Jump to content

Round 1: Pick #29; Eric Stokes, CB, Georgia


Packerraymond

Recommended Posts

On 8/5/2021 at 4:55 PM, thrILL! said:

What if he had gone elsewhere in FA to the delight of the GB fans who were frustrated by his injuries and didn’t want to re-sign him and then he went on to become a Pro Bowl CB followed by those same GB fans being pissed off that we didn’t re-sign him?  Bcuz that exact same thing happened around here with Casey Hayward lol. 

What??

Two big differences being that King is always hurt and King has never shown the level of play Hayward did.  I dont see how those are actually similar.

From what I remember, most Packer fans were pissed we didn't sign Hayward.  King can go though.  If, and its a huge if, he actually becomes a pro bowl caliber CB elsewhere, then good on him.  But as of now, he isn't worth re-signing to anything long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

What??

Two big differences being that King is always hurt and King has never shown the level of play Hayward did.  I dont see how those are actually similar.

From what I remember, most Packer fans were pissed we didn't sign Hayward.  King can go though.  If, and its a huge if, he actually becomes a pro bowl caliber CB elsewhere, then good on him.  But as of now, he isn't worth re-signing to anything long term.

Hayward played in 35 games in years 2-4. his only misses were his second year but he was routinely getting pulled out of games mid game because he was nicked up.

King played in 32 games years 2-4. 

Hayward walking was not met with people being pissed. Most saw it as inevitable considering the defensive backfield was HHCD, Burnett, Hyde, Shields, Randall, Rollins. 

As far as level of play, Hayward showed that he was a really good slot corner and was a huge liability on the boundary. Do you not remember the DT game against the Broncos? That was a worse game than King has ever had, and was basically so bad he got locked in the slot for the remainder of his career here. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add on, there was a pretty sizeable crowd that wanted Hayward gone too.  Not that were resigned to the fact that we couldn't keep him, but wanted him gone on the first thing smoking.  Only after he had a good season in San Diego, and Randall and Rollins didn't pan out did we see such a swell of Hayward support.  

 

King may follow that trajectory.  I think he is too expensive for the Packers after this season, regardless of what the contract will be. I am surprised that they paid him this season, I think the money could have been of use somewhere else.  But his replacement, whether Stokes, Ento, Chandon, or whomever, would probably be taking a pretty good beating this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ragnarok said:

What??

Two big differences being that King is always hurt and King has never shown the level of play Hayward did.  I dont see how those are actually similar.

From what I remember, most Packer fans were pissed we didn't sign Hayward.  King can go though.  If, and its a huge if, he actually becomes a pro bowl caliber CB elsewhere, then good on him.  But as of now, he isn't worth re-signing to anything long term.

Nah, this is revisionist stuff. We had Rollins and Randall coming off promising rookie campaigns, plus Shields with two years left on his contract. The consensus definitely said let Hayward walk. At most, there may have been some second-guessing once people saw what a reasonable deal he signed in San Diego, but I don't remember anyone being pissed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Hayward played in 35 games in years 2-4. his only misses were his second year but he was routinely getting pulled out of games mid game because he was nicked up.

King played in 32 games years 2-4. 

Hayward walking was not met with people being pissed. Most saw it as inevitable considering the defensive backfield was HHCD, Burnett, Hyde, Shields, Randall, Rollins. 

As far as level of play, Hayward showed that he was a really good slot corner and was a huge liability on the boundary. Do you not remember the DT game against the Broncos? That was a worse game than King has ever had, and was basically so bad he got locked in the slot for the remainder of his career here. 

Hayward's being nicked up wasn't near as bad as King's never-ending injuries.

Hayward did that a couple bad games, but he also played at a higher level than King ever has.

24 minutes ago, Lodestar said:

Nah, this is revisionist stuff. We had Rollins and Randall coming off promising rookie campaigns, plus Shields with two years left on his contract. The consensus definitely said let Hayward walk. At most, there may have been some second-guessing once people saw what a reasonable deal he signed in San Diego, but I don't remember anyone being pissed.

