Move CB up draft board

[Deleted member 6794]

There's a guy on the team named Micah Hyde. He's the obvious choice right? And before anyone starts this nonsense about him not being fast enough again, look at the guys in the Hall.

I don´t see any reason to move Hyde outside having a faster option on the roster in Hayward.

The speed of HOF cornerbacks doesn´t have any relevance to this discussion as none of them played a single season in the league after 2005 and receivers are way faster as of now than during their careers.

 

[TJV]

The Rules Committee is reviewing the matter this week. Reports are saying they are OK with the rule as implemented but changing the wording of the rule is under consideration. The only good thing I can say about the implementation is that it's been reasonably consistent.

From jsonline:

Word play: The rule that states a receiver who goes to the ground must maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of the catch, also known as the Calvin Johnson Rule, won't be changed. But the language describing it will.

The competition committee agreed to add clarification to the rule. Previously, it stated that the receiver must have both feet on the ground, control of the football and make an act common to football to have completed the process. If that process is completed and the ball comes out as a result of hitting the ground, it is a catch and the runner is down. The new wording says that a player making a catch must have control of the football with both feet on the ground and clearly establish himself as a runner to complete the process. The rule was questioned after Dallas receiver Dez Bryant was ruled not to have completed the process of a catch before losing the ball as he hit the ground in a playoff game against the Packers at Lambeau Field.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/thompson-has-two-extra-picks-b99467483z1-297338841.html

 

[RRyder]

I agree because if you can't see that the defense is about 90% responsible for why this team can't get back to the Super Bowl, then there is no sense in arguing with you either. The defense fails this team over and over again. There simply is no defense for this defense.

I don´t see any reason to move Hyde outside having a faster option on the roster in Hayward.

The speed of HOF cornerbacks doesn´t have any relevance to this discussion as none of them played a single season in the league after 2005 and receivers are way faster as of now than during their careers.

Id say speed shouldnt be a factor if u wanted Tramon back. Haywards faster then him at this point and Tramon was never that fast.

We talk about Haywards experience n ability outside but if people felt fine with Tramons speed they should have zero problem with Haywards

 

[HardRightEdge]

From jsonline:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/thompson-has-two-extra-picks-b99467483z1-297338841.html

"a player making a catch must have control of the football with both feet on the ground and clearly establish himself as a runner to complete the process."

First, this pretty much validates the argument that the rule, as previously written, was not properly implemented even if it was more or less consistently called. "Establishing as a runner" is a higher bar than "football move", something Bryant clearly executed.

This change does not respect the athleticism within the game. It also does not eliminate the opportunity for controversy.

Under this new rule, a player who catches the ball, stumbles a couple of steps, puts his hand in the dirt, stays upright, stumbles a couple of more steps, lunges, then drops the ball on ground contact should be ruled incomplete. That's a guy exhibiting outstanding football athleticism who could be traversing 10 yards down the field with the ball in possession. I look forward to that call.

 

[TJV]

The bottom line for me is all receivers in the NFL should be aware that they must keep control of the ball through contact with the ground. For example, Bryant didn't have to leap for the goal line, that play would have been game-changing "enough" if he had concentrated on maintaining possession and giving the Cowboys a first down at the one, two, or three yard line. Again, if a receiver makes a spectacular leaping catch, doesn't make any football more or establish himself as a runner, but keeps control of the ball, it's a catch. It's the responsibility of all NFL coaching staffs that every potential receiver and interceptor on their teams know this rule.

 

[Half Empty]

I'm confident there is one, but in what way could the 'what is a catch?' question be addressed in order to eliminate the subjectivity/controversy that now seems to be the hangup?

 

[HardRightEdge]

The bottom line for me is all receivers in the NFL should be aware that they must keep control of the ball through contact with the ground. For example, Bryant didn't have to leap for the goal line, that play would have been game-changing "enough" if he had concentrated on maintaining possession and giving the Cowboys a first down at the one, two, or three yard line. Again, if a receiver makes a spectacular leaping catch, doesn't make any football more or establish himself as a runner, but keeps control of the ball, it's a catch. It's the responsibility of all NFL coaching staffs that every potential receiver and interceptor on their teams know this rule.

