Packers Will Still Invest Early in the Defensive Line
Despite the current depth on the defensive front, expect an early DL pick
By GregMeinholz
Over the last 15 years, the Green Bay Packers have made a lot of investments along the defensive line in the first three rounds of the NFL Draft. Eight of the last fifteen drafts have shown a Defensive Lineman selected by the Packers between days 1 and 2. Three more picks in the first round ended up playing linebacker but lined up as a defensive lineman in college. The team has always valued the big guys up front, but those investments haven't always worked out. Of those eight, only three have had top-3 round caliber careers in green and gold. As a result, a deep and consistent defensive line has always eluded Green Bay. However, despite the lack of investment in the first three rounds in the last five years, the Packers now have the best depth at the position than they've seen in a long time. But they're not done.
When you look at the current defensive line for the Packers you of course see their leader heading into his ninth year, Kenny Clark. Clark has always been the anchor to the defensive line, the top player in the trenches. After him, you have Devonte Wyatt, the third-year former first-round pick who showed much improvement last year and could be poised for a big year-3 leap. You have the other two nose-tackle-worthy linemen, TJ Slaton and Jonathan Ford. And then you have the other two second-year linemen Colby Wooden and Karl Brooks, who both showed flashes of being promising prospects with bright futures ahead.
So, that's five average to good linemen and one unproven to cover what will likely be only 2-3 positions in a given snap per game. Pretty decent depth right? So, why would they make a high investment to bolster it?
Well, sometimes there's the simple answer that you can't have enough good players in the trenches. That goes for both sides of the ball. But there's also the answer that two of those players, the top of the list, Kenny Clark, and the arguable third in line, TJ Slaton are entering years where they will find themselves as unrestricted free agents in the offseason. One would like to hope at least Kenny Clark could be up for a new contract still as he'll be 29 entering his 10th season. The number 10 looks pretty daunting but the reality that Clark is only going to be 29 turning 30 during that next season could still secure him a decent 2-3 year contract. Clark has already been very complimentary of new defensive coordinator, Jeff Hafley's system. He's said that he believes it will be very good for the guys up front and allow them to be more disruptive. So, an explosive year for Clark will surely make him valuable, and I think you have to extend him to showcase that. But therein lays the cost.
At 29, turning 30 in the first half of the 2025 season, Clark still could command a high contract for a few years, and with the Packers wanting to extend that championship window as long as possible with young talent, Clark could be an outlier. As much as I wouldn't like that. So, heading into the 2024 NFL Draft, how do the Packers seem to be preparing for that?
Targeting DL Early
When you think about guys that'll replace Kenny Clark or TJ Slaton, your first instinct might go to size. Both players are in the 315-330 weight range and fit the nose-tackle profile. However, with the Packers defense moving to a 4-3, the NT position isn't entirely required. Similar players will be a good luxury, but in this system, you can afford to be a little less picky on size. And it's a good thing too, because the only true big man along the defensive front in the 2024 draft is T'Vondre Sweat at 6'4 362 pounds. However, some legal trouble has had Sweat in a possible free fall and I don't see the Packers being the ones to pull the trigger and bail him out. The Packers might have to rely on some of the lighter 3-technique linemen to bolster their ranks and by the looks of their pre-draft visits, they may feel the same.
Defensive Line Packers pre-draft visits: Khristian Boyd out of UCLA, Maason Smith a defensive lineman out of LSU, and Michael Hall Jr. from Ohio State have all visited the Packers and may be targeted. Of course, these could all be a smokescreen, but it's the best info currently. They also all seem to favor that 2nd or 3rd round-pick label.
Kristian Boyd
Boyd roughly has the same physical measurements as Kenny Clark. He is good at getting off the snap quickly and he's hard to knock over. However, he has a hard time recognizing plays and when he does, kind of lacks the quickness to get to it. I feel like he's not quite athletic enough for what the Packers normally look for though. Drafting him early would be a bit of a surprise to me.
Maason Smith
Smith is excellent at setting an edge, he also uses his arm size to get leverage over blockers. The only real issue I've seen with Smith is that he's coming off a shoulder injury and ACL injury in both 2021 and 2022. This hurts evals a little bit in terms of future injury or durability concerns. However, in the work-outs Smith has had since, he has impressed with his recovery and still appears to be a solid lineman to choose in the draft.