I was on a different forum then, so I can't speak to how things were here.  But there, we were all hoping we would re-sign Hayward and were pissed we didn't.  The price just made it worse.  We didn't foresee him being as good on the boundary as he has been, but figured he would be great in the slot for us...cause there wasn't a lot at the CB position then.  Randall was playing safety and Rollins never showed anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Bigger issue is folks wanting to re-write history on some of the guys we didn't sign. 

 Water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. (There were definitely a contingent of people who wanted Hayward back to act like there wasn't is revisionist as well but I digress)

 

None of this has to do with the Kevin King of here and now. An entirely replaceable player people will die on his hill over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ragnarok said:

Hayward's being nicked up wasn't near as bad as King's never-ending injuries.

Hayward did that a couple bad games, but he also played at a higher level than King ever has.

I was on a different forum then, so I can't speak to how things were here.  But there, we were all hoping we would re-sign Hayward and were pissed we didn't.  The price just made it worse.  We didn't foresee him being as good on the boundary as he has been, but figured he would be great in the slot for us...cause there wasn't a lot at the CB position then.  Randall was playing safety and Rollins never showed anything.

When was Randall playing Safety? HHCD, Burnett, and Hyde were the Safeties. 

You are misremembering this situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

When was Randall playing Safety? HHCD, Burnett, and Hyde were the Safeties. 

You are misremembering this situation. 

One of Randall/Rollins was playing predominantly safety and the other CB.  The point being, neither had shown anything real promise at the time the Packers chose to not re-sign Casey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lodestar said:

Nah, this is revisionist stuff. We had Rollins and Randall coming off promising rookie campaigns, plus Shields with two years left on his contract. The consensus definitely said let Hayward walk. At most, there may have been some second-guessing once people saw what a reasonable deal he signed in San Diego, but I don't remember anyone being pissed.

That’s where I was with the deal: liked the player, wanted him back but knew it wouldn’t be worth paying him a real 2nd contract so let it go. Then I saw what the Chargers got him for and was not happy. He made plays and was known to be a great teammate and community member. Even with the potential up and comers, that was a cheap contract for a guy who had played starting CB well, worth the injury risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

One of Randall/Rollins was playing predominantly safety and the other CB.

No, both were playing CB. Randall was a safety in college but he played CB his rookie season and had his highs and lows, but showed enough that most people were comfortable letting Hayward go - though there was some disappointment once the numbers of his Chargers contract were known. Rollins also showed flashes though he was extremely raw, I remember the forum trying to make “St Quentin” a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

One of Randall/Rollins was playing predominantly safety and the other CB.  The point being, neither had shown anything real promise at the time the Packers chose to not re-sign Casey.

Randall played safety for the Browns. They both played solely CB in Green Bay.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RandDa00.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RollQu00.htm

When Hayward left in 2016, Randall was coming off a season as a full time starter with 3 picks, 14 PDs, 1 TD, and 53 solo tackles. Rollins only played about a third of the defensive snaps, but managed 2 picks, 1 TD and 6 PDs. They both seemed to have a great deal of promise at that point. It was after Hayward left that they started trending downward.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

No, both were playing CB. Randall was a safety in college but he played CB his rookie season and had his highs and lows, but showed enough that most people were comfortable letting Hayward go - though there was some disappointment once the numbers of his Chargers contract were known. Rollins also showed flashes though he was extremely raw, I remember the forum trying to make “St Quentin” a thing.

I knew Randall played college safety.  Quinten was the one I was thinking of playing safety, because they tried playing him all over the field cause he sucked no matter where they put him.

26 minutes ago, MrBobGray said:

Randall played safety for the Browns. They both played solely CB in Green Bay.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RandDa00.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RollQu00.htm

When Hayward left in 2016, Randall was coming off a season as a full time starter with 3 picks, 14 PDs, 1 TD, and 53 solo tackles. Rollins only played about a third of the defensive snaps, but managed 2 picks, 1 TD and 6 PDs. They both seemed to have a great deal of promise at that point. It was after Hayward left that they started trending downward.

Randall did have moments of not completely embarrassing himself(still not enough to warrant not bringing Hayward back), but I'm not sure who you were watching if you ever thought Rollins showed any kind of promise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...