It's clear what the league expects players to be aware of. They're standing by the Megatron and Bryant calls.

But what it says is if Bryant had been a lesser athlete and not been able to stay upright and lunge for the end zone, had he simply gone down with the ball on initial contact, that would have been OK. Also, the fact Bryant was down by contact when he had possession of the ball is additionally problematic. The rule does not respect the athleticism required to extend that play.

The Megatron call has another troubling inconsistency. A ball carrier (receiver or runner) can be in midair, break the goal line for an infinitesimal moment, and lose the ball before contacting the ground, and it's ruled a TD. Megatron was in the end zone with possession, turned, fell down, then lost the ball on ground contact. How does a guy with possession in the end zone, clearly establish himself as runner? This was a problem even under the "football move" rule; it's still a problem.

So, lets say a guy is just standing the end zone, catches the ball, continues to just stand there, and a wise guy DB comes to him a second later and slaps the ball out of his hands?

I bet they call this a TD, as they should, but it won't conform to the rule. The DB might even get an unsportsmanlike conduct call depending how he went about it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm confident there is one, but in what way could the 'what is a catch?' question be addressed in order to eliminate the subjectivity/controversy that now seems to be the hangup?

Subjectivity in this kind of call in unavoidable regardless of how the rule is phrased or implemented. The "football move" provision was intended to respect the obvious subjectivity while honoring the athleticism in the game, even if the league did not implement it that way and even if it did not clearly address what happens when the guy is already in the end zone.

This change is trying to give the refs a longer window to make a subjective assessment. Why? Because they do not want to take subjective calls to the booth.

 

[TJV]

As I've posted before, IMO the Calvin Johnson was a very bad call for the reasons you mentioned.

If any NFL players are concerned about their athleticism not being respected, I suggest they include "keeping control of the ball upon and after contact with the ground" as part of being athletic. With all the rule changes that have favored the offense over the years, I have no trouble with this one. Ball security ought to be the top priority for any player with the ball, this rule just extends it to players who catch the ball and contact the ground.

 

[rodell330]

If TT traded for Patrick Peterson some of you would still say he's not fast enough haha smh.

 

[rodell330]

TT has Failed to improve the defense so far this off season...that can't be ignored no matter how much his supporters try to debate against it. It would be different if the Packers didn't have the money but they have the money.

 

[HardRightEdge]

As I've posted before, IMO the Calvin Johnson was a very bad call for the reasons you mentioned.

If any NFL players are concerned about their athleticism not being respected, I suggest they include "keeping control of the ball upon and after contact with the ground" as part of being athletic. With all the rule changes that have favored the offense over the years, I have no trouble with this one. Ball security ought to be the top priority for any player with the ball, this rule just extends it to players who catch the ball and contact the ground.

Your suggestion doesn't address the nub of the problem.

A guy could catch a ball, run 40 yards down the field, trip and fall without any defender contact, and loses the ball on contact with the ground. I think we'd all agree that's a fumble, not an interception. Yet he failed to pass your criteria.

This example serves to illustrate that the nub issue is not the contact with the ground; it's about what constitutes an acceptable transition from mere possession of the ball to a "catch", which is then subject to a fumble or down-on-contact call instead of incompletion. The acceptable transition was "football move"; now "it's establish himself as a runner".

All it does is elongate the "football move" process, which will only offend the consesus eye test further (partisans excepted), while exacerbating the issue of end zone "catches". "Football move" was vague enough to apply to the Megatron catch. Under the new rule he's required to do something that's impossible...establish himself as a runner when he's already in the end zone.

 

[RRyder]

Your suggestion doesn't address the nub of the problem.

