Jump to content

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


Packerraymond

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Rollins?  ILB?

I believe you are thinking of Josh Jones.  The closest Rollins ever got to ILB was playing the slot.

 

29 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Rollins never played ILB. The closest he might have ever gotten is a dime back played over a TE in a coverage package. 

https://247sports.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/Article/Quinten-Rollins-signs-with-Cardinals--125459256/

Dime backer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

1. Let's hypothetically say that we agree that Dime Backer is playing ILB. It's not, but for the sake of the conversation, let's entertain the idea. He still never played ILB in a game for the Packers. He was cut before he saw a snap of Dime backer in a game.

2. What do you think a Dime backer is if not a DB that comes in, in place of a Linebacker? Was Morgan Burnett also playing ILB? Zadarius Smith plays NT in the Dime package, is he a NT? Guys are defined positionally by what they play in the package that the defense most often plays. Quinten Rollins is not an ILB in the Nickel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. Let's hypothetically say that we agree that Dime Backer is playing ILB. It's not, but for the sake of the conversation, let's entertain the idea. He still never played ILB in a game for the Packers. He was cut before he saw a snap of Dime backer in a game.

2. What do you think a Dime backer is if not a DB that comes in, in place of a Linebacker? Was Morgan Burnett also playing ILB? Zadarius Smith plays NT in the Dime package, is he a NT? Guys are defined positionally by what they play in the package that the defense most often plays. Quinten Rollins is not an ILB in the Nickel.

My original point being, Rollins had sucked everywhere they had tried to put him, which included safety and dime linebacker.

So him being on the roster should not have kept the Packers from resigning Hayward as he was never any good at any position.

My original point got rabbitholed a bit over the course of this chat.

And yes, Burnett and Z are playing ILB and NT in that situation.  Difference being that they are actually capable of playing their actual position and so coaches are looking for mismatch advantages.  The Rollins move was one of desperation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ragnarok said:

My original point being, Rollins had sucked everywhere they had tried to put him, which included safety and dime linebacker.

So him being on the roster should not have kept the Packers from resigning Hayward as he was never any good at any position.

Just want to make sure we're 10,000% on the same page here . . . 

You think, that Quinten Rollins playing the the Dime Backer in the first week of the 2018 training camp, has something to do with Casey Hayward not being resigned in the 2016 offseason???

Casey Hayward's first year with the Chargers was 2016. Quinten Rollins second year in the league was 2016. The only thing the Packers had seen from Rollins when the decision to let Hayward walk was made, was Rollins' rookie year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Just want to make sure we're 10,000% on the same page here . . . 

You think, that Quinten Rollins playing the the Dime Backer in the first week of the 2018 training camp, has something to do with Casey Hayward not being resigned in the 2016 offseason???

Casey Hayward's first year with the Chargers was 2016. Quinten Rollins second year in the league was 2016. The only thing the Packers had seen from Rollins when the decision to let Hayward walk was made, was Rollins' rookie year. 

No, you're missing the point.

My point is that neither Rollins nor Randall showed anything to justify not resigning Hayward, even if we only viewed him as a slot at the time.  

Then people tried to defend it because that's what we do as fans.

I simply used how Rollins sucked at every position the Packers tried him at as further evidence of us not resigning Hayward being a stupid move.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

No, you're missing the point.

My point is that neither Rollins nor Randall showed anything to justify not resigning Hayward, even if we only viewed him as a slot at the time.  

Then people tried to defend it because that's what we do as fans.

I simply used how Rollins sucked at every position the Packers tried him at as further evidence of us not resigning Hayward being a stupid move.  

I will say this, I don't think it was here but I found a thread before we left Casey leave and it pretty damn split and this is BEFORE he was gone, I had looked into this because of this same idea. I'm not saying you didn't think that, I'm sure you did, but there were a decent chunk of fans who didn't just defend it after he left. He was a bit polarizing before hand imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ragnarok said:

No, you're missing the point.

My point is that neither Rollins nor Randall showed anything to justify not resigning Hayward, even if we only viewed him as a slot at the time.  

Then people tried to defend it because that's what we do as fans.

I simply used how Rollins sucked at every position the Packers tried him at as further evidence of us not resigning Hayward being a stupid move.  

They were rookies. They showed enough promise to assume future positive development. 

