1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Gary's Role

Discussion in 'Green Bay Packers Fan Forum' started by PackinMSP, Oct 26, 2019.

  1. elcid

    elcid Cheesehead

    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    76
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2017
    Packer Fan Since:
    2013
    Don't forget that Gary was probably also drafted as an insurance for when one of the Smiths goes down. We have been extremely fortunate with injuries this season. Also our top targets were all snatched up right before we were on the clock (Devin Bush, Jonah Williams, Ed Oliver). I think they made the most of the pick, trading back and getting both Savage and AJ Brown would have been more ideal but you cant have it all.
     
  2. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,893
    Likes Received:
    134
    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
    Which has been already happening...I mean honestly wasn't there a snap where it was those three and Fackrell along front?

    I love when it is them three and Clark...reminds me of the Nascar package the Giants used to have with (Strahan, Tuck and Osi...but then later with Tuck, Osi, Kiwanuka and JPP)
     
  3. Sanguine camper

    Sanguine camper Cheesehead

    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    72
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1968
    Hey he's the 12th pick in the draft! You can't afford to bust that pick, especially given the massive dearth of talent at TE, DT and TE. I expect more of an impact from a 12th pick than what Gary has produced. If Gary was a 4th round pick I would agree with you but his production is going to be compared to other first and second round picks whom the Packers could've picked. The Packers just don't have the luxury of making a project out of the 12th pick. Given the obvious lack of talent at the TE, WR and DT position that many people were posting before the season even started, both Gute and Gary deserve the scutiny and blame for lack of production. I would as hell rather have DK Metcalf on the Packers roster than Gary.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. tynimiller

    tynimiller Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,893
    Likes Received:
    134
    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1986
    With two players light years above his ability, and Fackrell who should be at or above a rookie of any degree in assignment knowledge and performance at first...you cannot declare the rookie either direction.
     
  5. Mondio

    Mondio Cheesehead

    Messages:
    10,561
    Likes Received:
    946
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1980
    They didn't bust the pick, they haven't needed him to be anything more than he's been. If he turns into another ZSmith with a season or 2 of development it's a great pick no matter how you slice it. He's been becoming more productive with his snaps, that's a good sign. The jury is still out, no matter what YOUR expectations are.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  6. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    23,374
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    That doesn't mean a whole lot as he struggled over the first five games of the season.

    Overall PFF graded him at 54.1 for the season, which is disappointing for the 12th overall pick.

    That's right but it's fair to question the pick based on position of need though.

    Once again, while the jury is definitely still out on Gary the Packers would have desperately needed improvement at other positions on which it would have been smarter to spend the 12th overall pick.
     
  7. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,439
    Likes Received:
    1,903
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    You can dismiss the pick and not agree with it..I fully understand that position.

    I mentioned no need to draft rodgers at the time either..You don't see it that way..but the situation is identical..didn't need that player as a number one draft pick. We needed help else where...They saw a huge talent and didn't want to miss...ala Rodgers

    But he has shown he is playing better and a reputable site says he is improving more than any other packer.

    Now...next year will be a better assessment.

    But they get paid to do this and we don't.
    They can screw up..but they have the resources we don't to make an informed decision..

    We don't have their resources..we can make a guess on our resources..

    Long story short..

    Until it's proven wrong (justin Harrell) have faith
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. RRyder

    RRyder Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    115
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1990
    Sure. But it seems acceptable for posters to say they still like the pick based on little production. It should be equally acceptable for those that still dont like the pick to say it also based on that same little production
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. RRyder

    RRyder Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,510
    Likes Received:
    115
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1990
    I mean this kindly but you don't get to make a definitive statement about the pick and then 3 sentences later in the very same post say people can't make definitive statements about the pick
     
  10. Mondio

    Mondio Cheesehead

    Messages:
    10,561
    Likes Received:
    946
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1980
    I didn’t declare him a stud. The jury is out. You can’t call something what it has not shown itself to be yet.

    If someone wants to call him the best #12 pick in the past decade, my entire post still stands. He hasn’t proven himself to be that either.
     
  11. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    23,374
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    I still have faith in Gary developing into an impact player but there's no doubt that this year's team could have benefitted significantly more from using the 12th pick on a different position.

    I don't think mentioning Thompson's selection of Rodgers is a representative example as close to all draft picks don't work out that way no matter what.
     
  12. Poppa San

    Poppa San Levelheaded Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,379
    Likes Received:
    972
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Location:
    Brown County Wisconsin
    Packer Fan Since:
    1919
    Where?
    QB? Bench Rodgers?:laugh:
    RB? Bench Jones? :tdown: I will give partial credit for sharing the load. :barefoot:
    WR? Wouldn't have had Rodgers "trust" until late in the season similar to Lazard. Partial credit.
    TE? Takes 2-3 years to develop. :x3:
    OL? Would a 1st round pick have been better than what is on the field? Jenkins filled in fine while being a lesser pick. :unsure:
    DB? Basically swap out Savage for a higher rated player. Make much difference? :unsure:
    DL? We don't use more than 2 at a time it seems. Gary can play DL if desired. Another Clark would not have hurt. Maybe here.
    ILB? Maybe but since Blake also calls the defense, would a rookie have replaced him? Depends how quickly the replacement could get up to speed.
    OLB? Maybe someone that played the position but he'd still have to beat out the Smiths.
    ST: 1st round special teams player? No such thing nowadays.