A guy could catch a ball, run 40 yards down the field, trip and fall without any defender contact, and loses the ball on contact with the ground. I think we'd all agree that's a fumble, not an interception. Yet he failed to pass your criteria.

This example serves to illustrate that the nub issue is not the contact with the ground; it's about what constitutes an acceptable transition from mere possession of the ball to a "catch", which is then subject to a fumble or down-on-contact call instead of incompletion. The acceptable transition was "football move"; now "it's establish himself as a runner".

All it does is elongate the "football move" process, which will only offend the consesus eye test further (partisans excepted), while exacerbating the issue of end zone "catches". "Football move" was vague enough to apply to the Megatron catch. Under the new rule he's required to do something that's impossible...establish himself as a runner when he's already in the end zone.

Honestly I dont have a problem with this rule. In fact after the divisional game I found it amusing how many people/fans acted like they didnt know the rule when EVERY single team in the league has had this rule work both against and in their favor.

Its one of the very few rules that is consitently called the same way. If theyre trying to make rules more clear cut how bout roughing the QB? What exactly is a "defenseless" WR? How bout clearing up n calling offensive PI on pick plays?

Everyone knows this rule and the ones that dont should. Its worded in a way that it gets called consistently the same way every time. Is it a perfect rule? Nope. But if you dont draw a line in the sand then its only going to open the league to more ridicule from fans saying "OMG that was a catch" or "Hell no he didnt catch it".

Like I said for a rule that every football fan should of known and every team has had work against them I find any uproar about it amusing. If you wanted it changed people should of complained about it after Megatron. At this point uproar after the fact is just funny

 

[adambr2]

TT has Failed to improve the defense so far this off season...that can't be ignored no matter how much his supporters try to debate against it. It would be different if the Packers didn't have the money but they have the money.

The reason they have the money is the very philosophy they have not to overpay for guys. Had the Packers followed your plans of action the last couple of years they would not even have had had enough to keep Cobb and Bulaga, much less go after other FAs. So no, you don't overpay for something just because you have the money to overpay for it.

Let's be honest Rodell, you typically award trophies in March based on who has been the most active in free agency, as you did last year with the Broncos. You've actually gotten a little better, and your criticisms are valid, but not yet. It's too early. Yes, if the defense looks mostly the same in July, we are likely to have problems. Let's see what happens between now and then.

Also Patrick Peterson was not especially good last year so if we traded for him I'd be asking what we gave up.

 

[rodell330]

The reason they have the money is the very philosophy they have not to overpay for guys. Had the Packers followed your plans of action the last couple of years they would not even have had had enough to keep Cobb and Bulaga, much less go after other FAs. So no, you don't overpay for something just because you have the money to overpay for it.

Let's be honest Rodell, you typically award trophies in March based on who has been the most active in free agency, as you did last year with the Broncos. You've actually gotten a little better, and your criticisms are valid, but not yet. It's too early. Yes, if the defense looks mostly the same in July, we are likely to have problems. Let's see what happens between now and then.

Also Patrick Peterson was not especially good last year so if we traded for him I'd be asking what we gave up.

Come on an TT could've signed someone like Wilfork, or even Buster skrine and still had enough for Cobb and Bulaga. I'm starting to think that they dont want to improve the defense and keep all the pressure on the offense.

 

[TJV]

Your suggestion doesn't address the nub of the problem. ... This example serves to illustrate that the nub issue is not the contact with the ground...

A "football move" or "establishing himself as a runner" never comes into play if he retains possession of the ball. Consider this: A receiver runs at top speed and makes an incredibly athletic leap and catches the ball at the peak of his leap. His back and butt land before his legs and feet. He never made a football move and never established himself as a runner and it's a catch. If Bryant had maintained possession of the ball it's a catch regardless of anything else. And if Calvin would have kept both of his hands on the ball instead of breaking his fall with his left hand and (what looked to me like) purposely putting the ball on the ground and squeezing it with his right, the rule wouldn't bear his name.

