What do we do with the CB group?

[Deleted member 6794]

geesh. TT's decision was right at the time. i said that he thought he had a good replacement. we're not disagreeing. go back and look again.

You hadn't mentioned that Thompson made the right decision at the time to let Hayward walk away in free agency so far.

We may have thought of Randall and Rollins to be emerging stars, but I don't think $5M as an insurance policy by keeping Hayward would have been a bad move at all, even if we didn't know that he would be 10x the player either of our CBs currently are. Shields got hurt every single year, and solid depth would be needed at the very least. Giving $3M to a backup RB instead was just idiotic. It was a bad move.

It was a smart move not to match the Chargers' offer for Hayward as teams are headed towards salary cap issues by overpaying for backups. I completely agree that Thompson signing Starks to a two-year, $6 million deal during the same offseason was a terrible decision though.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

It was a bad move using hindsight. Not sure how people don't see this. Had we paid Hayward that kind of money and he didn't play like he has with San Diego, which is quite possible, people would have been calling for TT's head. It is far too easy to look what Hayward has done in a different system in San Diego, couple that with the issues we have had at CB and it's too easy to say "Bad move TT...bad move". But let's just say we did pay Hayward that money and he didn't thrive in Capers defense or got hurt.....what would people be saying now?

If people didn't have TT's head for signing Starks to a $3M salary, then I really doubt they would have been up in arms about Hayward making $5M.

Hayward has been with two different DCs in SD now, and has been excellent in both systems. He is good. He was good here. Maybe not to that degree, but that should indicate how bad Capers is.

Just because people here thought it was a good move doesn't mean that a seasoned a GM should have. Randall was not good in his rookie year. He flashed, but he was beaten far too often for any of us to assume that he'd somehow make a magical leap into being a #1 CB. Rollins was good, but even so, that's 2 guys behind an oft-injured player in a position requiring quantity and quality. At worst, sign him to a deal where he can be cut after a year, if he's not needed, like Bennett.

People are making way too big of a deal about $5M. TT signed Starks, a backup at a position where even good starters make peanuts, to $3M, and nobody showed up with Pitchforks. TT screwed up with Hayward big time.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Hayward...was good here. Maybe not to that degree, but that should indicate how bad Capers is.

Capers isn't very good at adapting his schemes to the players on hand, is he?

Anyway, as for the question posed in the title of this thread, I think there's been too much b*tching on the subject of CBs. While nobody is going to confuse these guys with Revis and Talib, I thing they've played pretty well, grinding it out, a step up from last season.

It's helpful to observe they don't get much help inside on short crosses and skinny posts. I'm more disappointed in the ILB and safety middle coverages.

It's kinda tough playing outside man technique defending the deep route when you can't expect any help inside. Some games are better than others, but we've seen some teams move the chains all day on those inside routes. What's the logic in having the ILB drop 15 yards right off the screen and Dix 10 yards behind him looking for work?

Consider playing CB in Seattle, to take an example at the opposite end of the spectrum. Those guys can have some confidence that a Wagner, Chancellor or Thomas is going to have your back on an inside route. And those guys will stick somebody often enough to give them some second thoughts about running in there. In Green Bay, there is no "danger zone". It's the "chase zone". Once in a while a guy gets a hand on the ball.

Now, these deep middle drops can be fruitful when you play against a quarterback like Glennon who will air mail a couple of balls under pressure. Against QBs more careful with the ball? No so much.

It would appear from player comments that the emphasis this week will be on stopping the run, as against Chicago, with a heavier dose of base D. That puts more pressure on the secondary. I'd like to think Witten won't catch 10 balls for 6 first downs under the middle coverage while Dix plays cover-2 all day against Bryant which is the Capers template.

How about dialing up something different, Dom, that isn't just bend-don't-break and lousy offensive field position?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Just because people here thought it was a good move doesn't mean that a seasoned a GM should have. Randall was not good in his rookie year. He flashed, but he was beaten far too often for any of us to assume that he'd somehow make a magical leap into being a #1 CB. Rollins was good, but even so, that's 2 guys behind an oft-injured player in a position requiring quantity and quality. At worst, sign him to a deal where he can be cut after a year, if he's not needed, like Bennett.

It was widely considered to be a smart move not matching the Chargers' offer for Hayward though. I don't remember any posters questioning the decision at the time it happened. In hindsight there's no doubt it didn't work out but a general manager doesn't have the benefit of doing business that way. As mentioned above Randall and Rollins both leapfrogged him on the depth chart during their rookie campaigns.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

It was widely considered to be a smart move not matching the Chargers' offer for Hayward though. I don't remember any posters questioning the decision at the time it happened. In hindsight there's no doubt it didn't work out but a general manager doesn't have the benefit of doing business that way. As mentioned above Randall and Rollins both leapfrogged him on the depth chart during their rookie campaigns.

