Pack-A-Day Podcast - Episode 2451 - Deep Dive Scouting Report - Walter Nolen & Kenneth Grant
Join Andy Herman for his deep dive scouting reports on first round defensive tackles Walter Nolen & Kenneth Grant. Don't miss it!
By AndyHerman
Join Andy Herman for his deep dive scouting reports on first round defensive tackles Walter Nolen & Kenneth Grant. Don't miss it!
Timber Rattlers Link: https://fevo-enterprise.com/event/2025draft2
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Andy is a graduate of UW-Oshkosh and owns & operates the Pack-A-Day Podcast. Andy has taken multiple courses in NFL scouting and is an Editor for Packer Report. Andy grew up in Green Bay and is a lifelong season ticket holder - follow him on Twitter @AndyHermanNFL!
__________________________
NFL Categories:
Comments (19)
GregC
April 11, 2025 at 08:14 am
Andy makes a good case against picking Nolan in the first round. Grant is a tough one. I don't like the thought of replacing T.J. Slaton with a first round pick, even though Grant should be a better player than Slaton. I'm not sure if Grant will be enough of a difference maker to be worth such a high pick. Maybe a trade back would be the way to go if he's the best player available at #23.
Coldworld
April 11, 2025 at 09:18 am
I don’t see Grant as Slaton, but I do see him as potentially able to fill that role now. The biggest caution is that Slaton was an equally athletic freak as Grant, yet we got nothing more from him. Grant has much better production, but I always believed we failed to develop Slaton’s latent potential. Coaching has changed, but if that doesn’t bring change to roles and expectations then Grant won’t reach greater heights. Grant needs to add strength. Grant needs to be taught the penetration, he was never really developed but the tools are there.
Then again I disagree on Nolan, but he’s definitely a smaller disruptive type. He’s definitely not a replacement for Slaton but could be the answer to a lack of production inside. If we pick Nolan we will need a run stuffer later. However, Nolan won’t be drafted to be that but to get into the back field. He’s very good at leverage and he has moves. He was in the backfield consistently and making tackles for a loss.
Two very different propositions. Both need some work to be 3 down players. Both do what they do very well now but need development. I’d take either happily, but know I’d need to find a version of the other later in the draft in both cases.
If I had to pick one from these two, it would be Grant simply because he replaces Slaton now, but has upside to do much more, while Nolan is behind Clark and Wyatt at least on paper for a year. Nolan’s weaknesses closely match Wyatt’s at this point: they are players you’d take out versus the run. If Grant does what Slaton did and fail to harnesses the athleticism, then he’s going 4 rounds early though.
To me this comes down to coaching. Slaton never developed. Wyatt remains what he was essentially when we drafted him, though he may be becoming better at that. Are we going to keep Wyatt though? If not, Nolan is a great replacement to develop and we need to get a run stiffer later.
We have changed our DL coaching. Is that really the root of this problem? Is that now solved? Was this a less obvious screw up by LaFleur than Barry but equally pernicious? If so, perhaps Clark is revitalized and Wyatt takes off. Lots of questions, but Grant fills a true hole now regardless, and that tips it for me of the two.
GregC
April 11, 2025 at 10:55 am
I'm thinking that if they draft Nolan, they will need to draft a run stuffer later, but if they take Grant, they may be done with the DT position. They already have Wyatt, at least for this year, and Brooks for a couple more years--both penetrating type DTs. With Colby Wooden also on board, they can see how things go in 2025 before bringing in any more DTs.
Coldworld
April 11, 2025 at 11:34 am
I don’t think Brooks is at that level. He’s a useful piece but the question is Wyatt. Unless he proved to be a wrecking ball or improves dramatically against the run, I’m not sure he’s the foundation we need or will pay for. In that case, the argument for a Nolan type and a year to develop is a strong one, particularly given the availability of competent run specialists late in the draft (if without obvious potential to be more than that).
As I said, were it a straight choice between the two, I’d lean slightly to Grant and put trust in improved coaching developing him beyond that. I suspect, however, that we won’t get the luxury of choosing between 2 neatly, as the hypothetical suggests. In top of that, there may be valid choices anr De or WR.
Either way works, but I believe we would still need a second DT to develop either way. Wooden is going to have to take a big step up to remain and Slaton is gone and Clark and Wyatt are medium term question marks.
Both of these two prospects need work to reach their potential. DTs typically do. Both could fill a role now, but won’t be complete players this year. If they don’t develop then both could be overdrafted in hindsight. Both do make us better now though, at least in limited roles. Both need the coaching to get more growth from them than we have seemingly managed to extract recently.
