CB Nate Hobbs Signed In FA 2025

[Pokerbrat2000]

We sort of traded Stokes for Hobbs. Paying a bit more money. I'm totally happy with that.

Sometimes a change of scenery can do it for a player. With that comes new teammates, new coaches and new schemes. I am glad that the Packers didn't give Stokes the contract the Raiders gave him. Maybe Raider fans are saying the same about Hobbs?

I can't remember what podcast I was watching, Andy Herman maybe? But I think he said that in his final 3 years in GB, Stokes played 1,175 defensive snaps, and he didn't intercept a single pass or register a single pass break-up.

Just remember that for any of you that want to say that "Stokes was a good pick by Gute because he......."

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Hobbs is good in the slot. He has unbelievable quickness and burst. If he starts there, what happens to Bullard? I don't see him supplanting Xavier or Williams. Maybe Hafley thinks Hobbs is still a legitimate outside corner because It's way too early to relegate Bullard to a depth piece.

I had the same thought on Bullard...Can he play corner on the outside? Green Bay could use some help there.

That may not be realistic, but I imagine Hafley will find a way to get his best players on the field somehow some way.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

We sort of traded Stokes for Hobbs. Paying a bit more money. I'm totally happy with that.

I kept hoping for Stokes to blossom and start playing like a first-rounder...For whatever reason, it never happened.

I wish him all the best in Las Vegas, but for Green Bay it was time to move on.

 

[Thirteen Below]

I like the 2nd part of Dantes post as far as who will play in the slot and when. As far as the 1st part I thought someone posted numbers that show Hobbs is much better in coverage in the slot than outside.

I didn't notice that specific post, but I did post yesterday that he had the best year of his career in the only season in which he was playing in a cover 3 scheme. Which Hafley likes a lot.

Another interesting note on Hobbs, he has ZERO penalties in 2024.

Ah, damn it.

I guess he's not going to be a good fit with the Packers after all.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I kept hoping for Stokes to blossom and start playing like a first-rounder...For whatever reason, it never happened.

I wish him all the best in Las Vegas, but for Green Bay it was time to move on.

Agree. I want to say that Stokes was a lot like Kevin King. A high pick, with a lot of potential, but due to injuries and whatever, never panned out. I wish Gute had decided to move on from King, we might have won the NFCCG against the Buccaneers! Maybe that is why he let Stokes go?

 

[AmishMafia]

Just remember that for any of you that want to say that "Stokes was a good pick by Gute because he......."

let's not forget about Stokes rookie year where he looked very good. He had 14 passes defensed. That would place him in the top 10 for DBs this year. I seem to recall him making a draft day steal list. The next 2 years he missed a bunch of games due to injury. He has not registered a single PD since his rookie year.

So here you go: "Stokes was a good pick by Gute because he was looking like a great player till injuries affected his play. And unless Gute was supposed to know he was going to get injured, it was a good pick at the time he made it."

 

[tynimiller]

Just remember that for any of you that want to say that "Stokes was a good pick by Gute because he......."

And the critics need to just remember how freaking good he was as a rookie before his injury...

2021 season - Was targeted 100 times in coverage, 51 completions only 4 TDS, 1 INT and 9 PBUs

Stokes had more tools than what he arguably knew what to do with properly and sadly never really got to deploy them much.

I hope for his sake he can find himself anew, but in truth - I don't think he will ever regain what he was prior to injury.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

let's not forget about Stokes rookie year where he looked very good. He had 14 passes defensed. That would place him in the top 10 for DBs this year. I seem to recall him making a draft day steal list. The next 2 years he missed a bunch of games due to injury. He has not registered a single PD since his rookie year.

So here you go: "Stokes was a good pick by Gute because he was looking like a great player till injuries affected his play. And unless Gute was supposed to know he was going to get injured, it was a good pick at the time he made it."

And the critics need to just remember how freaking good he was as a rookie before his injury...

2021 season - Was targeted 100 times in coverage, 51 completions only 4 TDS, 1 INT and 9 PBUs

Stokes had more tools than what he arguably knew what to do with properly and sadly never really got to deploy them much.

I hope for his sake he can find himself anew, but in truth - I don't think he will ever regain what he was prior to injury.

Stokes was the #3 CB for the Packers his rookie season and yes, he had a decent season for a rookie CB and PFF had him statistically ranked 35th that season. After that, it was all downhill. Now I can see why some want to blame injuries for his downfall, but in 2022, his second season, that wasn't the case in his first 9 games, when he struggled as a healthy starting CB. Last season, he was healthy, yet by the end of the season, he was lost in the depth chart.

Injuries are a part of the game, so unless they are career ending or career changing, they shouldn't be used as an excuse. Bottom line for me, besides his rookie year as the Packers #3 CB, Stokes was not a very good CB when healthy.

