance to not pan out. No matter what their past production was. You pay 100m to two guys because you are very confident they are going to work out. You dont make an investment like that and then use a 12 to cover your a** because you are unconfident about what you just did.

Gary was depth and Gary was the future. Worked great. Props.

If the Packers were so scared of wasting money on one of the Smiths they probably do go Simmons who was more ready week one.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 14:40

every draft pick and every FA in the league has a chance to not pan out. No matter what their past production was. You pay 100m to two guys because you are very confident they are going to work out. You dont make an investment like that and then use a 12 to cover your a** because you are unconfident about what you just did.

Gary was depth and Gary was the future. Worked great. Props.

If the Packers were so scared of wasting money on one of the Smiths they probably do go Simmons who was more ready week one.

Absolutely the team paid that to the Smiths because they believed they would be good. They were also prudent team builders, recognized it may not be the case, and since the position was depleted of talent, they went with Gary for the potential future All Pro and as a back up in case either Smith didn't pan out. It's the best of both worlds! And considering that a good edge rush room has 3 good players to rotate it was even more so a prudent move for the current(2019) and the future. Nothing to do with fright and nothing to do with the team not believing in the Smiths. If teams just paid their starters and no one else, paying vet. minimum to everyone else, they wouldn't be very good teams. Paying players behind starters or drafting players behind starters doesn't mean the team does not have confident in the starters, especially in this case.

here we go again, the same few defending this insanity of drafting a pine rider for two seasons at slot 12 over a player that started as rookie and has produced well since then, nothing really changes around here

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:15

here we go again, the same few defending this insanity of drafting a pine rider for two seasons at slot 12 over a player that started as rookie and has produced well since then, nothing really changes around here

When only one player 3 years after a draft can be named as a "better alternative", with complete benefit of hindsight, than the player we selected....

I call that a freaking awesome draft pick.

No. Come to think about it, that isn't a strong enough word. I mean that is downright a legendary draft pick. Like I will take that every 5 years in a heartbeat.

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:15

here we go again, the same few defending this insanity of drafting a pine rider for two seasons at slot 12 over a player that started as rookie and has produced well since then, nothing really changes around here

That's not what is happening... I didn't even mention Simmons... It would have been nice to have Simmons, but it is also nice to have Gary. Both can be true.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 14:35

I think it's OK to say Simmons would've been more of an instant impact pick, and maybe even better overall pick than Gary.

But when Gary has developed into such a stud, it's weird to make a mountain out of this particular molehill. IF Gary had busted, THEN I'd totally agree with yoop.

Especially if you wanna use hindsight to the max: The actual ideal scenario would have been to get both Gary AND Simmons. The latter went just two picks before our Savage pick. Spending a little more (1st, 3rd and 4th) to trade up a few spots higher could've netted us both Simmons and a 4th rounder for the cost of Savage and Sterny. THAT woulda been sweet!

I don't know how anyone could even possibly defend the Gary Pick at that time, it would be understandable if we hadn't just handed out a kings ransom for the Smiths.

we where in far greater need when Ted moved back up for Mathews, and 3 or 4 edge rushers went prior to him, and we had our choice of all of em, who'd we take instead? a DT, why, because good DT's are harder to find then Edge rushers.

lis, water over the bridge, and this has nada to do with Gary.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:25

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:15

here we go again, the same few defending this insanity of drafting a pine rider for two seasons at slot 12 over a player that started as rookie and has produced well since then, nothing really changes around here

That's not what is happening... I didn't even mention Simmons... It would have been nice to have Simmons, but it is also nice to have Gary. Both can be true.

Packers would have drafted Simmons if they felt one of the Smiths might bust out and they felt they needed a player to help cover their a****.

They drafted Gary because they trusted the Smiths and knew Gary would have time to develop.

One clue they trusted the Smiths is giving them 100m, next clue is drafted the project over the more ready to go guy

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:22

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:15

here we go again, the same few defending this insanity of drafting a pine rider for two seasons at slot 12 over a player that started as rookie and has produced well since then, nothing really changes around here

When only one player 3 years after a draft can be named as a "better alternative", with complete benefit of hindsight, than the player we selected....

I call that a freaking awesome draft pick.

No. Come to think about it, that isn't a strong enough word. I mean that is downright a legendary draft pick. Like I will take that every 5 years in a heartbeat.

sale on Rose mixed with other colors of the rainbow glasses at Cosco, hurry the hell up or you'll miss out

we both know neither will change there minds on this, I respect that, I think when a person has conviction about there opinions they shouldn't wobble, there is always more then one way to do stuff, and I know I'am not always right, just this time with Gary, and the WR, ahh I don't want to forget Love, Brohm years back, whoops lets not forget Harrell, ehhhh, I think thats it for this century
boy I'am losing my Homey status.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:37

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:25

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:15

here we go again, the same few defending this insanity of drafting a pine rider for two seasons at slot 12 over a player that started as rookie and has produced well since then, nothing really changes around here

That's not what is happening... I didn't even mention Simmons... It would have been nice to have Simmons, but it is also nice to have Gary. Both can be true.

