Packers post-NFL combine shortlist of draft prospects at top positions of need

Paul Bretl | 3/3/2025

GREEN BAY, Wis. — With the NFL combine now behind us, which players at positions of need for the Packers stood out during the on-field portion of the event?

To help us identify who these top-performing prospects were, we will be using the Relative Athletic Scoring (RAS) scale, which has a relatively strong connection to past Packers’ draft picks under GM Brian Gutekunst.

In short, RAS was created by Kent Lee Platte and allows us to easily see how players within their respective position groups compare athletically to one another based on their measurements and testing numbers from the combine and Pro Days.

Hit like and subscribe to my YouTube Channel ‘The Paul Bretl Show’ for more Packers coverage.

If two linebackers have different heights and weights, with one running a fast 40-yard dash, but the other testing better in the agility drills, how do we know who the more athletic prospect is?

That’s where RAS comes into play. With Platte’s formula, he takes all of that information and quantifies it into a digestible figure that falls on the 0-10 scale. Or in short, the higher the RAS, the better the athlete. On Platte’s scale, 5.0 is considered average and a score of 8.0 or higher puts that player within the top 20 percentile of his position group.

Also of note, the RAS scale factors in historical results as well and is not only based on the current year’s draft class. It’s also position-specific, so even though a receiver and a center will test quite differently, both could post an RAS of 9.0 because it’s relative to their specific position groups.

To learn more about RAS and how it works, click here.

Since the 2018 NFL draft, Gutekunst’s first as the general manager, he has made 72 selections and 65 of them have registered a RAS. Of those 65 prospects, 48 have a RAS of at least 8.0 and 28 scored above 9.0.

Only 10 of those picks have scored below a 7.0, and of those 10 players, only two were top-100 selections by the Packers–wide receivers Amari Rodgers and Jayden Reed.

When it comes to some of the bigger positional needs this offseason for the Packers, only three of Gutekunst’s seven draft picks along the interior defensive line scored a RAS of 8.0 or higher. At defensive end, however, four of his five picks scored above 8.90.

In the secondary at cornerback, five of Gutekunst’s seven picks scored 9.20 or higher. Along the offensive line, eight of the 11 prospects registered a RAS of 8.0 or more. Lastly, at wide receiver, six of the nine draft picks scored 8.0-plus.

Now, of note, do I believe that Gutekunst and the Packers’ scouting department is scouring X and Platte’s site looking at RAS cards as part of their decision-making process? No, I don’t. However, having said that, the Packers do take into account this information has some overlap with RAS, so from our outside perspective, that can help us gain some insights into who may or may not be on the Packers’ radar.

It’s also not indicative of a player’s ability to be successful at the NFL level. Both Jayden Reed and Karl Brooks have a RAS below 7.0 and both have been key contributors for the Packers the last two seasons–although, the better the athlete can increase the chances of that player having a long and successful NFL career, even if incrementally so.

“It’s all important,” said Gutekunst last offseason of the pre-draft process. “First and foremost, it’s all important, the medical, everything’s important. At the end of the day, and this goes back for as long as I’ve done this, you go back to the tape and how they play the game. I think whenever there’s discrepancies, whenever you’re not sure, you go back to the tape, and that’s going to be your best predictor of future success is what they’ve done on tape, and that’s kind of what we live by.”

So with all of that in mind, here were the top NFL combine performers who could be on the Packers’ radar:

Wide receiver

If the Packers want to add a true No. 1 target to the wide receiver room, I don’t know that they’ll find that player in this year’s draft class–or at least not right away and where they are selecting. However, in addition to that element, the team does need a vertical presence in the offense while Christian Watson is sidelined.

Under Gutekunst, six of his nine draft picks at wide receiver have scored 8.4 or higher on the RAS scale, so we will use that as our benchmark. In addition to the RAS, the Packers very much have a type at receiver, preferring bigger-bodied pass catchers who are at least 5-11 and 190 pounds. The 3-cone is also an important drill in the evaluation of the prospect’s athleticism.