Any receiver that doesn't maintain possession of the ball is rightly subject to a subjective interpretation of a football move or now establishing himself as a runner and deserves his fate. It's all about the ball and everyone is, or should be on notice about it. I'm fine with this rule.

 

[HardRightEdge]

A "football move" or "establishing himself as a runner" never comes into play if he retains possession of the ball. Consider this: A receiver runs at top speed and makes an incredibly athletic leap and catches the ball at the peak of his leap. His back and butt land before his legs and feet. He never made a football move and never established himself as a runner and it's a catch. If Bryant had maintained possession of the ball it's a catch regardless of anything else. And if Calvin would have kept both of his hands on the ball instead of breaking his fall with his left hand and (what looked to me like) purposely putting the ball on the ground and squeezing it with his right, the rule wouldn't bear his name.

Any receiver that doesn't maintain possession of the ball is rightly subject to a subjective interpretation of a football move or now establishing himself as a runner and deserves his fate. It's all about the ball and everyone is, or should be on notice about it. I'm fine with this rule.

Just because the receivers are on notice of something subjective, as they were before and as they are now, doesn't make the implementation right or even consistent. If you don't think the catches in question are really catches, nothing I say will change your mind, though you already expressed concern about the Megatron call. Now you seemed to have changed your mind.

All the new rule does is support, retroactively, the Bryant call.

To repeat, with the Megatron call, where the guy standing in the end zone, he cannot possibly "establish himself as a runner." He's already crossed the plane of the goal line. That instance alone makes the new wording flawed, unless they add a different provision for end zone catches, which itself is problematic for reasons that best left for the presentation of the final wording.

Nothing has been fixed. When the next guy makes a catch like Bryant's, stumbles forward one more step, breaks the goal line, and the catch is ruled incomplete because he was not established as a runner, the affront to the eye will be even more acute. I think they've made matters worse.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Honestly I dont have a problem with this rule. In fact after the divisional game I found it amusing how many people/fans acted like they didnt know the rule when EVERY single team in the league has had this rule work both against and in their favor.

Clearly, your argument holds no water. Otherwise they would not have seen the need to change the wording.

Its one of the very few rules that is consitently called the same way. If theyre trying to make rules more clear cut how bout roughing the QB? What exactly is a "defenseless" WR? How bout clearing up n calling offensive PI on pick plays?

Consistency does not make it right. I have not reviewed the rules as written in those other unrelated matters to comment other than to say subjectivity is a given under many of the rules.

Everyone knows this rule and the ones that dont should. Its worded in a way that it gets called consistently the same way every time. Is it a perfect rule? Nope. But if you dont draw a line in the sand then its only going to open the league to more ridicule from fans saying "OMG that was a catch" or "Hell no he didnt catch it". Like I said for a rule that every football fan should of known and every team has had work against them I find any uproar about it amusing. If you wanted it changed people should of complained about it after Megatron. At this point uproar after the fact is just funny

Again, if that were the case they'd not be changing the rule. And there was a heated debate over both the Megatron and Bryant calls among many knowledgeable football commentators, not just partisans with an axe to grind. Even Sam Shields, the defender on the Bryant play, said it was catch, so, again, you're way off in thinking this is just a problem for the uninformed:

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/sto...hields-catch-dallas-cowboys-green-bay-packers

Why would Shields think this? Because he's an elite athlete and recognizes an athletic football accomplishment of a high order.

Many informed observers had a problem with the Megatron call at the time. The league chose to nothing about it at the time. And, as previously noted, if the only change to the wording is "establish himself as a runner", the Megatron call is more muddy than it was before.