Michael Hall Jr.
Michael Hall was just brought in for a visit after he impressed Packers scouts with his quick abilities to beat out single blockers. He also has a knack for avoiding double teams and running an arm-over technique to avoid the block. Granted this is all impressive, one of my favorite qualities of Michael Hall Jr. is that he takes on each play with intensity. He wants his presence to be felt more than others in every play he is around. That fire is badly needed in a Packers uniform,
Each of these three players was brought in for visit play with a 3-technique. Not quite a Kenny Clark replacement campaign in the making. In fact, I see Clark still being here for a few more years.
Regardless of who the Packers choose next week, I think it's going to be a fun one with a Packers defensive lineman taken quickly within three rounds.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Greg Meinholz is a lifelong devoted Packer fan. A contributor to CheeseheadTV as well as PackersTalk. Follow him on Twitter @gmeinholz for Packers commentary, random humor, beer endorsements, and occasional Star Wars and Marvel ramblings.
__________________________
Comments (45)
Turophile
April 14, 2024 at 07:05 am
.......Don't forget about Kris Jenkins who has a similar profile and draft position (later 2nd round). He has top-of-the-class run defense ability and plenty of room to improve his pass rush. He is probably my favourite prospect between him Hall and Smith. I wouldn't value Sweat before round 3 and he'll be long gone by then to another team. It's not his DWI that puts me off, but he is too big.
Any of the the others would be nice additions.
TKWorldWide
April 14, 2024 at 07:14 am
Great defenses have great defensive lines. If a D-lineman is too good to pass up, grab him!
Great defenses also don’t have gaping holes. Right now there are (arguably) holes at linebacker and safety. I’d sure love to see those filled with players that are just too good to pass up.
The draft can’t get here fast enough!
Coldworld
April 14, 2024 at 07:33 am
I tried to break this down in my own head by just looking at numbers and plausible roles. This is how that looked:
4:3 teams typically keep five defensive ends and four defensive tackles or 6 DEs and 3 DTs if they have a versatile backup who can operate in both roles if needed. One DE may be a speed/rush option.
On paper we have 6 DT/DE. Both Clark and Brooks would appear able to play both.
Clark. DT/DE
Brooks DT/DE
Wooden DE
Wyatt DE
Slaton. DT
Ford DT.
However, we also have Smith, Gary and Van Ness, all of whom are big. Smith is listed at 265, but is probably in the 270 range with the other 2 these days. Add those together and that’s 9. Clark, Slaton and Ford are DTs. Brooks is capable of either I believe, alongside Clark. Wooden, Wyatt, Van Ness and Gary appear to be DEs in this D.
Then we have a bunch of 250 pound types: Cox, Alexandre, Banks, Johnson, and Odumegwu and Mosby to start the season, Enagbare as well, but he’s injured. None of these are ILB candidates athletically, except perhaps Mosby as big Mike depth. Only the super raw Odumegwu and Mosby might be the speed/cover rusher type.
Apart from the injured Enagbare, none of the 250 pound group are proven or highly touted acquisitions. Nor is Ford. However, it’s not clear to me that there’s a need numerically for any of them, or at least more than one. Odumegwu gets a special roster bonus spot so that would be 2.
I do not know how Hafley’s base philosophy adapts the above and how the reality that base is a third or less of actual snaps changes the traditional numbers. There are only so many spots on a roster.
Looking at it, if they want a DT, it’s likely instead of Ford, whom we know little about or to add to the group because they want Kenny to be more of a DE, in which case they’d need a starting DT in base. That’s about the only reason for a high pick I see (except future planning).
I don’t see an obvious need at DE. We may want to add a true speed rush/cover option unless we really like Odumegwu or Mosby more than I’ve seen reason to suppose.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 11:19 am
I think you meant Wooden not Clark as a possible for getting DE snaps. Clark won't be playing outside in this D.
Guam
April 14, 2024 at 08:02 am
Odd article. Did Gary, Smith, Van Ness, Enagbare and Cox just fall into a hole somewhere?
The author appeared to be discussing defensive tackles but opted to define them as the entirety of the defensive line, conveniently ignoring all of the defensive ends the Packers have. Just a really odd take on the subject. And a poor justification for taking another DL.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 11:28 am
He should have said DTs not DL but there's plenty of justification for taking another DT. It's Slaton's 4th year and he hasn't been that good. Bringing someone in to push or replace him would be fine with me.