    You said "benefited significantly more", not just better.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,439
    Likes Received:
    1,903
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    So now your a fortune teller? You know for a fact? That's what your IMPLYING

    Again, it's a guess. So please stop acting like your word is end all be all..it isn't. Not one web site for stats can tell us or you what they would have done with drafted player x or z
     
  14. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    23,374
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    I'm actually thinking about wide receiver first and foremost. There would have been several prospects available who would have provided a significant upgrade over Gary this season.

    I'm quite sure Rodgers would have had mo issue with trusting a rookie as talented as there were available in this year's draft.

    I'm sorry but taking a look at the numbers of Brown, McLaurin, Samuel and Metcalf there shouldn't be any doubt the Packers would have benefitted from selecting either one of them over Gary.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,439
    Likes Received:
    1,903
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    Diff offenses, can't say it would be better..

    Know one knows other than the shadow
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    23,374
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Do you honestly believe that any of the rookie receivers I mentioned who put up at least 800 receiving yards this season wouldn't have found a way to be successful being the #2 receiver with Rodgers throwing the ball???
     
  17. gopkrs

    gopkrs Cheesehead

    Messages:
    1,436
    Likes Received:
    66
    Joined:
    May 12, 2014
    Packer Fan Since:
    1959
    Whereas I agree with what you say here, I am not sure yet that Gary was not the correct pick nor do I agree with most posters that we have a bad receiving corps. But we are about to find out about that.
     
  18. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,439
    Likes Received:
    1,903
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    On paper yes they should..that's common sense..but the way it has been going not so sure.


    How many Def players left the packers and performed better? point?
    Just cuz a player has success elsewhere doesn't guarantee success other places.

    But yes on paper diff rookie drafted may have panned out..but again your not there and see their reasoning

    I'm willing to bet they truly believed that the wr core was going to be lot better..

    Matt had a lot of say in what he felt their talent was at.

    If you can't see that then no need to continue.

    Hindsight can skew logic
     
  19. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    23,374
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Don't get me wrong, in the long haul Gary could end up being a great pick by Gutekunst. This season a rookie at a different position would most likely have made a bigger impact though.

    Hayward and Hyde, and both had success with the Packers as well but were deemed to be expendable.

    Other than that there weren't any defensive players the team let walk away who had huge success somewhere else.

    I was one of the posters expressing concerns about the receiving corps entering this season, therefore I'm not using hindsight to point it out.

    It's obvious the front office and coaching staff felt different about it. Unfortunately they were the ones being wrong though.
     
  20. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    23,374
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Geez, it should have been pretty obvious I was solely talking about the talent level at wide receiver.
     
  21. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,439
    Likes Received:
    1,903
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    They were right about adams, I'll have to go back and see how right you were about him??

    Don't be so ego driven you need to be right in everything. I'm done with this.

    Every time I try to have convo with you, it's like pulling teeth for one reason or another

    Ignore is a friend
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    23,374
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    There weren't any question marks about Adams entering this season but every other wide receiver on the roster though.

    As a side note I don't have any issue admitting I was wrong (you can double check that as well) and would have hoped to be proven wrong on the receivers this season.
     
  23. Pintsizedbox9

    Pintsizedbox9 Cheesehead

    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Gary averaged 14 defensive snaps a game this season. It's tough to argue that he made much of an impact
     
  24. PackinMSP

    PackinMSP Cheesehead

    Messages:
    538
    Likes Received:
    45
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2018
    Packer Fan Since:
    2001
    I think wondering about whom we could have selected at the 12th pick instead will drive us all crazy and it's not really a constructive way to think or thought process. What is done is done.

    Obviously many wanted Oliver, Metcalf, Fant, etc. But you can't change the past so.

    I think what would be more constructive is figurng what is his actual role/expectation?

    Nobody wants another Justin Harrell or Datone Jones. But he hasn't been bad enough to look like either.

    So it comes down to what should we expect him to do and how to contribute.

    I really dislike the idea of him of just mainly "replacing" one of the Smith's if they fall off, because obviously I would like both Smiths to continue to play stellarly(sp) and have Gary come in and play stellarly as well.

    I thought the most obvious need we needed besides an ILB that could cover was for someone to replace Mike Daniels. Physically, Gary is 100Xs better and more atheletic than Daniels, in my opinion.

    Lowry has been solid but he isn't anything special. Kenny Clark is DEFINITELY a special player. He has made me forget all about BJ Raji actually lol

    That's the reason i brought this up in the first place
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  25. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Messages:
    23,374
    Likes Received:
    1,164
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Packer Fan Since:
    1995
    Gary (6-5, 277) has a completely different body type than Daniels (6-0, 310). Therefore suggesting he would be able to be the one replacing him is unrealistic.

    As a side note, if we only talked about the future this forum would be an awfully quiet place.
     

Share This Page

-->