 

[tynimiller]

Stokes was the #3 CB for the Packers his rookie season and yes, he had a decent season for a rookie CB and PFF had him statistically ranked 35th that season. After that, it was all downhill. Now I can see why some want to blame injuries for his downfall, but in 2022, his second season, that wasn't the case in his first 9 games, when he struggled as a healthy starting CB. Last season, he was healthy, yet by the end of the season, he was lost in the depth chart.

Injuries are a part of the game, so unless they are career ending or career changing, they shouldn't be used as an excuse. Bottom line for me, besides his rookie year as the Packers #3 CB, Stokes was not a very good CB when healthy.

If you think last year's "healthy" stokes moved like a pre-injury healthy stokes we ain't watching the same games or guy. He one thousand percent didn't start his second year off great, however ebb and flow is normal to a degree - we all have seen that.

 

[AmishMafia]

Stokes was the #3 CB for the Packers his rookie season and yes, he had a decent season for a rookie CB and PFF had him statistically ranked 35th that season. After that, it was all downhill. Now I can see why some want to blame injuries for his downfall, but in 2022, his second season, that wasn't the case in his first 9 games, when he struggled as a healthy starting CB. Last season, he was healthy, yet by the end of the season, he was lost in the depth chart.

Injuries are a part of the game, so unless they are career ending or career changing, they shouldn't be used as an excuse. Bottom line for me, besides his rookie year as the Packers #3 CB, Stokes was not a very good CB when healthy.

We don't have details of the medicals. Although he was 'healthy' enough to play, we dont know if the injuries resulted in pemanent physical limitations. But clearly he was playing differently after the injuries, without the same burst.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you think last year's "healthy" stokes moved like a pre-injury healthy stokes we ain't watching the same games or guy. He one thousand percent didn't start his second year off great, however ebb and flow is normal to a degree - we all have seen that.

We don't have details of the medicals. Although he was 'healthy' enough to play, we dont know if the injuries resulted in pemanent physical limitations. But clearly he was playing differently after the injuries, without the same burst.

You won't get any argument from me that Stokes didn't regress after his rookie season.

Some may want to blame it solely on injuries, I would also blame it on his inability to cover better WR's. Like I said, as a rookie, he was the #3 CB on the team with JA and Douglas ahead of him. In 2024, as the #2 or #1 CB on the team, he had a chance to prove himself by having to cover the better receivers. He failed miserably. When you get replaced by a 2nd year, 7th round pick, that tells me what the coaches think of your skill set.

 

[Magooch]

Stokes is such a confusing player to me honestly. It seems like in large part the narrative is that he had a great rookie season, got hurt, and never really managed to get back to that same level. And that is....IMO half-true. The thing is though...Stokes played 9 games his second season and he was pretty poor in general that year PRIOR to getting hurt. 0 INT, 0 PBU, and average passer rating of ~123 when targeted - again, before he got injured.

And then ironically, this year when he was healthy, in purely coverage terms he looked fairly decent. Not great by any means, but on the year averaged a passer rating of 100 against and that was really kind of hit hard by a rough start to the season. After a few weeks he settled in a little bit more and for the back half of the season (post-wk 9) had no games where he allowed a better-than-100 passer rating.

So it's really kind of baffling then that he was decent enough in coverage but offered basically ZERO playmaking ability whatsoever. At some point you would think you would just get a PBU or INT by sheer dumb luck in ~3 years and he put up two goose eggs. Hard to comprehend lol.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Stokes is such a confusing player to me honestly. It seems like in large part the narrative is that he had a great rookie season, got hurt, and never really managed to get back to that same level. And that is....IMO half-true. The thing is though...Stokes played 9 games his second season and he was pretty poor in general that year PRIOR to getting hurt. 0 INT, 0 PBU, and average passer rating of ~123 when targeted - again, before he got injured.

And then ironically, this year when he was healthy, in purely coverage terms he looked fairly decent. Not great by any means, but on the year averaged a passer rating of 100 against and that was really kind of hit hard by a rough start to the season. After a few weeks he settled in a little bit more and for the back half of the season (post-wk 9) had no games where he allowed a better-than-100 passer rating.

So it's really kind of baffling then that he was decent enough in coverage but offered basically ZERO playmaking ability whatsoever. At some point you would think you would just get a PBU or INT by sheer dumb luck in ~3 years and he put up two goose eggs. Hard to comprehend lol.

Agree and if I read your post, not knowing it was about Stokes, it is kind of what you expect to hear about the first 4 years of a mid to late round pick. Yes, Stokes and the Packers had some bad luck with his injuries, but for me, the fact that he was selected with the 29th pick in the 2021 draft, puts him squarely as a bust.

 

[tynimiller]

I just think Stokes is the perfect example if someone wants to say he was a bust, you'll have some ammunition for the argument....likewise you got ammunition to the contrary and no one can hold an injury against a pick because there isn't a spot for a prospect to let GM's know when they plan on getting injured.

I personally am in the odd camp it seems to many that Stokes absolutely is defendable as a pick in the first round that year, however you can still rate the return of the pick as abysmal. Both can be true.