If it means drafting a guy who can contribute as a rookie AND continue to improve, then I’ll check the box marked “HELL YES”!!

Gutekunst has explained this, and why he prefers the bigger DE types.

In a 4-3, which the Packers play, you need guys who can play the run against a 300+ lb OT on at least half the plays. That's more important, IMO, than having an undersized speedy guy trying to run around a guy a couple of times/game.

Again, look at the Math. If your defense is on the field for 64 snaps, and the opponent is 50/50 run and pass, there are 32 pass attempts. Of those 32, at least half will be quick slants, WR screens, RBs, where it's just not going to be humanly possible to get pressure on the QB before he throws it.

Even if you had Reggie White , he's only going to have a limited number of opportunities to pressure the passer, whereas he'll have a lot more use as a run defender. Additionally, you only have two starters and two backups, and you do a little rotation to keep fresh people on the field, so now you take those opportunities and reduce them by how much time your backup is playing. It's a small number now, less than 10 times a game for certain.

Meanwhile, if he's mostly on the field in passing situations, but an injury forces him to take extra reps against the run, then that's going to be a liability.

I believe it was time to review our whole approach to edge rushers when we changed our base defense and the underlying philosophy last year. Sticking with an approach based almost entirely on big power rushers means we are one dimensional. We need to introduce variations.

Unfortunately we muddied this considerably by keeping a coach last year who has also failed to noticeably develop players, generally or in terms of moves/techniques. We need both. Hafley otherwise runs a D that adapts and seeks to make mismatches. On the DL we simply didn’t have the variation on toolkits to do that and I think it dragged everyone down.

If we just blame the coach and continue as we are, then I think we are making a major mistake. Give the group variation: speed, agility, bend, and the best of what we have will benefit both from defenses having to plan for more and having players to convert penetration into hands on the QB.

I believe all get better this way, not just the edge rushers but the guys coming up the middle too. We were simply one dimensional and laterally challenged. I’m hoping Gute’s eyes aren’t closed by a set-in-stone mindset.

I am a little worried though that we are placing too much confidence in what we have and scapegoating Rebrovich more than is justified as a result, in turn expecting too much of his replacement with the tools provided. Hopefully a fast, agile guy like Gillotte is drafted and my doubts proved baseless.

This ties in somewhat with the theme of not taking potential over production or players to recast in a different role. That’s most prevalent with the big, highly athletic linemen for one. Speed/bend types (not merely speed, what we most critically lack is bend and pivot at pace) tend to be more judged on their record, in part because, if you possess those traits, production usually follows.

Moreover, if you are going to draft and develop, you need to have a demonstrable record of success doing so. We’ve not had that and yet have persisted. Perhaps we will have that now under the new coach, but adding options through variations in skill set to the overall arsenal can only help that.

CW -
"I’m hoping Gute’s eyes aren’t closed by a set-in-stone mindset"

I think his mindset is about as flexible as an oak tree.

I'm surprised Gil wrote this article without mentioning flexibility and agility. LVN actually was close to breaking into the sweet spot with a 7.02 3-cone but had a poor vertical, which is metric number three when it comes to Edge rushers after the 10 yard split. Ashton Gillotte put up great numbers in all three of the top metrics and isn't small at 264 lbs. Pauline actually has Gillotte going to the Ravens at 59.

Elijah Ponder is a (very) small school guy that hits the numbers you look for and is probably a mid day 3 pick. I'd gamble on him at 198 if he's there.

Yes. Mismatches!

All about the weekly opponent mismatches Hafley identifies and the game plans he installs. And you need that variety of skills including agility and bend be available if he wants to bring consistent pressure from the Front Four.

Prospects like Uzeirubaku would bring additional skill sets for Hafley to utilize...his former player at BU. And so would Gillotte.

"Van Ness has struggled to make an impact in his two NFL seasons". The last thing the Packers need is another Van Ness, a supposedly edge rusher monster only to turn into edge rusher chipmunk! He didn't start at Iowa before he was drafted. Why do we pick these hopefuls instead of a big-time baller? Today thru Saturday, we find out that answer!

Would love to see Ezeiruaku be their 1st round pick, as I think they need a speed rusher in their arsenal, something they currently lack. He could be a designated pass rusher initially and wouldn't have to be a 3 down player, but could potentially grow into that role with some added strength. Pass rush improvement is their biggest need in my opinion. They had too many games where it felt like the QB could sit back there and scan the field for his 3rd, and 4th option. Our CB's had to cover for way too long. The majority of their sacks came in just a couple of games where they were up against some weaker OL's.

Gutekunst, IMO, prioritizes his version of 'outside-the-box', 'I see something in this player many others do not see'
thinking--Ty'Ronn Hopper, Quay Walker, LVN are recent examples- I cringed, the other day, watching the ever-stylish MLF, while on Dan Patrick's show, serenely state he leaves the Draft up to the GM (paraphrasing). Gutekunst does not have a good record in early rounds and I hope @ least Hafley recognizes that and steers him in the right direction.