Packers would have drafted Simmons if they felt one of the Smiths might bust out and they felt they needed a player to help cover their a****.

They drafted Gary because they trusted the Smiths and knew Gary would have time to develop.

One clue they trusted the Smiths is giving them 100m, next clue is drafted the project over the more ready to go guy

Interesting concept. If they don't believe in the players at a position, draft a player who plays another position. FYI Gary and the Smiths play Edge, Simmons plays Interior Defensive Line.

Good thing the FO believed in the Smiths, gave them 100m, and drafted Gary to add depth at the position and hedge their bets on the Smiths just in case one or both didn't pan out!

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:46

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:22

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:15

here we go again, the same few defending this insanity of drafting a pine rider for two seasons at slot 12 over a player that started as rookie and has produced well since then, nothing really changes around here

When only one player 3 years after a draft can be named as a "better alternative", with complete benefit of hindsight, than the player we selected....

I call that a freaking awesome draft pick.

No. Come to think about it, that isn't a strong enough word. I mean that is downright a legendary draft pick. Like I will take that every 5 years in a heartbeat.

sale on Rose mixed with other colors of the rainbow glasses at Cosco, hurry the hell up or you'll miss out

we both know neither will change there minds on this, I respect that, I think when a person has conviction about there opinions they shouldn't wobble, there is always more then one way to do stuff, and I know I'am not always right, just this time with Gary, and the WR, ahh I don't want to forget Love, Brohm years back, whoops lets not forget Harrell, ehhhh, I think thats it for this century
boy I'am losing my Homey status.

Again. Completely disagree.

I absolutely think thoughts on a subject should change when presented good information and data to support a change in perspective. Not doing so makes one incredibly hard headed and quite frankly useless to talk to.

The reason why people don't talk politics is because it's generally useless talk. Politics and policy has a gazillion factors, variables and links and politics is largely driven by emotion and personal circumstance to how one views the world compared to rhetoric and thought. So it's pointless to talk about unless you are talking with like-minded people because it feels good.

I have no problem changing my perspective on topics. In fact I am very happy when I do and appreciative of the information swaying me differently. It's why I come here and enjoy reading some people's posts. Like the Zach Kruse or Andy Herman "post-game" tweets and cutups are awesome because it makes me view the game differently than when I was watching live.

But the only information presented on the Gary argument is "I didn't like the position" and the only player consistently brought up as a better alternative is Simmons.

When there is 300+ possible available players and you can only name one better alternative when considering player talent and position...that's a freaking awesome draft pick. That's not opinion. That's empirical fact.

But when you flip it around to say the Kevin King pick, I can give you a multitude of names that would have been a better selection.
TJ Watt, Reuben Foster, Ryan Ramczyk, Budda Baker, Curtis Samuel, Dalvin Cook, Gerald Everett, Marcus Williams, Joe Mixon, Tyus Bowser

...those are just names on the top of my head that went from our original pick (30) to like pick 45 or so. (so including the "likely selected players" in this pool and not just hand picking Rd 3 and Day 3 gems).

Kevin King is what a bad pick looks like. Because there are so many names that would have been better looking back.

Rashan Gary is a what a good pick looks like. Because the amount of names, using hindsight even, is very small when looking at who would have been better.

I wanted Brian Burns that year. I made no bones about it. I supported Gary but always compared him to Burns. But now I am very glad we have Gary instead.

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:36

I don't know how anyone could even possibly defend the Gary Pick at that time, it would be understandable if we hadn't just handed out a kings ransom for the Smiths.

Like half the mocks that offseason had us going edge at 12 or 30.

Many many of us wanted edge.

BF004 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 17:30

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:36

I don't know how anyone could even possibly defend the Gary Pick at that time, it would be understandable if we hadn't just handed out a kings ransom for the Smiths.

Like half the mocks that offseason had us going edge at 12 or 30.

Many many of us wanted edge.

TE and Edge were the 2 most mocked positions for the Packers first round picks.

BF004 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 17:30

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:36

I don't know how anyone could even possibly defend the Gary Pick at that time, it would be understandable if we hadn't just handed out a kings ransom for the Smiths.

Like half the mocks that offseason had us going edge at 12 or 30.

Many many of us wanted edge.

sure before the start of UFA thats true, we had a need for edge rushers, that need was satisfied when Gute bought the Smiths.

we had all kinds of other positional needs, Simmons is just the most obvious, Fant, might have panned out better for us with Rodgers, we had needs at CB, OL, and obviously WR, the defense for picking a not ready to play Gary is staggering.

Then why would so many of those draftniks that obviously have a higher football IQ than mine mock Edge rushers to us?