Leatherhead
April 11, 2025 at 11:12 am
If Slaton never developed, then why did he get offered a big contract? I mean, he was a Day 3 pick, he never developed, and yet he got this deal? That doesn't add up to me.
Coldworld
April 11, 2025 at 11:41 am
He got a decent contract as a run stuffer. Despite his straight line tested athleticism and explosion, it’s not credibly deniable that he never became a threat in the backfield. If anything, he became less of one after his rookie year, while improving as a player of the run.
Bitternotsour
April 11, 2025 at 11:58 am
I believe your point is that Slaton did not suck, despite the slander, and he got himself a pretty fair payday on his second contract, confirming his non-suckitude.
Too many people believe the #6 defense in football was populated by substandard players and that defies the logic test.
Coldworld
April 11, 2025 at 12:41 pm
Slaton was a good 5th round pick. He had potential to be more that was not realized. The Packers let him move for a reason and he’s in the league for one. He would not sanely be seen as a merited first or second rounder in hindsight. So not sure what the faux umbridge is based on.
LLCHESTY
April 11, 2025 at 03:28 pm
A lot of the national writers have given Hafley credit for making the whole better than the sum of the parts. I'd agree, kind of like I agree that Josh Jacobs and Jordan Love made the OL look better than it was. At one point in December only 7.7% of the pressures on Love resulted in a sack, the lowest rate in NFL history. The OL gave up a average amount of pressures, Love just made them look really good. Same thing with Jacobs and his bulldozing runs.
LLCHESTY
April 11, 2025 at 03:07 pm
Nolan is definitely not a type you take out vs the run. He had 30 run stops last year and a 4.3% missed tackle rate. Nolen could come in and start on early downs immediately.
I think Grant's numbers were inflated a bit because he played more in the B gap than the A gap and didn't see as many double teams as some of the true nose guys.
gsd3
April 11, 2025 at 04:37 pm
Grant also had Graham playing next to him.
Coldworld
April 11, 2025 at 05:15 pm
I’m not as convinced by last years run performance from Nolan as you seem to be. On that I am closer to agreeing with Herman when NFL OL are in play, at least at this point in his career. I think he can get there, but that expecting it as a rookie is asking for disappointment.
LLCHESTY
April 11, 2025 at 07:41 pm
PFF grades aren't the be all end all for players but they are good at identifying where players are really good or really bad. He didn't get a 91 run grade for nothing. I'd like to see Wyatt's run D grade was his last year at Georgia but I'd bet it wasn't 75 or more, probably in the 60s.
Steve Fowler
April 11, 2025 at 10:02 am
We have the QB "school" which has worked well.
Why don't we have a "Pass rush moves" School?
Seems we could use one.
Coldworld
April 11, 2025 at 10:25 am
The CBA killed those voluntary additional training programs 15 years ago, sadly. Just can’t be done now.
GregC
April 11, 2025 at 11:32 am
It's funny that in the CHTV Draft Guide, Kenneth Grant is prominently featured in the article about players the Packers will NOT draft, but the mock draft in the same publication has the Packers taking him in the first round. That's fine, I like reading different opinions. The reason given for the Packers not drafting him was his size. They don't go for those huge players, and Grant weighed over 350 at one point. I could see them making an exception, though, for an athletic huge guy who fills a clear need.
gsd3
April 11, 2025 at 11:57 am
I could see a Sanders / West combo in this draft.
Alberta_Packer
April 11, 2025 at 07:03 pm
So I would not kick the front screen door if either Grant or Nolen was selected in the 1st round. However - I see a pass-rushing DE to be a more valuable pick in the 1st (if available) - than a IDL. Alternatively - it would be very Gutie-esque to trade down a few spots (no further than an early 2nd) - targeting a Donovan Ezeruaku, J.T. Tuimoloau or Landon Jackson with their first pick. Then on later Day 3 - fortifying the interior D-line with a Cam Jackson or Nazir Stackhouse. By doing so - the extra Round 2 +/ Round 3 pick(s) - acquired from the trade down - could then be used to enrich other positions.
Turophile
April 12, 2025 at 07:12 am
Andy, I have a suggestion for you. You talked about players that have at least some chance of being there (at pick 23) when the Packers pick.
You mentioned that you wouldn't mind these DL picks (Grant and Nolen) but that there might be better value guys on the board. What I'd like to see is your top 10 guys, in order of desirability, at pick 23, AT ANY POSITION. All the picks should have at least some chance of being there (like, say a 33% or better chance).
It would be nice to see the 'degree-of-desirability' as you rank them, not in some consensus ranking, but as your favourites who should also be good value at 23.
You could even do the same thing for round 2 and maybe even round 3..........though I'm sure it gets tougher to predict the further you get into the draft.