Guam
April 14, 2024 at 11:43 am
We've had this discussion before LL. I will be very curious to see if Gute drafts a DL in the top seven picks. I'm fine with a flier after the fourth round, but doubt it before that.
golfpacker1
April 14, 2024 at 11:39 am
Kristian Boyd played at Northern Iowa, not UCLA. He is a 5th round pick at best.
Mason Smith is an intriguing player. Rated really high coming into LSU. He is a tremendous athlete and reminds me of the huge DTs that the 49ers drafted 4 or 5 years ago. He hasn't done much yet but has great potential and he is young. He is also a 5th rounder.
The Packers don't need to use a Top 100 pick on a position group that is strong already. 2025 is the year to grab a killer Top 3 DT to be Clarks eventual replacement.
GregC
April 14, 2024 at 08:08 am
I'm a little confused by this article. It is supposedly about defensive linemen, but it is really only about defensive tackles. The article is written as if the defense is still a 3-4. It is mentioned that Maason Smith is excellent at setting the edge, but he is a 300 pounder who projects as a 3-4 DE. I don't think he would play DE in the new Packer defense. He wouldn't be setting the edge. I don't see defensive line as a target early in the draft. I see it as something they would take only if a really good one unexpectedly fell to them.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 11:31 am
Smith looks more like a 3T to me and he was mainly a B gap player in college. He's an all potential, very little production pick and I don't think they have room for that this year.
Oppy
April 14, 2024 at 08:10 am
Let me preface this comment (which I know won't be popular) by stating that I completely understand the contributing authors here at CHTV are doing this as a labor of love, not as a professional endeavor, and I thoroughly enjoy the massive amount of content I get to peruse every single day of the year here at CHTV. My hats off to all of the writers. I truly appreciate your hard work.
I also understand that being as this is isn't a full time gig, the writers are finding time in the in-between moments of their busy schedules to hash these articles together and post them. There is likely no third party acting as an editor, it's author uploading straight to the site.
In lieu of submitting work to an editor for review before posting, I would strongly suggest all contributing writers- hobbyist or otherwise- consider using one of the many form/format/content editorial tools that are widely available (Grammarly, for example). Give the article a once-over before posting. Have a significant other? Maybe ask them to breeze through it once before uploading for mass consumption. Too many articles on CHTV have great content but are sheer torture to read.
It will greatly improve your product and give it that glint of professionalism that the content deserves.
Rory P Scrotem
April 14, 2024 at 08:43 am
Hi Oppy - Interesting to read your comments. What the hell are you talking about? Rather than give a large brush-stroke of meaningless gibberish...how 'bout your offering some examples so that all of us Harvard grad grammarians can figure out "What the hell?"
Oppy
April 14, 2024 at 01:58 pm
If you're a Harvard grad, you should already know what I'm talking about.
Random capitalization, incorrect use of hyphens, verb tense issues, various grammatical errors, clunky structure.
A random item here or there happens. When there are many items in a single piece, it's poor form.
Sorry so many people are upset by this, but it's a published article. Informal banter in the comments section? Sure, go nuts, get casual af. Whatever floats your boat. I'd think that someone who takes the time to research and write an article to be published on a website such as this would appreciate some constructive criticism. Many former CHTV contributors have gone on to sports writing in a professional capacity over the years, so I assume at least some of the current contributors probably share that same ambition. If so, taking the time to detail your work before you publish is a good place to start.
I guess I'm the bad guy. I'm okay with that.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 02:31 pm
"Random capitalization, incorrect use of hyphens, verb tense issues, various grammatical errors, clunky structure."
Damn, you make it sound like Stockholder wrote an article!
Or
Damn; you make it Sound like Stockholder-wrote an article !
Bitternotsour
April 14, 2024 at 02:45 pm
It's an established fact that writing improves with editing. Now, with the advent of ChatGPT, you could just upload the article and ask the AI for an edit (for example). Short of that you could simply plug in your point and ask ChatGPT to write a 6 paragraph piece about the superlative qualities of Cooper DeJean, CB Iowa and his surprising lack of melanin. Similarly you could bring an article to the fore regarding the NFL lineage of Kris Jenkins, DT Michigan, with an emphasis on the Packers conversion to a new defensive coaching staff. As they say, the articles write themselves.