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 19:43

BF004 wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 17:30

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 15:36

I don't know how anyone could even possibly defend the Gary Pick at that time, it would be understandable if we hadn't just handed out a kings ransom for the Smiths.

Like half the mocks that offseason had us going edge at 12 or 30.

Many many of us wanted edge.

sure before the start of UFA thats true, we had a need for edge rushers, that need was satisfied when Gute bought the Smiths.

we had all kinds of other positional needs, Simmons is just the most obvious, Fant, might have panned out better for us with Rodgers, we had needs at CB, OL, and obviously WR, the defense for picking a not ready to play Gary is staggering.

Even after, I would argue Brian Burns was the single most mocked guy, among others, post FA.

Man, this went off the rails.

So random. 2022 OTAs thread about 2019 draft picks. But it's June so here we are.

I dunno. I think the "gotta get 4 years of good production on the cheap" thing is way overhyped. Rookies typically just aren't that good. Second year players are better. Third and Fourth year players are the money years. If you get an instant phenom, that's great. But even the annual All-Rookie teams are composed primarily of guys who were good for rookies but still no better than average by full-NFL standards.

Because we almost never pick in the top 15, I think a lot of expectations (and demands) got a little out of control. Gary gave us a 3rd year in which he was top 10 at his position and he's primed to give us a 4th year that is also a bargain. That's what I want from a pick. In the early rounds you often choose between day one NFL-ready with mid-tier ceilings or elite ceilings with some refinement needed. Only 4-5 players a year really turn out to display both, and they're not always the top 4-5 picks, either.

There is and always will be randomness to the NFL game. For every complaint that we should have taken Burns (me) or Simmons (yoop) and gotten more immediate production, you can point to a we could have taken a Christian Wilkins, who has just been a guy on the interior DL, and who many Packers fans (and posters here) adored. For every "we should have traded up for Justin Jefferson" there are people who would have been exceedingly pleased to have traded up for Brandon Ayiuk who is just a guy so far or Jalen Reagor who is nothing.

You can't just jump in and pick a position fit that you wanted more or a player fit that you see now with the benefit of hindsight. You can't just assume any top 15 pick will give you 4 cheap years of high-level to Pro Bowl starter potential. That's just not how development works. Getting two outstanding years on a rookie deal from a first round pick is a great outcome. It's so wild that anyone is even bothering to discuss this now, even people who like the results but question the method. Like, how many times have we attacked a need with 3 player acquisitions and gotten only 1 or 2 hits out of it. No one complains about or questions that plan. But when a new GM decided he needed to make over the defensive and edge personnel, people three years later are crying foul even though it worked? Meh.

The day of the draft I was all in on Simmons. I just felt that was top 5 talent on a discount and it turned out to be the case. They took Gary and at this point you didn’t lose much outside of a need those first 2 years which is still important.

At this point Gary vs Simmons vs Burns shouldn’t be too big a deal. I think I’m still right the pick should have been Simmons but whatever. The real travesty is trading up for Savage and not taking DK. To me it was obvious DK was a top 10 talent. I still can’t understand why teams do this where they’re afraid to take high tier one trick ponies that you can build a scheme around that skill. That mistake is kind of why we are where we are. On one hand we lack anything at receiver that is ready to take up the mantle and on the other Savage has been nothing but inconsistent and unimpressive.

go pak go wrote: ↑

16 Jun 2022 16:58

Again. Completely disagree.

I absolutely think thoughts on a subject should change when presented good information and data to support a change in perspective. Not doing so makes one incredibly hard headed and quite frankly useless to talk to.

then change your mind

I showed you evidence that Simmons has been the better player, is ranked higher, started mid point rookie season and started ever since, yet you expect me to change my mind, never going to happen concerning this because I'am right.

I agree Yoho, players do get better after there rookie season, and Simmons obviously did, so did Gary, most players probably start to hit there ceiling year 3, but a player picked as high as Gary was should be pushing to start some time as a rookie, other players do so every year, in fact that is the norm, as I said prior, we had other positions besides edge that also needed improvement, Gute was masterful with moving around, adding a 1st round pick and still was able to get Alexander, my w2ish was that he would have done something like that when he sat pat and just took Gary, nothing about that pick made sense to me, it's why I said I think Mike Smith had influenced his decision, but I'am just guessing about that, obviously.

where here arguing this because there are those here that will defend almost anything our GM's do, including drafting a already well fortified position, ( Gary) will take a QB ( Love)versus attempting to get a receiver, trading up 10 spots for a safety ( Savage) tells me when he wants a player he'll do what it takes to get him, that crap about not being able to trade up for Jefferson or one of those top 6 wont sell for me, more likely he didn't even try.

for the most part I think Gute has done a good job, I like most of his draft picks, outside of the two mentioned, and I still root for both to do well, I just didn't like the picks when he drafted them, and received so much flak for not liking the pick at the time that it's become a sore spot.