I'd move Van Ness to the inside and let him bulk up

YES! Look for players like Ezeiruaku who have a developed skill set and a plan to go against his counterparts. Nic Scourton is another good example. Unless we're talking nose tackles, you're going to need more than athleticism and a bull rush to be effective in the NFL.

One more note: If you're going to select a raw talent like Van Ness, the effort and the willingness to work hard has to be there as well--like you saw in CM3. Now I have no idea of LVN's work ethic or how he responds to coaching, but I would suspect it needs to be ratcheted up for him to be successful.

The NFL is copy cat.
Change- Crosby or Garret.
Stay big or go home.

I will take LVN over Will McDonald any day and those were the two best DE's available. LVN will be a beast this year just have faith.

Gil, you are thinking the same way I do. Good job. Both Gary and VAn Ness have had significant time to develop. About three years. So out of a 1st round picks, perhaps 1 or at best 2 good years and then have to pay them good money. And then after about 5-6 years, they almost have to be released based on how they structure contracts. And the Packers don't do third contracts much. for example Smith and Clark declining fast.

I like taking someone who has three or four good years of production in college. Like this Boston College kid. He brings technique along with youth and potential.

This all wraps together with expectations of how much rookies contribute. Gute says he doesn't expect that much, and we get the Gary's and Van Nesses in the world not having long effective careers. Cooper and Williams last year show just how much rookies can compete. Same as Tom. We go three good years perhaps 6 or 7 with the second contract.

The game of football has gradually evolved into a pass happy league . Moreover the top QB"s tend to be mobile, fast and elusive to avoid the rush. We couldn't stop Philly on third down even on third and long because their QB would just outrun the DL for a big gain. That said I think our front four is somewhat underrated by many. Perhaps we should let Van Ness play more instead of learning how to drink water on the bench. Frankly, I don't see Engabare being better than Van Ness.

This is why we could use a really fast edge speed rusher even if he only plays on third downs. The Cowboys didn't worry about size when they drafted the best pass rusher in the league who ran under a 4.4 forty. Pass rushers like that are not a dime a dozen. James Pearce jr is such a guy. He is expected to go in the latter part of the first round. So what if he is only 247 lbs? Look at the film! He runs a 4.47 and I would not mind it at all if they took him at 23. He is a pass rushing specialist that no QB can outrun. He will be an asset to any team. So if the people we are targeting are gone at 23 and he is there; run to the podium. I would prefer a DL or CB at 23 but if gone Pearce at edge would make this Packer fan happy. Any dratted player always involves risk There are never any guarantees.

Final thought. if Golden is there don't think. just take him! More than anything we need play makers!

Pease fill me in - did we draft Reggie White or pick him up from Philly - maybe therein lies another way to attack a problem that seems to be unsolvable, just sayin'. Especially for a team that wants to win now I would hope at this stage.

The Packers seem very lackadaisical about the current under-performers on the DL. I guess the new DL coach will
be expected magically transform LVN, give an energy boost to Clark, hold Gary accountable, etc. Or, one new draftee will be expected to elevate the entire under-performing squad. I think this is magical thinking once again, though I will eat my words if I see a real improvement.
The DL coach, Covington, failed as a DC on the Patriots in 2024 but was better as a line coach.
Gutekunst is essentially laying the majority of the blame on Rebrovich and my guess is the players had @ least a 50% contribution.

Sticking with the article's theme: while the sample size of GB's DL draftees is small and it's convenient to say you can't generalize from it, there are several problems with GB's approach:

1. Drafting promise over productivity isn't working in and of itself (set aside the excuses of coach/scheme changes...it's just not working. Why continue to recite the definition of insanity?

2. Even if promise over productivity magically were to work, you're basically saying 'I'll spend a 1st rounder on a guy that I don't know will be productive. Also, I'm expecting him to not be productive until maybe year 3 when he actually develops.' Huh. Then, if this 'magic' works, you get him for 1+ years on his rookie contract before having to pay him a lot more on contract 2 (ref Gary). Very, very inefficient use of cap space and what you get productivity-wise from a 1st rounder's rookie contract.

Challenging the article's theme:

If for whatever reason you consistently suck at getting quality production from your 1st round DL picks (whether IDL or Edge), just stop drafting this position that highly. Use 1st rounders elsewhere. Use more 4-6 rounders on these guys (where it seems we do better anyway) and, if you want, supplement via FA on a PROVEN talent (go get your Smith brothers or whoever). Just stop banging your head against a wall trying to make something work that doesn't. Results, baby, results!

Should the Packers change how they draft edge rushers?

YA THINK?