Kevin King & Quentin Rollins

[Dantés]

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.

We aren't disagreeing. As you recall, my original question was to Captain, who said he thinks letting Hayward walk was the right move but that he should have been prepared with an answer if Shields went down. The second part seems to contradict the first.

 

[Mondio]

I always like Hayward. Lots of disappointment with injury after a very promising rookie year. He was always a guy I thought would make this defense better when he got back on the field. He did well when he did, but saw his playing time taken up as the season went on by a pair of rookies that were playing pretty well. Ultimately we could have used him last year and some will call it a failure of the front office to accurately judge talent. However, if Randall and Rollins pick up this year from their rookie years instead of their injury plagued 2nd years will it still be a case of missed evaluations?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Letting Hayward walk was a calculated risk no doubt and hindsight makes it look like a higher risk than it probably was viewed as at the time.

Risks at that time:

First, the Packers may or may not have known Shields was a walking time bomb, I am leaning towards they knew, but not that it would happen so quickly or as severely as it did.

Second: 2 high pick 2nd year players to play along side Shields. Both had impressive rookie seasons, why wouldn't they continue to progress?

Third, you have Casey Hayward, a 4 year player that missed time with injuries, had a solid rookie season but an up and down time after that.

Fourth: San Diego signs Hayward for a 3 year, $15,300,000. If the Packers were even still in the conversation at that time, I doubt TT even considers paying that for a guy who could be your #4 corner.


I get your point Dantés and I can't speak for what Captain was thinking. My issue with TT and the way things were handled at the CB position last year wasn't with Hayward, it was once Shields went down and both R & R showed signs of struggling or injury. At that point, it appeared that TT sat on his hands and did nothing. Now for all we know, he was busy 24/7 trying to find a replacement or two, but he didn't and the poor CB play continued.

 

[Dantés]

Letting Hayward walk was a calculated risk no doubt and hindsight makes it look like a higher risk than it probably was viewed as at the time.

Risks at that time:

First, the Packers may or may not have known Shields was a walking time bomb, I am leaning towards they knew, but not that it would happen so quickly or as severely as it did.

Second: 2 high pick 2nd year players to play along side Shields. Both had impressive rookie seasons, why wouldn't they continue to progress?

Third, you have Casey Hayward, a 4 year player that missed time with injuries, had a solid rookie season but an up and down time after that.

Fourth: San Diego signs Hayward for a 3 year, $15,300,000. If the Packers were even still in the conversation at that time, I doubt TT even considers paying that for a guy who could be your #4 corner.


I get your point Dantés and I can't speak for what Captain was thinking. My issue with TT and the way things were handled at the CB position last year wasn't with Hayward, it was once Shields went down and both R & R showed signs of struggling or injury. At that point, it appeared that TT sat on his hands and did nothing. Now for all we know, he was busy 24/7 trying to find a replacement or two, but he didn't and the poor CB play continued.

Yeah, I have no idea if he attempted to address the issue or not. I do think it's unlikely that there was a trade out there for a good corner. NFL trades are pretty rare as it is, and that's a premium position. I would guess that what he was counting on most was getting Randall and Rollins back all the way from injury. But even when they came back, it didn't seem that either of them were right.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think his going after House as well as his drafting of King with his first pick kind of tells you just how confident TT is with one or both of Randall and Rollins, healthy or not.

 

[rmontro]

I also don't understand the theory that Hayward was this stud before he left Green Bay

I liked Hayward, but I don't think the point was that he was some kind of stud. To me, the issue was that Ted left the cornerback group without enough of a veteran presence going into last season. Great that they liked Randall and Rollins, but they didn't have much experience. And when Shields went down, it was all on them. Maybe if Ted had tried to extend Hayward earlier on, he wouldn't have had to pay what San Diego did. Or maybe he was just determined to test the free agency waters, I'm not sure.

 

[Dantés]

I think his going after House as well as his drafting of King with his first pick kind of tells you just how confident TT is with one or both of Randall and Rollins, healthy or not.

Absolutely, but that all came after seeing them come back from injury only to struggle. Before they were both supposedly healthy, he could have been expecting to see them come back to the form they showed as rookies.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I liked Hayward, but I don't think the point was that he was some kind of stud. To me, the issue was that Ted left the cornerback group without enough of a veteran presence going into last season. Great that they liked Randall and Rollins, but they didn't have much experience. And when Shields went down, it was all on them. Maybe if Ted had tried to extend Hayward earlier on, he wouldn't have had to pay what San Diego did. Or maybe he was just determined to test the free agency waters, I'm not sure.

