RealGM

Raw player who looks like Hercules and has two entrenched starters in front of him. Makes total sense with a new QB to invest in the D.

Plan is to coach him up.

The coach is Joe Barry.

I rest my case

?s=46&t=mF3vUjCRshVtoscwosmE7Q


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

zmanishere11 wrote:Raw player who looks like Hercules and has two entrenched starters in front of him. Makes total sense with a new QB to invest in the D.

Plan is to coach him up.

The coach is Joe Barry.

I rest my case

Coordinator's don't develop players, that's on the position coaches for the most part. And they've had a lot of success developing Edge guys in the last few years. Rashan Gary has been great, JJ Enagbare was a productive for a day 3 guy, and even Justin Hollins was a solid midseason find who contributed. I have plenty of faith GB will develop him into a really good player. Now will Barry use him right? I have no idea but hopefully the next guy will when Barry inevitably gets fired

Andy Herman loves the pick.

zmanishere11 wrote:Raw player who looks like Hercules and has two entrenched starters in front of him. Makes total sense with a new QB to invest in the D.

Plan is to coach him up.

The coach is Joe Barry.

I rest my case

Gary is coming off ACL and Preston is likely gone next year. The “depth” argument is a dumb one.

I think Mike Smith was instrumental in developing Gary though and he’s in Minnesota now I believe as he was a Pettine holdover. No faith Barry’s replacement choice will have the same ability to get the most out of a raw player.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What evidence is there that Barry and staff can't develop players? My issues with him as a coach are 100% tactical/schematic.

I would have gone JSN but hard to argue with an extremely high ceiling edge. I agree with the comments around drafting another Rashan Gary, feels very similar. And yeah, this was a position of need.

For the guys asking why we even swapped first round picks, just imagine if one of the QBs dropped and we had a chance to trade down for a haul. That is all the reason you need, but the draft didn't play out that way. Doesn't mean it wasn't worth putting yourself in the right position just in case.

Ron Swanson wrote:What evidence is there that Barry and staff can't develop players? My issues with him as a coach are 100% tactical/schematic.

"We already have starters at that position" and "imo coach bad therefore everything bad" takes here are making my hurt.

I really like the process behind this pick. I know their draft record isn't off the charts or anything, but I still think they're usually using the right principles (premium positions, athleticism, upside, don't just draft for immediate need) and it will pay off in the long run.

I'm also a little relieved that I don't have to worry about whether JSN's injury means anything, even though I know that his fans will be quick to tell me that he's 100% healed and an injury like that shouldn't be a long-term concern.

Now let's hope we don't have to spend 5 years arguing about whether one of the four receivers drafted #20-23 would have been the difference for a sputtering offense in their next big playoff loss.

I don’t know enough about him to have a strong opinion. The physical traits and upside combo with him and Gary on the edges is definitely exciting.

I liked the Gary pick from the beginning (it’s shtick for me to obnoxiously point it out years later) because of his physical tools and his coaches calling him the best player on a good defense despite not having huge production numbers.

But does anyone have any insight as to why/how this dude didn’t start for Iowa if he’s such a freak? It’s not like we’re talking about a rotation guy for a Georgia or Bama defense that has like 79 NFL guys.

That’s my only concern. Can’t argue with the tools and potential.

I'm someone who would have loved JSN at 13 too, but every draft is like clockwork. All the casual Packer fans and mouth-breather 620 callers latch onto whoever the consensus best WR is in our pick range, and if you don't pick that guy, then the front office is "dumb as ****", "they don't care about winning Super Bowls" blah blah. God forbid they can get it through their simpleton football minds that there are less sexier but more important positions than wide receiver.

jimmybones wrote:I don’t know enough about him to have a strong opinion. The physical traits and upside combo with him and Gary on the edges is definitely exciting.

I liked the Gary pick from the beginning (it’s shtick for me to obnoxiously point it out years later) because of his physical tools and his coaches calling him the best player on a good defense despite not having huge production numbers.