I tend to be pretty casual on capitalization, punctuation, and well, narrative when I post, but this is discussion not an article.
LambeauPlain
April 14, 2024 at 08:51 am
"Packers Will Still Invest Early in the Defensive Line." ("Early" being the first two day, first 5 selections, per this article)
No they won't.
Hafley already has 4 first rounders (Clark, Gary, Wyatt, Van Ness), a proven vet (Smith), promising sophomores (Wooden, Brooks) and a host of prospects in the DL room to man 4 spots.
During Gutey's tenure he has drafted just one DL (for the 3-4)...Wyatt. That's it. And fortunately, the Packers DL room is well stocked for Hafley prior to the very weak DL draft class.
LB, OL, CB, S, RB are greater needs for starters and depth.
Expect a day 3 selection of the DE/DL and a few UDFA's.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 11:35 am
"During Gutey's tenure he has drafted just one DL (for the 3-4)...Wyatt. That's it."
Say what? Forget about Wooden and Brooks?
LambeauPlain
April 15, 2024 at 07:12 am
Say what?? I am referring to the first two days...as in "early" in the draft...that the article and my comment referred to.
I stand by that.
HarryHodag
April 14, 2024 at 10:42 am
I like Kenny Clark. He's been All-Everything on the d-line for years. But....the kind of money being tossed around now, lots of it guaranteed, makes me think twice about signing him again. The thing to always remember is a contract is signed for FUTURE performance, not past. The Packers are leaving cap hell and there's no need to return. Another axiom is sentimentality gets you beaten. Will he be an All-Pro at age 33?
I would draft the best d-lineman available at the end of round 3 and see if that person could be the next Kenny Clark. I definitely would not sign a multi-year extension. Clark would also be an excellent trade possibility this year. Youth is the future in the NFL.
Bear Bryant: "Luck follows speed".
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 11:16 am
The last time we heard anything about Clark's weight he was at 307 lbs. If they draft a DT early it will be someone to compete with Slaton but in the new defense that doesn't have to be a 310+ lb player. Your looking for a guy that can be a plus run defender while also being able to pass rush.
Kris Jenkins is the best run defender in this year's group but didn't provide much pass rush. Ruke Orhorhoro is a good run defender that provides really good pass rush and he's heavier with a lot more length than Hall.
This article could have used more research before being written. The only time we'll see three of these guys on the field is in short yardage situations or if Wooden or Brooks are playing DE. Wooden hinted at losing weight so that's a possibility but if he does it won't be more than 5-10 snaps a game to give the DEs a short rest.
golfpacker1
April 14, 2024 at 11:30 am
"LB, OL, CB, S, RB are greater needs for starters and depth." Exactly what I have been preaching for months Lambeau. I am glad someone else said it out loud.
The Packers are only about 5 or 6 upgrade players from being a really solid team. But we won't get there by picking a DT or Edge in the 2nd or 3rd round that will be a 3rd stringer at best. Use those Day 1 and 2 picks to make the last remaining weaker groups into team strengths.
To have the best chance at a difference making DT, the player that we eventually need to replace Kenny Clark, needs to be a Top 3 player, not a 5th to 15th best DL player in a weak class. Kenny is going to keep playing at an above average level in GB for at least 2 more years.
The Packers will have few serious needs in 2025, DT and Edge will probably be the top 2. Maybe CB depending on what kind of years Stokes and Alexander have. Fill the current needs first.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 11:37 am
If a DT is the highest rated player on their board I hope Gutey doesn't hesitate to take them. You don't leave good value big men for other teams.
Leatherhead
April 14, 2024 at 11:49 am
Ah, yes, we must stuff the run, because we want teams to pass on us more.
Turophile
April 14, 2024 at 12:15 pm
Counterpoint - If you can stuff the run you make teams one-dimensional and that is a good thing because it increases predictability, which is anathema to offenses.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 02:39 pm
Leatherhead can't understand that 2nd and 8 is much harder to convert than 2nd and 4. I've shown the conversion rates in here a couple times but it doesn't seem to matter.
This team is set up to get outs when offenses are in long down and distance situations.