 

[RyanO4]

I think CB isn't as much of a pressing need as people think it is for the Packers. They have three perfectly capable corners in Shields, Hayward, and Hyde. Of course they will need to draft a CB in the first 3-4 rounds in this years draft, but that will be for depth and the future. ILB by far is their most pressing need. Barrington still has a lot to prove, and the other spot is up for grabs. I mean it's a crap shoot for that spot with Bradford, Thomas, and Francis. I think picking up Spikes as a 2 down player is a great idea because they already stink in the run, and Dom uses the nickel package a lot on later downs anyways. It can also be a low risk high reward one year contract, while their ILB draft pick develops behind him. They need to draft an ILB in the first two rounds too (Kendricks, Mckinney, or Anthony). I'm a bit iffy on Perryman. I think trading back would be a great idea because TT could get some extra picks, while still getting the BPA at that spot. Finally if the Packers can resign Raji and Guion at NT, they will be in a good position at NT for the coming year. I could still understand drafting a NT in the first round using BPA, but I really feel that ILB is their most pressing need. It really showed last year with the terrible play of Jones and Hawk. I think TT really wants to get Anthony, so he will trade back in order to receive more picks and get his man at the right spot.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If TT traded for Patrick Peterson some of you would still say he's not fast enough haha smh.

Speed isn't the only important trait for a CB. Neither Hayward nor Hyde have played extensively on the outside so I don't see any reason to feel extremely confident in their ability to be shut down corners.

Peterson, while being a speedy corner, gave up eight TD passes last year. I'd rather have a slower guy capable of covering a receiver.

I think CB isn't as much of a pressing need as people think it is for the Packers. They have three perfectly capable corners in Shields, Hayward, and Hyde. Of course they will need to draft a CB in the first 3-4 rounds in this years draft, but that will be for depth and the future. ILB by far is their most pressing need. Barrington still has a lot to prove, and the other spot is up for grabs. I mean it's a crap shoot for that spot with Bradford, Thomas, and Francis. I think picking up Spikes as a 2 down player is a great idea because they already stink in the run, and Dom uses the nickel package a lot on later downs anyways. It can also be a low risk high reward one year contract, while their ILB draft pick develops behind him. They need to draft an ILB in the first two rounds too (Kendricks, Mckinney, or Anthony). I'm a bit iffy on Perryman. I think trading back would be a great idea because TT could get some extra picks, while still getting the BPA at that spot. Finally if the Packers can resign Raji and Guion at NT, they will be in a good position at NT for the coming year. I could still understand drafting a NT in the first round using BPA, but I really feel that ILB is their most pressing need. It really showed last year with the terrible play of Jones and Hawk. I think TT really wants to get Anthony, so he will trade back in order to receive more picks and get his man at the right spot.

It's true the Packers have three talented corners in Shields, Hayward and House but none of the latter two is proven playing on the outside. There's no doubt ILB is the position in most dire need of an upgrade but I would like the Packers to select a CB capable of playing outside on day 2 of the draft.

 

[rodell330]

Speed isn't the only important trait for a CB. Neither Hayward nor Hyde have played extensively on the outside so I don't see any reason to feel extremely confident in their ability to be shut down corners.

They don't have to be shut down corners.. Just be capable starters. If TT doesn't do something about the ilb spot or DT spot you wont have to worry about the corner...a"teams will gash us with the run.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The reason they have the money is the very philosophy they have not to overpay for guys. Had the Packers followed your plans of action the last couple of years they would not even have had had enough to keep Cobb and Bulaga, much less go after other FAs. So no, you don't overpay for something just because you have the money to overpay for it.

Let's be honest Rodell, you typically award trophies in March based on who has been the most active in free agency, as you did last year with the Broncos. You've actually gotten a little better, and your criticisms are valid, but not yet. It's too early. Yes, if the defense looks mostly the same in July, we are likely to have problems. Let's see what happens between now and then.

Also Patrick Peterson was not especially good last year so if we traded for him I'd be asking what we gave up.