But does anyone have any insight as to why/how this dude didn’t start for Iowa if he’s such a freak? It’s not like we’re talking about a rotation guy for a Georgia or Bama defense that has like 79 NFL guys.

That’s my only concern. Can’t argue with the tools and potential.

Iowa is also a very, very good defense. Yes, not littered with 5-stars like Georgia/Bama but Iowa is in the Wisconsin category of elite college defense for the past decade or so.

I think Van Ness led the team in snaps but rotated in early in the game at DL because they had some seniors and they do the seniority thing for "starter."

jimmybones wrote:I don’t know enough about him to have a strong opinion. The physical traits and upside combo with him and Gary on the edges is definitely exciting.

I liked the Gary pick from the beginning (it’s shtick for me to obnoxiously point it out years later) because of his physical tools and his coaches calling him the best player on a good defense despite not having huge production numbers.

But does anyone have any insight as to why/how this dude didn’t start for Iowa if he’s such a freak? It’s not like we’re talking about a rotation guy for a Georgia or Bama defense that has like 79 NFL guys.

That’s my only concern. Can’t argue with the tools and potential.

They "started" 2 seniors over him. He played nearly 1000 snaps the last 2 years so he was basically a starter and he led Iowa in snaps for the position despite not starting the game

jimmybones wrote:I don’t know enough about him to have a strong opinion. The physical traits and upside combo with him and Gary on the edges is definitely exciting.

I liked the Gary pick from the beginning (it’s shtick for me to obnoxiously point it out years later) because of his physical tools and his coaches calling him the best player on a good defense despite not having huge production numbers.

But does anyone have any insight as to why/how this dude didn’t start for Iowa if he’s such a freak? It’s not like we’re talking about a rotation guy for a Georgia or Bama defense that has like 79 NFL guys.

That’s my only concern. Can’t argue with the tools and potential.

I thought it was strange at first but the more I delved into it the more I think it's a big nothing-burger. McShay even called out Iowa in his pre-draft write up on him, and the Athletic article on him from early March hyping him as a Top-10 pick basically boiled it down to the programs traditional (re: outdated) philosophy on starting guys over upperclassmen.

https://theathletic.com/4266159/2023/03/02/lukas-van-ness-nfl-draft-top-10-pick/

Besides, if he produced like a starter anyways (14 sacks and 19 TFL in 26 games), isn't it kind of irrelevant?

jimmybones wrote:
But does anyone have any insight as to why/how this dude didn’t start for Iowa if he’s such a freak? It’s not like we’re talking about a rotation guy for a Georgia or Bama defense that has like 79 NFL guys.

I don't think any of us know, and even if LVN and his coaches all give good reasons, people would still have a right to be skeptical of their motives - of course they're going to support their guy, and of course LVN is going to defend his value. But there are other viable explanations besides hypothetical serious flaws in his game that his coaches are hiding, not the least of which is that Iowa's priorities on their defensive line are dramatically different from an NFL team's. He's not an old-school run-stuffer, and the Big Ten is not the NFL.

I'm not sure if I'd even call it "outdated" to start the seniors at DL.

If Van Ness played that many snaps, who cares if he plays on the first play of the game?

Would be a different story at QB or OT or S where the senior gets first dibs but there is so much rotation on the DL/OLB that it seems like something that Iowa could keep doing and it wouldn't matter.

Ron Swanson wrote:I'm someone who would have loved JSN at 13 too, but every draft is like clockwork. All the casual Packer fans and mouth-breather 620 callers latch onto whoever the consensus best WR is in our pick range, and if you don't pick that guy, then the front office is "dumb as ****", "they don't care about winning Super Bowls" blah blah. God forbid they can get it through their simpleton football minds that there are less sexier but more important positions than wide receiver.

Also is it really going to help Love to have another super young receiver? They certainly need more WRs but I don't see JSN as being one of those Moss/Jefferson/Chase types who hits the ground like a rocketship.

I also think there's gonna be a decent amount of good WR prospects in the 3rd (Mims, Downs, Rashee Rice, Green, etc.). So I really would prefer they just go defense and TE in the 2nd.

Right on, makes sense, thanks for the insights boys