This is the NFL. There's a salary cap. You had Hyde to play the slot if Hayward walked, even if both rookies sucked. Then Shields broke and the entire secondary fell apart. If you're the Packers brass, how are you going to predict that both rookies would bust and that Shields would break? 

Did you want Mike Daniels and Nick Perry and the 16 sacks they provided in 2016 or did you want a moderate upgrade at slot CB? That was the decision that had to be made. Your OLBs were 36 and 30. You had no other talent at 3T, and truthfully haven't had any since. 

You think this fanbase defends moves Ted made in the late 20-teens?? Jesus Christ, what fanbase are you a part of???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Norm said:

I will say this, I don't think it was here but I found a thread before we left Casey leave and it pretty damn split and this is BEFORE he was gone, I had looked into this because of this same idea. I'm not saying you didn't think that, I'm sure you did, but there were a decent chunk of fans who didn't just defend it after he left. He was a bit polarizing before hand imo

I'll  be the first to say, I hated the 2015 draft. I thought we had 4 of 5 starting DBs locked down in Shields, Hayward, Burnett, and HHCD, with a solid utility piece in Hyde. Then Randall, a guy who was a natural fit at slot where Hayward was, and Rollins, a guy who missed on every athletic measurement, ended up being the picks. Even though our DL was just Mike Daniels. 

But once those picks were made, we were committed. Hayward was gone. 

Edited by AlexGreen#20
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

They were rookies. They showed enough promise to assume future positive development. 

This is the NFL. There's a salary cap. You had Hyde to play the slot if Hayward walked, even if both rookies sucked. Then Shields broke and the entire secondary fell apart. If you're the Packers brass, how are you going to predict that both rookies would bust and that Shields would break? 

Did you want Mike Daniels and Nick Perry and the 16 sacks they provided in 2016 or did you want a moderate upgrade at slot CB? That was the decision that had to be made. Your OLBs were 36 and 30. You had no other talent at 3T, and truthfully haven't had any since. 

You think this fanbase defends moves Ted made in the late 20-teens?? Jesus Christ, what fanbase are you a part of???

The disagreement comes from your first paragraph.  They did not show that promise.

Cause both rookies had sucked the whole time.

Daniels yes, Perry no. 

I'm a part of this fanbase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

The disagreement comes from your first paragraph.  They did not show that promise.

Cause both rookies had sucked the whole time.

Daniels yes, Perry no. 

I'm a part of this fanbase.

A ridiculous statement, something nobody was saying at the time. Nobody was saying, we need to resign Hayward because both rookies suck and are obvious busts. Randall had 14 pass break ups and 3 picks in 9 starts his rookie year. He had a better year on the boundary than Hayward ever did with us. That alone put the nail in Hayward's coffin. 

We had people saying that we should resign Hayward and let Perry walk, but considering Perry put up 11 sacks on good pressure rates in 2016, that also doesn't seem right. 

Hindsight is 20/20. Letting Hayward walk made institutional sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ragnarok said:

Because both rookies had sucked the whole time.

 

That is a ridiculous comment. 

If you would of bothered to read the article I provided in my first comment on this you would of gotten the temperature of what FO's and scouts felt about Randall's potential. In Bob Mcginn's end of the season review, the Randall comments were that he had Revis-type upside. 

In the Tom Silverstein article again Revis was mentioned.  If Green Bay Packers first-round pick Damarious Randall continues to deny wide receivers at the rate he has the first six games of the season, he would be in Darrelle Revis-type territory and probably be a strong candidate for NFL defensive rookie of the year.  

But in your world, "sucked the whole time". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

A ridiculous statement, something nobody was saying at the time. Nobody was saying, we need to resign Hayward because both rookies suck and are obvious busts. Randall had 14 pass break ups and 3 picks in 9 starts his rookie year. He had a better year on the boundary than Hayward ever did with us. That alone put the nail in Hayward's coffin. 

We had people saying that we should resign Hayward and let Perry walk, but considering Perry put up 11 sacks on good pressure rates in 2016, that also doesn't seem right. 

Hindsight is 20/20. Letting Hayward walk made institutional sense. 

Nothing ridiculous about it.  Randall never once looked anywhere as good as the numbers suggest.  Rollins was atrocious from day 1.  Neither ever looked like the answer, or even an answer.

I'll never be a fan of spending big money on an edge rusher who only puts up sack numbers in a contract year.  

The institutional sense argument would hold more water if Hayward had signed for big money.

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...