Leatherhead
April 14, 2024 at 03:10 pm
Leatherhead understands more than you. Have you, or a team you were responsible for, ever converted a 2nd and 8? Or a 2nd and 4?
If it's 2nd and 4, most runs are less than 4 yards, so you have less than a 50% chance of converting on a run setting up a 3rd and short (yes, it is important to stop those runs). If its 2nd and 8, they're going to throw. The average throw gains 7 yards, the average completion gains over 10, and decent QBs complete over 60% of their passes.
Do your conversion tables show you that? Stuff like this just reinforces my opinion that the only things you really know about football is what you've read somebody else say.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 03:38 pm
They show more than the elementary school math you post here on the regular. If you can't figure out that 2nd and 8 is harder to convert than 2nd and 4 you're just being obstinately simple.
I'd bet 2nd and 4 is a passing down around 50% of the time in the NFL these days. Your argument is archaic.
nagawicka
April 14, 2024 at 04:07 pm
You can't win without stuffing the run first. It's the inverse/ first corollary of the Mike Holmgren Rule.
Leatherhead
April 14, 2024 at 04:19 pm
So if a team has a good day running, by default that would mean they stopped the other team's run game?? IOW, there wouldn't be many examples of two teams both having good days on the ground? And the best rushing teams in the league would also be the best rushing defense teams in the league, by extension.
I had to do a quick check.
The best run defending teams last year, by yardage, were the Cowboys, Dolphins, 49ers, Ravens, Lions, Bills. Every one of those teams made the playoffs and some advanced. Green Bay was 12th. Kansas City was 15th.
By yardage, the best running teams were the Bears, Lions, 49ers, Patriots, Buccaneers and Texans. Kind of a mix of good teams and bad teams. KC was 18th. Packers were 28th. The Patriots led the league in fewest yards/attempt, so they did a better job of stuffing the run than anybody and yet they gave up more points than the Packers last year.
It appears that some teams that are good at running are also good at stopping the run. Many of the "good" run stopping teams gave up more than the Packers last year. Some of the best run stopping teams didn't make the playoffs, but the Lions and the 49ers were the two best run defenses in the NFC.
The Lions, by the way, are one of those good run stopping defenses that gave up more points than the Packers last year.
nagawicka
April 14, 2024 at 04:21 pm
WHAT
Leatherhead
April 14, 2024 at 05:00 pm
Yes. One dimension is good. So, if you were able to reduce a team to one dimension, would you rather that dimension be running or passing??
I remember a game back in 2004 or so against Indy, and Payton Manning. They didn't even really try to run, especially early. They just spread out, snapped the ball to Manning, and he threw to Wayne and Harrison and the rest and he had 5 TD passes in the first half and 35 points on the board. They finished with 48, but THE GOOD NEWS is that we held Edgerin James to 64 yards in 24 carries, mostly in the second half while grinding the clock down.
That was the first time I really started looking hard as some of these "truisms" about running the ball and defending the run. Now, 20 years later, I'm convinced that stuffing the run isn't the path people think it is. Common sense tells me that the more you discourage teams from running on you, the more you encourage them to pass, and passing accounts for many more yards and points than running.
So yeah, let's make them one dimensional, but let's not make that dimension passing. Do you want to give up more points? More yards?
Now, if the QB is a real weakling, or they don't have a passing game, then sure, make him beat you through the air. Otherwise, see if they can beat you on the ground. Most teams can't. Eventually, a mistake by the offense or a good play by the defense will blunt the drive.
golfpacker1
April 14, 2024 at 11:52 am
So we should draft a player @ #25 who won't play even 10% of the defensive snaps. LL, the Packers will never be a complete team using that draft philosophy. Starting with the 2024 season we are in a strong 5 year win it all window.
How about we instead ignore adding Day 1 & 2 players at already strong position groups and fill the actual holes that we have first so that every position group is a strength in 2024. GB is too close to being a complete team to waste this all-important 2024 draft by picking players @ #25, #41, #58, #88, #91with no chance to play this year.
