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

My take.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kampman74


Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 7568
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know you kind of talked about this already, but no chance at Hyde at safety, all reports seem to be that he is never really going to be anything at corner, I mean why not try safety. And also if Sherrod isn't good to go, do you think Bakh will give Newhouse a run at LT or would it take him a year to get it down, ya think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 14887
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kampman74 wrote:
I know you kind of talked about this already, but no chance at Hyde at safety, all reports seem to be that he is never really going to be anything at corner, I mean why not try safety. And also if Sherrod isn't good to go, do you think Bakh will give Newhouse a run at LT or would it take him a year to get it down, ya think?


Corner is a premium position, safety isn't. Why move a guy playing a premium position to one that isn't? Unless Hyde fails at CB, he should never be a safety.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 32274
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think that packer fans of all people would recognize the value of a stud safety...

It's a premium position on our defense, without question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3307
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Packerraymond wrote:
Kampman74 wrote:
I know you kind of talked about this already, but no chance at Hyde at safety, all reports seem to be that he is never really going to be anything at corner, I mean why not try safety. And also if Sherrod isn't good to go, do you think Bakh will give Newhouse a run at LT or would it take him a year to get it down, ya think?


Corner is a premium position, safety isn't. Why move a guy playing a premium position to one that isn't? Unless Hyde fails at CB, he should never be a safety.


I think Hyde was really drafted to take Jarrett Bush's job. A guy like Bush is really nice to have around (can play some CB, some S, but he's mostly valuable on special teams), but the original Jarrett Bush is getting up there in years and is more expensive than a guy on a 5th round rookie contract.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 8252
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 9:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
i think that packer fans of all people would recognize the value of a stud safety...

It's a premium position on our defense, without question.
Uummmmm, THIS! Why keep Hyde at CB? He will never crack the lineup with those 4 in front of him...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kampman74


Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 7568
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And then would safety hinder him really, if the plan is for him to just be your teams ace? He would be the fourth corner down the road anyways, most likely fifth. Why not try him out at safety.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 14887
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
i think that packer fans of all people would recognize the value of a stud safety...

It's a premium position on our defense, without question.


You can turn any corner into a safety, ever hear of any failed safeties that moved to corner? Corner is a tougher position to play, doesn't mean safeties not important, but it's not a premium position. If you have someone you like as a corner, you start them there and see if they can stick, its not like it would hamper his development as a safety.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13925
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PossibleCabbage wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
Kampman74 wrote:
I know you kind of talked about this already, but no chance at Hyde at safety, all reports seem to be that he is never really going to be anything at corner, I mean why not try safety. And also if Sherrod isn't good to go, do you think Bakh will give Newhouse a run at LT or would it take him a year to get it down, ya think?


Corner is a premium position, safety isn't. Why move a guy playing a premium position to one that isn't? Unless Hyde fails at CB, he should never be a safety.


I think Hyde was really drafted to take Jarrett Bush's job. A guy like Bush is really nice to have around (can play some CB, some S, but he's mostly valuable on special teams), but the original Jarrett Bush is getting up there in years and is more expensive than a guy on a 5th round rookie contract.


Very much so THIS.

Think they also might play around with him in Woodson's old fit as well. Hyde has more than his share of issues. But he does have a little "playmaker" in him.

As far as the safety thing goes. Not sure I would make that move unless he fails at CB. LIS, true premium on reps played at safety in this Capers D. Think I would much rather just put the time into those we have back there now. Not like Hyde has no shot at CB. The ball skills will always hold true. Has a shot if he can master the press. If shows unable, then make that move. One thing that's nice about Hyde is the fact that he should bring ya value on the teams unit while he finds his place on the backend.

For now though, I feel that in bold is spot on. Gunner that sees the field at CB/safety by gameday need.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13518
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palmy50 wrote:
justo wrote:
Palmy what do you think about Jones as an edge rusher or Boyd as a NT? In the post draft interviews there were hints saying they could both play those positions. Jones was talked about moving out there after lining up as a DE in "four down situations", FWIW.


Not sure about Boyd at NT just yet but it's something he could very well grow into. Was not very good with two sets on hands on him last year though. I'm sure he could give ya a spell or two. Just don't love the idea should Raji go down for a few games. Not like there is not enough 3-tech looks in this Capers fit for him to show value for the pick though. He could give our studs some air at all of them. Just not sure he is going to excel at any of them outside of that 3-tech gig right out the gate.

Jones has enough on his table right now. Not real sure I would go there with him. That kids a 5-tech ya move inside on passing downs IMO. There are enough fits to learn with that alone in this Capers D. What's the talent worth if your not playing fast? Know what I mean?


