| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Would he fit as a Free safety? |
| yes |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| no |
|
45% |
[ 16 ] |
| stop making threads |
|
51% |
[ 18 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 35 |
|
| Author |
Message |
CornOnDaCobb
Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 247
Location: Tampa, FL
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:05 am Post subject: Casey Hayward to FS? |
 |
|
|
| How would Casey Hayward do at free safety? I heard coming out of college that he was excellent in zone coverage as opposed to man and he has the ball skills to be a ballhawk back there. So how would he do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jfinley88
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 4628
Location: Orlando
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I voted option 3 
No reason to consider moving him
_________________
Jaguarfan witsig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
General_Bean
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 710
Location: Crossroads of CT
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
He'd be the next Ed Reed. Awwww yea
_________________
Packers fan since 93. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheGreatZepp
Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Posts: 2811
Location: Brookfield, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I want someone with tremendous range at FS so they're going to need serious on field wheels. Nick Collins was sub 4.4, Hayward was almost 4.6. That's the difference of a couple yards on the field.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MNPackfan32
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 5568
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I think Hayward is quicker than fast, the guy has the ideal set up as a slot corner and has some real God given ability to find the ball. You keep those skills at CB IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CornOnDaCobb
Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 247
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| TheGreatZepp wrote: | | I want someone with tremendous range at FS so they're going to need serious on field wheels. Nick Collins was sub 4.4, Hayward was almost 4.6. That's the difference of a couple yards on the field. |
Yea that makes a lot of sense, cant really be a ballhawk if your not getting to the ball I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralFC
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 2145
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
No. Hayward is going to be a top tier cornerback (if he isn't already).
This is like moving Matthews to ILB. Sure, he could do it, but why?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CornOnDaCobb
Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 247
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
[quote="CentralFC"]No. Hayward is going to be a top tier cornerback (if he isn't already).
This is like moving Matthews to ILB. Sure, he could do it, but why?[/quote]
That question was purely hypothetical if you read the OP. This one was practical though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralFC
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 2145
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
[quote="CornOnDaCobb"] | CentralFC wrote: | No. Hayward is going to be a top tier cornerback (if he isn't already).
This is like moving Matthews to ILB. Sure, he could do it, but why?[/quote]
That question was purely hypothetical if you read the OP. This one was practical though. |
They're both hypothetical and they're both impractical.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justo
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 9088
Location: Hood River, Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I'd rather have Woodson out there full time than Hayward IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CornOnDaCobb
Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 247
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
[quote="CentralFC"] | CornOnDaCobb wrote: | | CentralFC wrote: | No. Hayward is going to be a top tier cornerback (if he isn't already).
This is like moving Matthews to ILB. Sure, he could do it, but why?[/quote]
That question was purely hypothetical if you read the OP. This one was practical though. |
They're both hypothetical and they're both impractical. |
That wasn't my intent though, I knew that there was no point in moving Clay to the inside, I just wanted to know if he could play it. This one I thought that maybe we could move Casey to free since we're set at corner and was great as a zone coverage guy. Maybe you didn't read the OP on that Clay post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spilltray
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 8650
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
[quote="CornOnDaCobb"] | CentralFC wrote: | | CornOnDaCobb wrote: | | CentralFC wrote: | No. Hayward is going to be a top tier cornerback (if he isn't already).
This is like moving Matthews to ILB. Sure, he could do it, but why?[/quote]
That question was purely hypothetical if you read the OP. This one was practical though. |
They're both hypothetical and they're both impractical. |
That wasn't my intent though, I knew that there was no point in moving Clay to the inside, I just wanted to know if he could play it. This one I thought that maybe we could move Casey to free since we're set at corner and was great as a zone coverage guy. Maybe you didn't read the OP on that Clay post. |
How are the Packers "set" at CB? Tramon is getting older and his newfound lack of physicality is disturbing. Shields shows promise but is pretty up and down, and House is OK, but doesn't look to be anything special. Hayward is the brightest rising star they have at CB, IMO. Even then, you need to be able to go at least 3 deep, and preferably 4 at CB to be able to line up against 4 and 5 WR sets that are fairly common against high powered offenses. Right now, I think Hayward is easily the 3rd best CB on the team, and could vie for the #2 spot pretty easily. Moving him to FS would open up a hole at that nickle CB spot which as easily as important as the FS spot since the Packers pretty much run more nickle than base 3-4.
What is your fascination with moving guys from positions they are showing to be successful at to just create holes in the spots they left?
_________________
| Wilfred wrote: | | Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GBPackers79
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 19241
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
^^ I think we're pretty set at CB.
Tramon is 29, Shields is 25, Hayward is 23, House is 23. I think most teams probably envy what we have at the position.
_________________
packerbacker87 on the sig | Arodsmightybelt wrote: | | Sam Barrington, whose dat? he a championship? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ketchup
Joined: 13 May 2009
Posts: 10979
Location: .flash on the avy
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
House would be a much better candidate to move to S then Hayward. Hayward and Shileds are by far our best CB's neither is moving anywhere.
_________________
Kempes on the custom sig! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NCPackFan
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 672
Location: Kinston, NC
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
How are the Packers "set" at CB? Tramon is getting older and his newfound lack of physicality is disturbing.[/quote]
Slowpoke's physicality was originally reserved for mugging the receiver when he was able to. Take away Nick Collins to bail him out and add new coverage rules and Slowpoke is useless.
Someone else mentioned Hayward as being more "quick" than "fast" and I completely agree. Hayward's 40 time was .03 seconds faster than Slowpoke's which seriously concerned me when we drafted him. However, unlike Slowpoke, Hayward is much more careful and intelligent in space than Slowpoke. Hopefully we don't get a sophomore slump from Hayward.
If there's any CB I'd move back to Safety, it'd probably be House. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
