Kevin King & Quentin Rollins

[Deleted member 6794]

It's just bizarre that someone can't say "hope this recent string of injuries doesn't continue" without a rant centered around your personal frustration.

I don't consider pointing out that the Ravens, and sone other teams for that matter, have already sufferex a rash of season ending injuries with the Packers currently being extremely healthy as a rant.

There was that story about a hot shot orthopedist moving to Green Bay. I guess he followed the prescription, "go where the jobs are".

Dr. Robert Anderson is considered to be the best orthopedist in the business and it's a huge win for the Packers he's now working for the team.

By what metric are they considered the best medical/training staff in the league?

The Packers medical and training staff is highly regarded by their peers around the league. They even won the Ed Block award for best group around the league a few years back.

At one point I thought we actually had a pretty decent secondary, with Tramon Williams, Davon House, and Casey Hayward. I thought it was a mistake to let all three of them go, in fact I couldn't believe it.

You're using hindsight to evaluate the situation though. At the point of when decisions had to be made it was the right call to let all of them walk in free agency.

 

[gopkrs]

Hayward lost his starting job to Randell and was losing playing time to Rollins in the slot.

No doubt he had a great year last year but when he was surpassed by one rookie on the depth chart and losing playing time to another rookie it's hard to argue he was "easily" the 2nd best anything that year

So my question is why? Because those two were high Draft picks? Because coaches could not evaluate talent well? Because he had been hurt? Any of those would be lousy reasons for not keeping him. But we do move on. We may have a very good group if coaches play the right players in the right positions.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So my question is why? Because those two were high Draft picks? Because coaches could not evaluate talent well? Because he had been hurt? Any of those would be lousy reasons for not keeping him. But we do move on. We may have a very good group if coaches play the right players in the right positions.

The same questions can be asked (in hindsight) about any player that is "allowed" to leave Green Bay. If Eddie Lacy has a Pro Bowl season in Seattle, were the Packers idiots for "letting him walk"? Personnel decisions are made without a crystal ball and based on a lot of things; cost, health, skill, fit into system, need, depth ahead or behind, player personality, etc.

I think most of us at the time, including the Packer organization, concluded that not resigning Hayward for what the Chargers paid him, was a wise move. Now if we had access to a crystal ball at the time, seeing the great future need at CB AND Hayward played for the Packers like he has for the Chargers, he would have been resigned.

 

[Mondio]

with hindsight, letting Casey go was a mistake, but at the time I was ok with it. I don't care what Lacy does from here forward, probowl or not, letting him go for anything more than 1 million bucks and some incentives was the right move. he had ample opportunities here to do it right, and he wouldn't/couldn't take care of himself.

Maybe our staff just couldn't get thru to him, but that doesn't mean I want our offensive staff replaced because of it. Maybe Seattle does? Maybe he stays the same course? I expect to see Eddie start out on fire. I expect him to get a lot more opportunity in Seattle. But by years end, I don't expect much different for him. I always liked Eddie, still do. Seems like a really fun guy to be around and have on your team. But it takes a bit more discipline to be the man and have a team make that investment in you as a long term RB.

ETA: sorry, i'll keep it on topic. i figured that rollins or Randall would bounce back in a big way, maybe both. I think Rollins has the work ethic and the mentality to do it. I think Randall has more than enough athletic ability to do it, will his ego let him? I saw him make too many athletic plays already to believe this guy can't play DB in this league at a pretty high level.

I still know nothing of king, but his height and speed certainly will be nice to work with. I see him on the outside for sure, and hopefully, we're healthy and help can be given to certain guys on certain plays rather than needing help behind everyone because everybody is hurt. I think it would be easy to cover a rookie if we have just consistent play around him.

 

[Sky King]

If Eddie Lacy has a Pro Bowl season in Seattle, were the Packers idiots for "letting him walk"?

That's something I've been pondering myself. This may be one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios from the Packers perspective:

If the Packers had re-signed him he may have complacently fallen back into that all-to familiar pattern of being undisciplined with his conditioning. And if the Packers give-up on him he could become highly motivated to prove the Packers and his critics wrong and he finally matures into the player he could have been all along.

I'm anticipating him having a monster game when they meet early in the season. Whether he can stay motivated for an entire season and beyond is going to be interesting to watch.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I was just using Eddie as a "hindsight tool" of looking at what ex-players do after they leave Green Bay. It is way too easy to try and use hindsight to criticize a move that was made without any knowledge of the future performance. Every free agent that the Packers lost this year (that continues to play) will do something this year for another team and if that something is "great", there will be a Packer fan somewhere saying "I told you so".