Turophile
April 14, 2024 at 12:18 pm
The problem with this sentiment is that Gutekunst doesn't follow it. He is a 'futures' guy and thinks at least as much about the future as the present. This is the main reason why he is so hard to predict on draft day. I have no comment on whether this is good or not, its just what Gute does.
golfpacker1
April 14, 2024 at 03:23 pm
The Packers are IN the future right now. 2025 was supposed to be the year we started contending. That changed after the playoff run of 2023.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 02:44 pm
Who says they won't play more than 10% of the snaps? Slaton has over 600 snaps last year and he was very average. Now they're moving to a defense where he probably has less of an impact. If they draft someone to take Slaton's snaps they'll play quite a bit.
Reaching for positions means you're leaving better players for the teams below you. In this age of FA that makes no sense. You can fill holes on day 3 by drafting multiple players at a position.
Leatherhead
April 14, 2024 at 03:26 pm
I'm with you, golfpacker.
We don't know what's going to happen with the Dline. The new guy SAYS he's going to play a 4-3 and we'll see how much he sticks to that.
I count at least 8 DL already on the 53: Clark, Slaton, Wyatt, Brooks, Wooden, Gary, VanNess, and Smith. Enagbare when he returns. IMO, this is a pretty good group.
And of course, once again the obsession with defense . Three teams surrendered less than 300 points, and we gave up 353. 300 points divided by 17 games would be about 17 ppg. So we could assemble this massive, mega-hard, meat eating defense and hold our opponents to 3 fewer points per game.
OR.....we could look at an offense that scored 126 fewer points than the league leaders and just score 3 or 4 more points. One TD instead of a FG. One FG instead of a punt. One more scoring drive.
And the thing is, we're putting this offense together for the next couple of seasons, the skill position players are there, and even if our defense doesn't improve at all over last year, we'll still be a very formidable team. 3 or 4 more points in a couple of games last year makes us 13-4 and puts us in the Championship game.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 04:41 pm
Green Bay was 12th in scoring last year, Kansas City was 15th. But yeah, we should hope the Packers are more like Dallas.
Leatherhead
April 14, 2024 at 05:02 pm
I just threw that bit out as nitwit bait. Some people love to show their wit by picking nits.
Is that a serious observation on your part? Really? Should we be more like Chicago and stuff the run? I wish you would stop urinating on every post I make.
LLCHESTY
April 14, 2024 at 05:42 pm
You've repeated it so much I have a hard time believing that.
Leatherhead
April 14, 2024 at 06:21 pm
Repetition isn't helping you. I understand. I taught Special Ed and I know that different people catch onto things in different ways. I'm not writing these things for your benefit.. People can make up their own minds without your attacks or grammar Nazism.
I know. You want people to know you're educated and smart. Everybody wants validation.
gsd3
April 14, 2024 at 12:49 pm
If all of the "top tier" lineman are gone and Byron Murphy were to drop, he would have to be a strong consideration. Same thing if Jenkins or Orohoro are there at 58.
My personal favorite is Darius Robinson. Position flexibility, high motor, and a good leader.
stockholder
April 14, 2024 at 07:06 pm
If Gute drafts any DL in the first 3 picks.
It would be Clarks exit.
Rory P Scrotem
April 15, 2024 at 08:20 pm
Oppie...you're not the bad guy. You are just more interested in getting out a red pen than trying to comprehend the content. And that's fine. As I previous mentioned, I look forward toward your pointing out "specific" examples citing the author's name and "specific" corrections. Otherwise, your constructive criticism isn't helpful...it is meaningless.
Rory P Scrotem
April 15, 2024 at 08:27 pm
Oppie...Cite the author who you put in the cross-hairs. Get out your red pen and write out what the correction would be. In your doing so, I will be more than happy to offer my Harvard grad grammarian opinions and constructive criticism. Specifics young man; need specifics.
golfpacker1
April 16, 2024 at 08:48 am
2025 is the year to draft a TOP DT to be Clark's replacement. We can use our first pick in the 2025 draft to pick a TOP 2 stud DT. That DT class is stronger & deeper. Sign Clark to a 2 year contract and we are set on the D-line. Then if we see any decline in 2024, which I don't think will happen, trade him in 2025 for a premium pick.
2024 is the year to fill the remaining biggest needs through the draft. GB can make this a complete TEAM by using the first 5 picks on OL, LB, S, CB, and RB. That will either strengthen the weaker position groups or turn them into absolute strengths like we did with WR & TE the last 2 years. This is the last year of the reload, lets not add an extra year by not fixing our weakness this year.