Absolutely, but that all came after seeing them come back from injury only to struggle. Before they were both supposedly healthy, he could have been expecting to see them come back to the form they showed as rookies.

We will never know what would have happened in 2016 if the Packers had resigned Hayward and/or somehow made a move when Shields went down. But lessons learned? I don't know, I'm looking at the OLB position right now and wondering WTF TT is thinking. Sure, Nick Perry and Clay Matthews but....what if either goes down or more likely, Clay still really isn't all the effective. I realize the salary cap doesn't allow for a lot of $5M+ backups, but that is one position that in my mind could very well end up like the CB position last year and cost the Packers in the end.

 

[Dantés]

We will never know what would have happened in 2016 if the Packers had resigned Hayward and/or somehow made a move when Shields went down. But lessons learned? I don't know, I'm looking at the OLB position right now and wondering WTF TT is thinking. Sure, Nick Perry and Clay Matthews but....what if either goes down or more likely, Clay still really isn't all the effective. I realize the salary cap doesn't allow for a lot of $5M+ backups, but that is one position that in my mind could very well end up like the CB position last year and cost the Packers in the end.

I share your confusion.

It's interesting, as the rookie wage scale has created this huge divide between cheap rookies and expensive stars, the Patriots have started exploiting value in the NFL's middle class. You have to be selective with them, but pass rusher is one place where it's more than OK to spend a little bit extra.

 

[Sky King]

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.

Point well-taken. We may be saying the same thing about Lacey this time next year. We'll see.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Point well-taken. We may be saying the same thing about Lacey this time next year. We'll see.

Never know, the change in environment, team, coaches, etc. could be just what Eddie needs to make a change in his dedication to football and his body. Not so sure the Seattle offensive line is going to be much help for Eddie.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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

Hayward never showed the ability to perform at a high level on the outside during his time with the Packers, therefore didn't seem like a valid backup for Shields last offseason. Thompson gambled on entering 2016 with a single veteran cornerback on the roster that had previously suffered four concussions being back up by a converted free safety, another second year player who played a single season of college football and a nunch of undrafted rookies and lost big time. On tol of it he didn't make a single move to upgrade the talent at the position once it became abundantly clear the team needed help.

 

[Dantés]

Hayward never showed the ability to perform at a high level on the outside during his time with the Packers, therefore didn't seem like a valid backup for Shields last offseason. Thompson gambled on entering 2016 with a single veteran cornerback on the roster that had previously suffered four concussions being back up by a converted free safety, another second year player who played a single season of college football and a nunch of undrafted rookies and lost big time. On tol of it he didn't make a single move to upgrade the talent at the position once it became abundantly clear the team needed help.

So you're saying that he should have signed a veteran, just not Hayward.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So you're saying that he should have signed a veteran, just not Hayward.

As I've mentioned repeatedly I was absolutely fine with the Packers depth chart at cornerback entering last season but once the unit struggled mightily after losing Shields a move should have been made to add a talented veteran presence.

 

[Dantés]

As I've mentioned repeatedly I was absolutely fine with the Packers depth chart at cornerback entering last season but once the unit struggled mightily after losing Shields a move should have been made to add a talented veteran presence.

As I've mentioned repeatedly, that assumes that there was a talented veteran presence available to be added.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As I've mentioned repeatedly, that assumes that there was a talented veteran presence available to be added.

I guess Thompson could have definitely make a move to acquire a veteran cornerback by giving up one of his precious draft picks.

 

[Dantés]

I guess Thompson could have definitely make a move to acquire a veteran cornerback by giving up one of his precious draft picks.

Who?

 

[Jerellh528]

I think his going after House as well as his drafting of King with his first pick kind of tells you just how confident TT is with one or both of Randall and Rollins, healthy or not.

Yup, same for Montgomery

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Who?

Richard Sherman of course

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Who?

I know for a fact that Jonathan Banks, who has started 39 games over his career, was available as the Bucs traded him for a 2018 seventh round pick at the deadline. While he's definitely not an elite player he might have added a much needed veteran presence.