Yeah, but Gunter also leapfrogged a couple of guys currently on the roster, and he has since been cut. There is no rhyme or reason with the CB personnel decisions.

I wasn't outspoken against not resigning him, but I stated that I would have rather brought him back than Perry. I stand behind that, and I actually was optimistic about his "replacements". You always need quality depth at that position. Going into the season with an IR all-star and a couple of guys with a year under their belts was a death wish, and we had our wish granted.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yeah, but Gunter also leapfrogged a couple of guys currently on the roster, and he has since been cut. There is no rhyme or reason with the CB personnel decisions.

I wasn't outspoken against not resigning him, but I stated that I would have rather brought him back than Perry. I stand behind that, and I actually was optimistic about his "replacements". You always need quality depth at that position. Going into the season with an IR all-star and a couple of guys with a year under their belts was a death wish, and we had our wish granted.

Gunter moved up the depth chart at cornerback solely based on a rash of injuries at the position. While there's no doubt quality depth is essential in the secondary there's no reason to pay $5 million per season for a backup though.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Gunter moved up the depth chart at cornerback solely based on a rash of injuries at the position. While there's no doubt quality depth is essential in the secondary there's no reason to pay $5 million per season for a backup though.

Hayward started 11 games his final year, and both playoff games . He had 12 tackles in the playoffs and 2 passes defended. Your definition of a backup is different than mine, especially with the number of receivers which can be on the field at one time. It's a passing league, and CB is arguably the most important position on defense. And don't forget, we paid a backup RB $3M.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Hayward started 11 games his final year, and both playoff games . He had 12 tackles in the playoffs and 2 passes defended. Your definition of a backup is different than mine, especially with the number of receivers which can be on the field at one time. It's a passing league, and CB is arguably the most important position on defense. And don't forget, we paid a backup RB $3M.

You're absolutely right about Hayward actually being a starter for the Packers in 2015 (I should never trust another poster with numbers I haven't double checked myself ) as he played 87% of the defensive snaps that season. As I've mentioned above there's no doubt Thompson re-signing Starks to that deal was a terrible decision.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

You're absolutely right about Hayward actually being a starter for the Packers in 2015 (I should never trust another poster with numbers I haven't double checked myself ) as he played 87% of the defensive snaps that season. As I've mentioned above there's no doubt Thompson re-signing Starks to that deal was a terrible decision.

It's okay, we were all foolish in believing that we still had a good unit after Hayward left.

On re-signing Hayward, per PFF:


One of the premier slot cornerbacks in the league, Hayward transitioned to starter in 2015 and did not disappoint. He was the Packers’ highest-graded cornerback in 2015 in coverage, and 21st-overall in the entire NFL. His traits won’t likely command as much money as Sam Shields, but he should be just below that range. Even with Hayward’s apparent heirs already drafted in Quinten Rollins and Damarious Randall, secondary is such a premium position that you can’t afford to bleed talent


On re-signing Starks:

Starks will be 30 years old tomorrow, and he developed an unfortunate fumbling problem in 2015. He could be re-signed if the cost is minimal, but he doesn’t exactly scream reliable backup at this point.

PFF was 100% right, and Thompson 100% wrong. Great job, Ted.

 

[OldSchool101]

IMO our group will continue to get stronger as the season progresses. We still are very young overall so it stands to reason that we are not playing at our peak just yet a quarter into the season. The question for me is.. will our secondary begin to peak by the playoffs OR will it take next year to round out the secondary to catapult them into a top 10 Defense or so.
I still see us as in the early stages of a rebuild here. We are just one more solid OLB and one more solid perimeter CB away from being hard to move the ball against. We are definitely better than last year though either way at 20.3 pts and 299/game allowed and a +2 takeaway.
I'd love to see us under 19pts game and +4 or so right now

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We are definitely better than last year though either way at 20.3 pts and 299/game allowed

The Packers have played three below average offenses so far though and struggled mightily once again vs. the only good one they faced.

 

[OldSchool101]

The Packers have played three below average offenses so far though and struggled mightily once again vs. the only good one they faced.

That is somewhat true. I also believe we have not played our best ball yet either (at this point in the season)
Technically 2 below average offenses. Both Atlanta and Seattle are in the top half of the league in scoring

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I also believe we have not played our best ball yet either (at this point in the season)

While that's definitely true I don't feel confident about the Packers defense chances of being able to contain an elite offense even later during the season.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This years team doesn't look that much different than past Packer teams IMO. We are good, but probably not good enough to compete with a few of the better teams, especially on the road. Without AR, Packers are 500 at best. With AR and a healthy OL, 25+ points should be in the mix most games. Still no running game and I don't think we currently have a RB or OL that I can honestly say will give us a running game in the near future. Our defense is still weak at ILB and the secondary and allows average to good QB's pick them apart.