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That's something I've been pondering myself. This may be one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios from the Packers perspective:

If the Packers had re-signed him he may have complacently fallen back into that all-to familiar pattern of being undisciplined with his conditioning. And if the Packers give-up on him he could become highly motivated to prove the Packers and his critics wrong and he finally matures into the player he could have been all along.

I'm anticipating him having a monster game when they meet early in the season. Whether he can stay motivated for an entire season and beyond is going to be interesting to watch.

Really didn't mean to open the Lacy discussion up again, especially in this thread. But yeah, there is always that chance a player leaving the Packers performs much better with another team. In the case of Lacy, the Packers were only willing to continue gambling on him for a certain amount of money.....Seattle placed a higher value on him. Personally, would have loved to seen Eddie stick around, but I understand why the Packers didn't resign him.

 

[HardRightEdge]

[QUOTE="captainWIMM, post: 729958, member: 6794"Dr. Robert Anderson is considered to be the best orthopedist in the business and it's a huge win for the Packers he's now working for the team.[/QUOTE]
I'll say.

 

[rmontro]

You're using hindsight to evaluate the situation though. At the point of when decisions had to be made it was the right call to let all of them walk in free agency.

It's NOT hindsight. At one point I thought we had a decent secondary here in GB, and I thought it was a mistake to let all three of those guys go (Williams, House, and Hayward). When we started last season, Shields was the only corner on the roster that had more than one year's experience. That raised some concerns with me, at the time. That's not hindsight.

Now it's true that I did not foresee the absolute debacle that was to follow. I wasn't aware that Shield's concussion history was so dire, but Thompson should have been aware. Regardless, I thought he had left us a little thin at cornerback, especially in terms of veteran experience. Just like this year we look a little thin at pass rush.

Regarding Lacy, I have no problem with letting him go. It looked like his weight was going to be an issue as long as he stayed here. Seattle may have figured out how to motivate him to put more into his football life. That will annoy me, but they are a more running based team than we are. I think one of our young guys will step up. And RB is a position that young guys can excel in, certainly more so than cornerback.

 

[Mondio]

williams and house were gone the year before and everyone had concerns and Randall and Rollins came in with Shields and made everyone forget we didn't have Williams and House on the team anymore. It's a big reason why they felt comfortable moving forward without Casey the following year.

 

[Sky King]

Sometimes I think the coaches expect too much from relatively unproven players to become effective as season-long starters, same as many of us also do. Some guys just aren't ready and some may never be. Unfortunately, there's only one way to find out.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

Sometimes I think the coaches expect too much from relatively unproven players to become effective as season-long starters, same as many of us also do. Some guys just aren't ready and some may never be. Unfortunately, there's only one way to find out.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[GBkrzygrl]

The same questions can be asked (in hindsight) about any player that is "allowed" to leave Green Bay. If Eddie Lacy has a Pro Bowl season in Seattle, were the Packers idiots for "letting him walk"? Personnel decisions are made without a crystal ball and based on a lot of things; cost, health, skill, fit into system, need, depth ahead or behind, player personality, etc.

I hope this isn't high-jacking the thread...I won't be totally surprised if Lacy does well for Seattle. He did a good job for us his 1st year and some of his second although a sprained ankle seems to be recurring injury for him. But he seemed to get complacent and unmotivated somewhere along the way and I won't be surprised if it happens again.

A lot of times a player won't do well on one team and seems to respond on their next team. New perspective? Different coaching style?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I hope this isn't high-jacking the thread...I won't be totally surprised if Lacy does well for Seattle. He did a good job for us his 1st year and some of his second although a sprained ankle seems to be recurring injury for him. But he seemed to get complacent and unmotivated somewhere along the way and I won't be surprised if it happens again.

A lot of times a player won't do well on one team and seems to respond on their next team. New perspective? Different coaching style?

I expect Lacy to do quite well while he is on the field. I don't think there was any question about his abilities or his production when playing. The big question marks on Lacy and probably why the Packers weren't so eager to resign him was his weight, conditioning and injuries. All 3 being factors in how much they could rely on him to be a productive back. I have to guess the Packers saw a player who they felt wasn't focused on committing to be the best that he could be and because of that, weren't willing to pay him what Seattle did.

 

[PikeBadger]

I expect Lacy to do quite well while he is on the field. I don't think there was any question about his abilities or his production when playing. The big question marks on Lacy and probably why the Packers weren't so eager to resign him was his weight, conditioning and injuries. All 3 being factors in how much they could rely on him to be a productive back. I have to guess the Packers saw a player who they felt wasn't focused on committing to be the best that he could be and because of that, weren't willing to pay him what Seattle did.