Totally understand both points. I didn't think Boyd was a NT prospect, really. Same thoughts on the spelling like Daniels did a bit this year. Not someone you want getting a lot of snaps there by any means.

One more question on Jones. Most of our DE's are 300 or more. Jones probably like ~15 pounds off of that. I don't expect him to get that big. Is that wrong? He's already got good strength and athleticism/hands are a big part of his game. Seems like he wouldn't need to be as big as the other guys on the roster.
_________________
Webmaster wrote:
The difference is that this is a FOOTBALL forum. Heated debates about FOOTBALL are expected and encouraged. If you want to discuss your cure for Ebola, try ebolasfuture.com or any other appropriate forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13925
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I for one would sure like him closer to 300lbs than 280lbs. I agree with you about the hands/leverage play though. That's his game all day long. Also why I don't play with that LB idea too much. The same things were said about Neal not so long ago. Man would have looked very out of place there to say the least. Can't think of any real reason to do so with the bodies we now have at rush-LB either.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3307
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palmy50 wrote:
Think they also might play around with him in Woodson's old fit as well. Hyde has more than his share of issues. But he does have a little "playmaker" in him.


I thought about this. My other shot is maybe that they were thinking of carving out a role in the defense for a Hayward type and that Hyde was drafted to be his backup.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13925
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PossibleCabbage wrote:
palmy50 wrote:
Think they also might play around with him in Woodson's old fit as well. Hyde has more than his share of issues. But he does have a little "playmaker" in him.


I thought about this. My other shot is maybe that they were thinking of carving out a role in the defense for a Hayward type and that Hyde was drafted to be his backup.


Well yeah, Hayward is very much so playing Woody's old fit right now. Bush has played some in there as well. I'm not a huge Hyde guy. But I did hold a draftable grade there in a very deep class and can at some level see why THIS staff might have been high on him for a host of reasons.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McThreadski


Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Posts: 202
Location: On the Gold
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
i think that packer fans of all people would recognize the value of a stud safety...

It's a premium position on our defense, without question.
Uummmmm, THIS! Why keep Hyde at CB? He will never crack the lineup with those 4 in front of him...


I think McMillian is going to be a stud at safety this year. I see Hyde helping Bush this year and learning the ropes as a high end teams player and then having him replace Bush down the road.

Now, I also think it's entirely possible that Tramon doesn't look like he's worth the money we are paying him and we cut him and Shields and Hayward take over as full time starters and House works as the dime back with Hyde backing him up. If that doesn't play out and Hyde can't cut it at CB, then maybe he becomes a safety on paper, but I still think the main reason they drafted him was to pair with Bush and eventually replace him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 8252
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

McThreadski wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
i think that packer fans of all people would recognize the value of a stud safety...

It's a premium position on our defense, without question.
Uummmmm, THIS! Why keep Hyde at CB? He will never crack the lineup with those 4 in front of him...


I think McMillian is going to be a stud at safety this year. I see Hyde helping Bush this year and learning the ropes as a high end teams player and then having him replace Bush down the road.

Now, I also think it's entirely possible that Tramon doesn't look like he's worth the money we are paying him and we cut him and Shields and Hayward take over as full time starters and House works as the dime back with Hyde backing him up. If that doesn't play out and Hyde can't cut it at CB, then maybe he becomes a safety on paper, but I still think the main reason they drafted him was to pair with Bush and eventually replace him.
As much as I like McMillian I am not sure of his role. He is more of a box safety and we are looking for more of a center fielder across from Burnett IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McThreadski


Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Posts: 202
Location: On the Gold
PostPosted: Wed May 01, 2013 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
McThreadski wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
i think that packer fans of all people would recognize the value of a stud safety...

It's a premium position on our defense, without question.
Uummmmm, THIS! Why keep Hyde at CB? He will never crack the lineup with those 4 in front of him...


I think McMillian is going to be a stud at safety this year. I see Hyde helping Bush this year and learning the ropes as a high end teams player and then having him replace Bush down the road.

Now, I also think it's entirely possible that Tramon doesn't look like he's worth the money we are paying him and we cut him and Shields and Hayward take over as full time starters and House works as the dime back with Hyde backing him up. If that doesn't play out and Hyde can't cut it at CB, then maybe he becomes a safety on paper, but I still think the main reason they drafted him was to pair with Bush and eventually replace him.
As much as I like McMillian I am not sure of his role. He is more of a box safety and we are looking for more of a center fielder across from Burnett IMO.


I think if you reverse those two roles, you have your combo IMO. Burnett has great ball skills and can cover most people. McMillian brings the big lumber on every play and he's good enough in coverage to make teams think twice if he drops back into coverage.


Last edited by McThreadski on Wed May 01, 2013 11:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
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 - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9

 
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