I haven't heard anything about removing the filibuster. What I have heard is changing the number of votes necessary for confirmation.
I have also heard a lot of talk that this pick isn't as important as the next one. If they are going to stand against a nomination it would be for the next retirement/death in the SCOTUS.
That's just stupid. They are all equally important.
They're all important, but in terms of immediately shifting the ideology of the court, this pick is a wash. It is replacing one "conservative" with another (albeit younger, much like with Kagan and Sotomayor). Replacing - say, Ginsburg, Breyer, or even Kennedy with a more Originalist justice would result in a much more pronounced shift in the balance of the court. That's what Yard is referring to.
Thus, the thinking goes, Democrats would be stupid to force abolition of the filibuster over this pick, because they could potentially use the threat of filibuster to encourage a more moderate replacement of one of the liberal justices in the near future.
And make no mistake about it, if Democrats filibuster Gorsuch, the filibuster is going to be nuked. Mertle the Turtle is loathe to do that - he cherishes Senate tradition - but he's not going to have any choice if Dems push the issue. Gorsuch is going to be confirmed - the question is how much the Dems damage themselves in appeasing their base.