Below are the receivers with a RAS of 8.4-plus, who meet the height/weight requirements and ran a sub-7.1 second 3-cone–if they tested in that category:

Isaiah Neyor, Nebraska: 10.00
Isaac Teslaa, Arkansas: 9.97
Sam Brown, Miami: 9.87
Jayden Higgins, Iowa State: 9.85
Dont’e Thornton, Tennessee: 9.83
Tory Horton, Colorado State: 9.71
Elic Ayomanor, Standord: 9.67
Chimere Dike, Florida: 9.65
Jack Bech, TCU: 9.46
Elijah Badger, Florida: 9.44
Jalen Royals, Utah State: 9.26
Andrew Armstrong, Arkansas: 9.06
Tre Harris, Ole Miss: 9.02
Jordan Watkins, Ole Miss: 8.77
Roc Taylor, Memphis: 8.55

Defensive line

As Gutekunst said at the NFL combine last Tuesday, if the Packers are going to accomplish the goals that they have in 2025, the pass rush has to improve.

When it comes to defensive end, Gutekunst has often drafted the elite of the elite in terms of athleticism, with four of his five draft picks at this position scoring 8.97 or higher on the RAS scale. So, for defensive ends, we will use a RAS of 9.0 as our cutoff.

At defensive tackle, however, there has been a greater RAS-variance for Gutekunst. Of his seven draft picks, only three have scored 8.0 or higher. For this exercise, we will use 8.0 as our line in the sand.

Also being taken into consideration is how these prospects tested in the explosive drills–the broad jump and vertical jump–and their 3-cone, if they tested. Lastly, with Gutekunst preferring big-bodied edge defenders, only those prospects above 250 pounds will be included as well. At defensive tackle, we will use 290 pounds as the benchmark.

Defensive end
Shemar Stewart, Texas A&M: 10.0
Landon Jackson, Arkansas: 9.88
Tyler Baron, Miami: 9.30
Fadil Diggs, Syracuse: 9.29
Barryn Sorrell, Texas: 9.27

Defensive tackle
Jared Harrison-Hunte, SMU: 9.66
Zeek Biggers, Georgia Tech: 9.54
Warren Brinson, Georgia: 9.33
Darius Alexander, Toledo: 9.20
CJ West, Indiana: 9.14
TJ Sanders, South Carolina: 8.52

Cornerback

Another position where Gutekunst has preferred size and length at the position, although he did mention at the NFL combine putting a greater emphasis on “vision” and “awareness” at cornerback.

“You know me. I’d love all those guys to be 6-3 1/2 and 220. I’d love that,” Gutekunst said. “I do think with what Jeff’s trying to do, there’s a lot more vision and awareness and instincts out there than maybe we’ve played with in the past.”

Five of Gutekunst’s seven cornerback draft picks have scored above 9.0 on the RAS scale. For now, I will also continue to prioritize size, specifically corners who are at least 5-10 and 180 pounds and have run a sub 6.9-second 3-cone.

Darien Porter, Iowa State: 9.99
Caleb Ransaw, Tulane: 9.95
Max Hairston, Kentucky: 9.71
Jason Marshall, Florida: 9.03
Jahdae Barron, Texas: 9.00

Offensive line

The Packers could look to add competition to this position when it comes to their depth here. Not to mention that the draft is about planning ahead, and in addition to Josh Myers being a free agent this offseason, just one year from now, Rasheed Walker, Zach Tom, and Sean Rhyan are all scheduled to be free agents as well.

In Gutekunst’s draft history, eight of his 11 selections along the offensive line have scored 8.0 or higher on the RAS scale. The difficult part in evaluating this year’s group is that very few ran any of the agility drills and that’s been an important metric in the Packers’ evaluation process.

The other element to keep in mind and not accounted for here is that tackles who perhaps didn’t test as well at that position could end up being a guard for the Packers.

Offensive tackle
Jalen Travis, Iowa State: 9.91
Logan Brown, Kansas: 9.45
Caleb Rogers, Texas Tech: 9.43
Carson Vinson, Alabama A&M: 9.39
Aireontae Ersery, Minnesota: 9.35
Jonah Savaiinaea, Arizona: 9.13
Ozzy Trapilo, Boston College: 9.02
Josh Conerly, Oregon: 8.76
Kelvin Banks, Texas: 8.25
Anthony Belton, NC State: 8.07

Interior offensive line
Tate Ratledge, G, Georgia: 9.98
Jared Wilson, C, Georgia: 9.98
Eli Cox, C, Kentucky: 9.95
Drew Kendall, C, Boston College: 9.86
Connor Colby, G, Iowa: 9.62
Miles Frazier, G, LSU: 9.59
Joshua Gray, G, Oregon State: 9.50
Jackson Slater, G, Sac State: 9.20
Joe Huber, G, Wisconsin: 8.85
Clay Webb, G, Jacksonville State: 8.75

Powered By SoCast