To me, the biggest question about Lacy is whether he can run effectively behind Seattle's offensive line. That's a unit with a lot to prove.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That's something I've been pondering myself. This may be one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios from the Packers perspective:

If the Packers had re-signed him he may have complacently fallen back into that all-to familiar pattern of being undisciplined with his conditioning. And if the Packers give-up on him he could become highly motivated to prove the Packers and his critics wrong and he finally matures into the player he could have been all along.

I'm anticipating him having a monster game when they meet early in the season. Whether he can stay motivated for an entire season and beyond is going to be interesting to watch.

It was absolutely the right decision to let Lacy walk away in free agency. There was no reason for the Packers to re-sign him this offseason as he wasn't dedicated to stay in shape for two consecutive seasons.

It's NOT hindsight. At one point I thought we had a decent secondary here in GB, and I thought it was a mistake to let all three of those guys go (Williams, House, and Hayward). When we started last season, Shields was the only corner on the roster that had more than one year's experience. That raised some concerns with me, at the time. That's not hindsight.

The majority of the posters around here, including me, were absolutely fine with the Packers not re-signing Hayward last offseason. That doesn't prevent several of them to criticize the move in hindsight though (I'm obviously not talking about you as you weren't a member of this forum at the time).

I wasn't aware that Shield's concussion history was so dire, but Thompson should have been aware.

Spot-on.

williams and house were gone the year before and everyone had concerns and Randall and Rollins came in with Shields and made everyone forget we didn't have Williams and House on the team anymore. It's a big reason why they felt comfortable moving forward without Casey the following year.

The Packers secondary struggled with Shields out of the lineup for four games in 2015 as well though. As rmontro correctly pointed out Thompson should have been aware of Shields' concussion issue and at least had an adequate backup plan at cornerback entering last season.

I hope this isn't high-jacking the thread...I won't be totally surprised if Lacy does well for Seattle. He did a good job for us his 1st year and some of his second although a sprained ankle seems to be recurring injury for him.

I'm absolutely convinced Lacy being overweight hugely contributed to him
suffering multiple ankle injuries during his time with the Packers.

To me, the biggest question about Lacy is whether he can run effectively behind Seattle's offensive line. That's a unit with a lot to prove.

The Packers offensive line has struggled blocking for the run over the past few seasons as well.

 

[SoonerPack]

I am very excited to read what Whitt is saying about Rollins. I think we all had high hopes for this young man after his rookie season. Unfortunately, those of us with said hopes were disappointed in spectacular fashion last season. Rollins is still very much raw considering the amount of ball he's played over the last 6 years or so. He flashed many times his rookie season but looked like just a guy wearing a Rollins jersey in '16. IF we can get the rookie year 24 from the start and have him show improvement throughout the year we may have something. Whitt doesn't throw compliments around and the fact he's been giving 24 love gives me hope the young man may have turned the corner. For the sake of all of us let's hope so! G P G

 

[Dantés]

It was absolutely the right decision to let Lacy walk away in free agency. There was no reason for the Packers to re-sign him this offseason as he wasn't dedicated to stay in shape for two consecutive seasons.



The majority of the posters around here, including me, were absolutely fine with the Packers not re-signing Hayward last offseason. That doesn't prevent several of them to criticize the move in hindsight though (I'm obviously not talking about you as you weren't a member of this forum at the time).



Spot-on.



The Packers secondary struggled with Shields out of the lineup for four games in 2015 as well though. As rmontro correctly pointed out Thompson should have been aware of Shields' concussion issue and at least had an adequate backup plan at cornerback entering last season.



I'm absolutely convinced Lacy being overweight hugely contributed to him
suffering multiple ankle injuries during his time with the Packers.



The Packers offensive line has struggled blocking for the run over the past few seasons as well.

How do you reconcile the opinions that TT was right to let Hayward go, but also should have had a better player behind Shields?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

How do you reconcile the opinions that TT was right to let Hayward go, but also should have had a better player behind Shields?

I know you weren't asking me, but TT and the Packers "thought" they had better players behind Shields in Randall and Rollins. Probably why they spent their #1 and #2 picks on them.

I also don't understand the theory that Hayward was this stud before he left Green Bay, if he was, I think the Packers would have made more of an effort to keep him and also would have never drafted both Randall and Rollins. While he didn't suck in Green Bay, he had a solid rookie year, hurt most of his second and his final 2 years in GB were up and down, he wasn't spectacular. So when his contract was up, the Packers obviously felt comfortable with letting him go and not paying the kind of money the Chargers did and hand the job over to their young studs, who both looked pretty decent their rookie seasons (while Hayward was a Packer).

