Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Casey Hayward to FS?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Would he fit as a Free safety?
yes
2%
 2%  [ 1 ]
no
45%
 45%  [ 16 ]
stop making threads
51%
 51%  [ 18 ]
Total Votes : 35

Author Message
nfldraftguru1


Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 10098
Location: Whitewater, WI
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hayward is an elite NB, which is probably the most important CB position in our defense. He's quick but not overly fast. Moving him to S would be really putting him with his weaknesses and not playing him to his strengths.

Wanna talk about moving a CB to S, David Amerson from NC State.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCPackFan


Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 2281
Location: Kinston, NC
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wanna talk about moving a CB to S, David Amerson from NC State.[/quote]


Another player that needs to do something about an ugly 40 time...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blankman0021


Joined: 02 May 2007
Posts: 1925
Location: MKE
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[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.


Not sure why you keep referring to the OP, considering it's yourself. Kind of like a college aged guy I work with always referring to his "roomates", although he lives at home still with his parents. It's you, I dont think you need to pretend it's somebody else asking these questions.

I think the real discussion here is-- do we move any of our talented CBs to S in order to create the best secondary? Right now our 4th CB could start on a handful of teams. It seems like a waste to have them on the bench, and you can never really COUNT on an injury forcing them into action.
_________________


The Doctor wrote:
ALLONS-Y, ALONSO!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31788
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ketchup wrote:
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.


Agreed. I think Hayward is a much better CB than he would be a Safety. I think he could be a decent safety, maybe elite at some point due to his seeming football IQ, but I think CB is the best place to put him to get his best out of him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CornOnDaCobb


Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 526
Location: Tampa, FL
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="spilltray"]
CornOnDaCobb wrote:
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?


I think we are set at cornerback, having 4 corners who are top 25 in competletion percentage says were set at cornerback. You can give your pessimistic version of our corners but the stats say otherwise. And yet another person who misinterperted my Clay Matthews post. You obviously didnt take the time to read the OP post as I made it very clear that I was not promoting a position switch for Clay but wondering how he would do on the inside.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CornOnDaCobb


Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 526
Location: Tampa, FL
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="blankman0021"]
CornOnDaCobb wrote:
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.


Not sure why you keep referring to the OP, considering it's yourself. Kind of like a college aged guy I work with always referring to his "roomates", although he lives at home still with his parents. It's you, I dont think you need to pretend it's somebody else asking these questions.

I think the real discussion here is-- do we move any of our talented CBs to S in order to create the best secondary? Right now our 4th CB could start on a handful of teams. It seems like a waste to have them on the bench, and you can never really COUNT on an injury forcing them into action.


Because half of the people that "read" that post completely misinterpreted the point of it and the moderator changing the title didn't help either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10530
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="CornOnDaCobb"]
spilltray wrote:
CornOnDaCobb wrote:
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?


I think we are set at cornerback, having 4 corners who are top 25 in competletion percentage says were set at cornerback. You can give your pessimistic version of our corners but the stats say otherwise. And yet another person who misinterperted my Clay Matthews post. You obviously didnt take the time to read the OP post as I made it very clear that I was not promoting a position switch for Clay but wondering how he would do on the inside.


I did read and understand the OP of he Matthews thread. It's still a stupid hypothetical that was so far out there it didn't even merit any serious discussion on the matter.

I agree having 4 CB with good stats in completion % is good but moving Hayward to FS would make that 3, and I still say you can question those 3, and that Hayward is higher than #4 on that list if you rank them, so moving him creates a void that would need to be filled at CB. They very well might be "set" now, but that's WITH Hayward counted in that group. Without him, you create a hole a CB to MAYBE patch one at FS if he ends up being to play there.

Both are stupid hypotheticals and you really just need to stop making threads about moving people.

What next? "Why not move Cobb to RB?" Or "Can Kuhn play TE?" or "Bryan Bulaga, the new C?"

Just stop already. Read more, post less.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3305
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can I just say that the cascade of broken quotes on this page is kind of maddening to me? There's an edit button for a reason! Fix your BBCode!

I'll be quiet now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CornOnDaCobb


Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 526
Location: Tampa, FL
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="spilltray"]
CornOnDaCobb wrote:
spilltray wrote:
CornOnDaCobb wrote:
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?


I think we are set at cornerback, having 4 corners who are top 25 in competletion percentage says were set at cornerback. You can give your pessimistic version of our corners but the stats say otherwise. And yet another person who misinterperted my Clay Matthews post. You obviously didnt take the time to read the OP post as I made it very clear that I was not promoting a position switch for Clay but wondering how he would do on the inside.


I did read and understand the OP of he Matthews thread. It's still a stupid hypothetical that was so far out there it didn't even merit any serious discussion on the matter.