How does having the third most cap space in the NFL with no improvements made to the defense get this team closer to the Super Bowl? I'm not advocating a spending spree (and I'm positive that people will build some straw man when debating this) but the defense has gotten worse this off-season. People will talk about how all this free cap space will let the Packers "keep their guys" but that completely ignores that in future years there will be salaries coming off the books. The reasoning goes "if we sign this guy then we can't afford to re-sign Hayward or Daniels next year"...well, next year the Packers currently have a smaller cap number than they do this year ($11m less actually) so I'm not sure how an additional $5m on the cap this year (assuming that's what it would have taken to get Knighton as an example) would prevent the Packers from re-signing guys or put them in cap troubles.

Thompson's approach works. Packers are very competitive but I think people forget that it was Schneider who convinced Thompson (after a lot of cajoling) to sign Woodson. I'm not sure that there's a guy in the front office now who can balance out Ted's more conservative tendencies and I'm not sure how anyone can expect the defense to be better next season after replacing those lost with rookies.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How does having the third most cap space in the NFL with no improvements made to the defense get this team closer to the Super Bowl? I'm not advocating a spending spree (and I'm positive that people will build some straw man when debating this) but the defense has gotten worse this off-season. People will talk about how all this free cap space will let the Packers "keep their guys" but that completely ignores that in future years there will be salaries coming off the books. The reasoning goes "if we sign this guy then we can't afford to re-sign Hayward or Daniels next year"...well, next year the Packers currently have a smaller cap number than they do this year ($11m less actually) so I'm not sure how an additional $5m on the cap this year (assuming that's what it would have taken to get Knighton as an example) would prevent the Packers from re-signing guys or put them in cap troubles.

Thompson's approach works. Packers are very competitive but I think people forget that it was Schneider who convinced Thompson (after a lot of cajoling) to sign Woodson. I'm not sure that there's a guy in the front office now who can balance out Ted's more conservative tendencies and I'm not sure how anyone can expect the defense to be better next season after replacing those lost with rookies.

The Packers top 51 contracts and the dead money count $129.5 million towards the cap for 2015 as of now meaning the team has $21.3 million in cap space available (which ranks fifth in the league). The draft picks will add another $1.4 million to the cap and once the regular season starts another two players on the roster will count an additional $870K towards the cap. It´s unlikely the team will be able to stay as healthy as last season so they will have to use some portion of the available cap space for replacement players.

Thompson will for sure like to roll over a significant amount of cap space in 2016 because the Packers have already committed more than $121 million towards the cap for only 41 players.

I agree there should be sufficient cap space available to upgrade the NT and ILB position with some veterans.

 

[TJV]

Just because the receivers are on notice of something subjective, as they were before and as they are now, doesn't make the implementation right or even consistent. If you don't think the catches in question are really catches, nothing I say will change your mind, though you already expressed concern about the Megatron call. Now you seemed to have changed your mind. ... Nothing has been fixed. When the next guy makes a catch like Bryant's, stumbles forward one more step, breaks the goal line, and the catch is ruled incomplete because he was not established as a runner, the affront to the eye will be even more acute. I think they've made matters worse.

No, I haven't changed my mind regarding Johnson - I think that was the wrong call because IMO he came down in the EZ with control of the football. Being in the EZ was the distinguishing factor vs. Bryant, who did not have both feet down in the EZ, nor did he have control of the ball when it crossed the goal line. And something has been "fixed": The league doubled down on the rule, making it clear receivers must retain possession of the ball throughout the catch. The take away for all NFL receivers is they can stumble and bumble all they want, all they have to do is retain possession of the ball. And if Bryant was on notice of the rule before that non-catch, he certainly didn't act like it. Look at the reply and you'll notice the official marked the ball short of the goal line. As I posted above, Bryant didn't have to leap for the goal line, that play would have been game-changing "enough" if he had concentrated on maintaining possession.

And BTW, you seem to be posting as if you can somehow create a rule in such situations that is objective. In close-call situations possession itself is subjective.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And BTW, you seem to be posting as if you can somehow create a rule in such situations that is objective. In close-call situations possession itself is subjective.

I said nothing of the sort; quite the opposite.

My point is to honor the athleticism of the game, not make it easier on the refs.