We may see the same thing this year with Tretter or Hyde. If either turns into an All Pro and the Packers have injuries/poor play decimate either of those two positions, people are going to say "we never should have let Tretter/Hyde go". Hindsight is fun, but IMO not a convincing tool to say "I told you so" with.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

I know you weren't asking me, but TT and the Packers "thought" they had better players behind Shields in Randall and Rollins. Probably why they spent their #1 and #2 picks on them.

Agreed, this is the opposite scenario as the EDGE group. They tried to address CB, thought they had (remember how deep we all thought the position was this time last year?) but in the end that proved false. They did try, though, and we all thought they had succeeded.

 

[Dantés]

I know you weren't asking me, but TT and the Packers "thought" they had better players behind Shields in Randall and Rollins. Probably why they spent their #1 and #2 picks on them.

I also don't understand the theory that Hayward was this stud before he left Green Bay, if he was, I think the Packers would have made more of an effort to keep him and also would have never drafted both Randall and Rollins. While he didn't suck in Green Bay, he had a solid rookie year, hurt most of his second and his final 2 years in GB were up and down, he wasn't spectacular. So when his contract was up, the Packers obviously felt comfortable with letting him go and not paying the kind of money the Chargers did and hand the job over to their young studs, who both looked pretty decent their rookie seasons (while Hayward was a Packer).

We may see the same thing this year with Tretter or Hyde. If either turns into an All Pro and the Packers have injuries/poor play decimate either of those two positions, people are going to say "we never should have let Tretter/Hyde go". Hindsight is fun, but IMO not a convincing tool to say "I told you so" with.

I agree with that first paragraph.

And I don't think Hayward was some stud. He was good, but certainly not the guy he became once he left. So I'm not criticizing he FO for letting him walk.

I'm just wondering how one can simultaneously say that TT was right to let Hayward walk, but wrong not to have a good corner behind Shields. That seems contradictory to me.

 

[C-Lee]

I'm happy that Hayward balled out last season, but letting him go was 100% the right move at the time in my eyes. He hadn't flashed since his rookie season and Damarious/Rollins looked great.

Hindsight is always 20/20, so signing him for insurance when thinking about Shields injury history would have been wise, but we didn't.

Oh well. Time for our young CBs to step up.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree with that first paragraph.

And I don't think Hayward was some stud. He was good, but certainly not the guy he became once he left. So I'm not criticizing he FO for letting him walk.

I'm just wondering how one can simultaneously say that TT was right to let Hayward walk, but wrong not to have a good corner behind Shields. That seems contradictory to me.

But that is the point, TT "thought" he had 2 good corners behind Shields in Randall and Rollins. I think after their rookie year, most of us agreed with that. Had TT not drafted R & R and/or had one or both looked bad their rookie years, Hayward might still be a Packer.

Like I said, I don't view this any different than what the Packers did with Tretter and Hyde this year. If they feel they have an equal or better player on a cheaper contract......see ya. Pretty much why many FA's sign with another team, their current team doesn't value them as much as another team does.

 

[Sky King]

The Packer FO and coaching staff ultimately missed on their evaluations of Hayward. Well, maybe not Whitt since he stated that they lost their two best CBs last season. It is what it is. Purely on the basis of correctly evaluating what Hayward was capable of bringing to the Packer defense it was a miss on their part. The Packers miss a lot when it comes to evaluating talent for the defense, especially in the draft. This is nothing new for TT and company. The Chargers GM and coaches apparently saw it differently. They paid-up and they got what they paid for, and then some.

Rationalization aside, bottom-line this was a big win for the Chargers FO and a big loss for the Packers FO.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packer FO and coaching staff ultimately missed on their evaluations of Hayward. Well, maybe not Whitt since he stated that they lost their two best CBs last season. It is what it is. Purely on the basis of correctly evaluating what Hayward was capable of bringing to the Packer defense it was a miss on their part. The Packers miss a lot when it comes to evaluating talent for the defense, especially in the draft. This is nothing new for TT and company. The Chargers GM and coaches apparently saw it differently. They paid-up and they got what they paid for, and then some.

Rationalization aside, bottom-line this was a big win for the Chargers FO and a big loss for the Packers FO.

While I totally agree with what you are saying, the only thing you might have to throw in the mix.....could the move to San Diego, a different team, coach, system, etc. possibly have been the largest influence on Hayward becoming a better player? Basically, had the Packers resigned him, would he have had the same stats last year in Green Bay that he had in San Diego? I don't think so.