I agree having 4 CB with good stats in completion % is good but moving Hayward to FS would make that 3, and I still say you can question those 3, and that Hayward is higher than #4 on that list if you rank them, so moving him creates a void that would need to be filled at CB. They very well might be "set" now, but that's WITH Hayward counted in that group. Without him, you create a hole a CB to MAYBE patch one at FS if he ends up being to play there.

Both are stupid hypotheticals and you really just need to stop making threads about moving people.

What next? "Why not move Cobb to RB?" Or "Can Kuhn play TE?" or "Bryan Bulaga, the new C?"

Just stop already. Read more, post less.


I made the thread in order to gather an understanding of how versatile Clays skills set were. If thats "stupid" then I guess I came to the wrong forum to discuss football. Others have brought some insight to the discussion all you have to bring up is misinterpreting past posts and been a condescending - the whole time. Why don't you just [inappropriate/removed] off and go bother someone else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LackToast


Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 142
Location: CA
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="blankman0021"]
CornOnDaCobb wrote:
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.


Not sure why you keep referring to the OP, considering it's yourself. Kind of like a college aged guy I work with always referring to his "roomates", although he lives at home still with his parents. It's you, I dont think you need to pretend it's somebody else asking these questions.

I think the real discussion here is-- do we move any of our talented CBs to S in order to create the best secondary? Right now our 4th CB could start on a handful of teams. It seems like a waste to have them on the bench, and you can never really COUNT on an injury forcing them into action.

OP can also mean "Original Post".

Btw what changes the CBs roles when adding in good safety play? does it just make playing the zone more effective? I honestly dont know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 4500
Location: Evanston, IL
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCPackFan wrote:
How are the Packers "set" at CB? Tramon is getting older and his newfound lack of physicality is disturbing.


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.[/quote]

Yeah, so that "Slowpoke" thing was maybe funny the first time, but it gets a bit sickening the next thousand times you use it. Maybe cut back on it and use his real name? Do us all a favor, please.
_________________
Simian07:
Quote:
I'd argue Jordy is probably around the 30th-40th best receiver in the NFL, maybe 50th.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 4500
Location: Evanston, IL
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
Ketchup wrote:
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.


Agreed. I think Hayward is a much better CB than he would be a Safety. I think he could be a decent safety, maybe elite at some point due to his seeming football IQ, but I think CB is the best place to put him to get his best out of him.


But you don't move a guy like House. He has a damn good skill set. Good hips, good strength, good size. Why tinker around with it? Keep that trio together and let them do their thing with their god-given abilities.

All this moving talk is stupid.
_________________
Simian07:
Quote:
I'd argue Jordy is probably around the 30th-40th best receiver in the NFL, maybe 50th.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3305
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:
All this moving talk is stupid.


I don't think this team is improved in any way by moving a player to a position that he's not currently playing. The way you make the defense better is you get better players or the guys you already have start playing better. Depending on what other players you bring in, you might have to move someone to a different position (e.g. if the Packers draft a stud pass rusher in April, there may be snaps where you want to play him, Perry, and Matthews at the same time, in which case Matthews kicks inside), but you don't ask guys to switch positions just because.

I mean, could Jerrell Worthy play right guard? Probably. Do you want him to? No.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 4500
Location: Evanston, IL
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PossibleCabbage wrote:
CentralFC wrote:
All this moving talk is stupid.


I don't think this team is improved in any way by moving a player to a position that he's not currently playing. The way you make the defense better is you get better players or the guys you already have start playing better. Depending on what other players you bring in, you might have to move someone to a different position (e.g. if the Packers draft a stud pass rusher in April, there may be snaps where you want to play him, Perry, and Matthews at the same time, in which case Matthews kicks inside), but you don't ask guys to switch positions just because.

I mean, could Jerrell Worthy play right guard? Probably. Do you want him to? No.


Exactly.

And, specifically, for Hayward to come in and play slot the way he did was nothing short of miraculous. That's a damn tough role to fill and he did it with ease. Additionally, like you mentioned, that is a crucial position to fill.

The only reason we talked of this with Woodson a year ago was because he was clearly on the down side of his coverage abilities and that move was made to preserve him. Hayward is what, 23? Let him grow into a position instead of messing with what he's able to do at an elite level.
_________________
Simian07:
Quote:
I'd argue Jordy is probably around the 30th-40th best receiver in the NFL, maybe 50th.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13903
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Crazy talk.

As others have said, Hayward excels over slot and there is a huge premium on that spot in this D. The exact player I felt he was on draft day but a click better in just about every area. Never going to be "shutdown" but solid in every area and high end in more areas than many that go round-1. The lack of top end speed is what held him out of round-1 and oddly enough, also the thing that would hold him back at safety in this Capers D. One of about three that there is a higher premium on speed at safety than there is at CB.

In short, he would have set issues at safety in the fit and his ability to get ya on the ground would be anything but a plus there also. Add in how good he is right now at a spot many would call a premium position in todays NFL and it's probably a poor idea.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group