The only way I see this team making a run to the SB is with the following happening:

1. Turnover ratio swings high into our favor.
2. Team gets healthy and stays relatively healthy.
3. Steady improvement from King and Jones, as well as most every other defensive player not named Mike Daniels.
4. AR doesn't miss a game.
5. Win enough games to host the NFCG.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We are good, but probably not good enough to compete with a few of the better teams, especially on the road.

I agree with most of your post but definitely believe the Packers are good enough to compete with every other team in the league. It might get extremely difficult defeating an opponent facing an elite offense on the road though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree with most of your post but definitely believe the Packers are good enough to compete with every other team in the league. It might get extremely difficult defeating an opponent facing an elite offense on the road though.

Think we are saying almost the same thing, you having a bit more confidence in competing against any team. Watching what Atlanta did last year and again this year, I don't think the Packers are even close to being talented enough to beat the Falcons, without some turnovers and favorable bounces. Even the Rams and Eagles Offenses would scare me against our defense. Over in the AFC, the Patriots and Chiefs might be the same, hopefully we will find that out when we play one of them in the Super Bowl

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Think we are saying almost the same thing, you having a bit more confidence in competing against any team. Watching what Atlanta did last year and again this year, I don't think the Packers are even close to being talented enough to beat the Falcons, without some turnovers and favorable bounces. Even the Rams and Eagles Offenses would scare me against our defense. Over in the AFC, the Patriots and Chiefs might be the same, hopefully we will find that out when we play one of them in the Super Bowl

As mentioned before I don't have a lot of confidence in the defense's ability to contain elite offenses but am optimistic about the offense possibly outscoring every other team.

 

[OldSchool101]

It's a slippery slope right now. We honestly could get blown out by a potent Offense right now, but I sincerely believe as the season progresses that we will close that gap window. It's more about putting away some close games in the W column during the first half of the season. We have a lot of young players who are gaining valuable seasoning and confidence with each passing week.
We still have several players coming off injury in the near future that should conceivably offer some increased Defensive production as we progress later into the season (including the 93rd and 108th overall picks in the 2017 draft). As of right now I'm o.k. with a "W" and a small increment in production and health each week.

 

[Passepartout]

Yeah as just need to really gain chemistry. As it seems the Packers no matter what are off to a slow start. But it is however how you finish it all.

 

[Ogsponge]

***

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

I am so going to have words with the wife about her letting you take pictures of her ***

 

[Mondio]

Never trust a big butt and a smile...

 

[swhitset]

Just because people here thought it was a good move doesn't mean that a seasoned a GM should have. Randall was not good in his rookie year. He flashed, but he was beaten far too often for any of us to assume that he'd somehow make a magical leap into being a #1 CB. Rollins was good, but even so, that's 2 guys behind an oft-injured player in a position requiring quantity and quality. At worst, sign him to a deal where he can be cut after a year, if he's not needed, like Bennett.
.

To your first point... King has been beaten several times this year as well. I actually believe that he will be a very good cornerback, but I don't see the distinction at this point. As far as your comparison to the Bennet contract ... there is none. Bennet signed the best deal he could get at this point in his career. Hayward was an up and comer looking for a multi year deal. There would have been no reason for him to accept a short term contract as you suggest.

 

[swhitset]

It was widely considered to be a smart move not matching the Chargers' offer for Hayward though. I don't remember any posters questioning the decision at the time it happened. In hindsight there's no doubt it didn't work out but a general manager doesn't have the benefit of doing business that way. As mentioned above Randall and Rollins both leapfrogged him on the depth chart during their rookie campaigns.

I fully agree with this post. I do however, wonder about the talent evaluation at that point.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's a slippery slope right now. We honestly could get blown out by a potent Offense right now, but I sincerely believe as the season progresses that we will close that gap window. We have a lot of young players who are gaining valuable seasoning and confidence with each passing week.
We still have several players coming off injury in the near future that should conceivably offer some increased Defensive production as we progress later into the season (including the 93rd and 108th overall picks in the 2017 draft).

Unfortunately that has been a common way of thinking around Green Bay over the past six seasons as well yet the defense either wasn't able to contain a good offense during the playoffs at all or imploded at the end of games.

I do however, wonder about the talent evaluation at that point.

There's definitely good reason for it on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

To your first point... King has been beaten several times this year as well. I actually believe that he will be a very good cornerback, but I don't see the distinction at this point. As far as your comparison to the Bennet contract ... there is none. Bennet signed the best deal he could get at this point in his career. Hayward was an up and comer looking for a multi year deal. There would have been no reason for him to accept a short term contract as you suggest.

Not a short term contact, but one where he could be cut with little dead cap. Which is almost always the case for a guy with as small a salary as him.

With our #1 CB turning 29 and unable to stay healthy for an entire season at any point in his career, Thompson let a good starting CB walk for a measly $5M. It was a horrific personnel decision, and I'm not understanding how people are defending it.