I'm absolutely convinced there would have been several other teams ready to deal a cornerback for a mid round selection.

 

[Dantés]

I know for a fact that Jonathan Banks, who has started 39 games over his career, was available as the Bucs traded him for a 2018 seventh round pick at the deadline. While he's definitely not an elite player he might have added a much needed veteran presence.

I'm absolutely convinced there would have been several other teams ready to deal a cornerback for a mid round selection.

Captain... the Lions cut Banks four weeks after they traded for him.

 

[PikeBadger]

I guess Thompson could have definitely make a move to acquire a veteran cornerback by giving up one of his precious draft picks.

I doubt anyone in the NFC would have been interested in helping out the Packers with their DB problem.

It sounds like you have little regard for draft picks and think that good CB's are a dime a dozen waiting to be called to Green Bay.

P.S. Very much agree that Hayward priced himself out of GB's future and I also think his resume didn't warrant his price tag. I still think he's limited in how he can be used successfully and last year found himself in that position. I don't believe Hayward would have had anything close to that success with us last year.

 

[mradtke66]

I'm absolutely convinced there would have been several other teams ready to deal a cornerback for a mid round selection.

This may be true. I suspect the biggest reason the Packers didn't trade for a CB last year is because their lack of leverage and desperation.

Let's say you're an, oh I dunno, AFC North team and might be willing to part with one of your CBs, so long as he's not in your division. The player you're thinking of parting with is maybe worth a 4th or 5th, maybe a conditional 3rd if he plays lights-out. Fringe-starter level. Now a likely-Playoff team comes knocking.

With playoff teams picking late, it's common for the price to go up to offset the lateness. 4th round pick, conditional 3rd if you make the playoffs.

Now let's pretend it's the Packers coming to trade for a CB. "What's that Ted? You've got a hole at CB because your starter has a concussion and your top two backups have injured legs? I'll happily give you my fringe starter. And I will happily give him up for your 2nd round pick, which becomes a 1st if you make the playoffs."

Now obviously, this is all hypothetical. But any GM is going to negotiate from a position of power in that situation. Just how okay would you have been with overpaying for a potential stop-gap CB? A 3rd? How about a good starter who will need a contract in a year? A 1st and how much more?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I doubt anyone in the NFC would have been interested in helping out the Packers with their DB problem.

It sounds like you have little regard for draft picks and think that good CB's are a dime a dozen waiting to be called to Green Bay.

P.S. Very much agree that Hayward priced himself out of GB's future and I also think his resume didn't warrant his price tag. I still think he's limited in how he can be used successfully and last year found himself in that position. I don't believe Hayward would have had anything close to that success with us last year.

While I agree with you on most of that, it is GM's like Belichick that are able to dispel the myth of "can't get needed players at the right moment or from other teams who don't want us to get better". BB has a knack of finding guys when needed, using various sources and ways to acquire players, as well as recognizing that need earlier than most.

I think the issue some of us have with TT is that he seems to lock in on his draft picks/UDFA's and is so confidant that he was correct on them, he holds on to and relies on them too long. I am hoping that TT's moves in Free Agency this year was a sign of change, maybe he has loosened up his way of thinking a bit.

 

[Sky King]

Between Thompson and Belichick there might be one philosophical difference that perhaps makes the difference between almost getting there and winning it all:

Thompson seems to favor keeping a player for what he hopes he can deliver in subsequent seasons more heavily than his counterpart does. It's all part and parcel to his draft and develop approach to team building. He'll keep a promising but green younger player over a seasoned vet -- counting on a higher ceiling eventually being reached vs. the vet whose ceiling is already known to be average or thereabouts and maybe even slipping a bit. His bias is to fill the back end of the roster with promising youth over experience that may not be overwhelming.

Belechick seems to view the present with greater importance for rounding out his roster. My impression is that, of course, he still wants to win in subsequent seasons but first things first. He is most determined to win this season and he fills-out his roster with that in mind. Next year the roster will probably have a lot of movement again but his focus will still be on keeping the best players for the current season, not future seasons. His bias seems to be towards useful experience for the now rather than potential down the road. His philosophy works best and the record doesn't lie about that.

I would have preferred Belichick's backup DBs of last season to Thompson's backups, especially during the playoff run. Given the long tenure of each GM it appears that Thompson's philosophy has been very good but that Belichick's philosophy has proven to be superior.