Norm Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 10 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said: I think the whole why isn't Hyde making all these interceptions in Green Bay stuff comes up because folks are beyond fed up with the defense's lackluster (or worse) play and when a former Packer DB leaves and immediately finds success he did not attain in GB for a second year running, the frustrations just boil over. That does not mean not re-signing Hyde to the contract he got in Buffalo would have made any sense, because the facts demonstrate it would not have. And you may be correct that some with an extreme anti-TT agenda are referencing Hyde's departure to unfairly pile on TT . In my view, dinging TT for Hyde's departure detracts from other, far more legitimate reasons for criticizing the Packers GM. Yeah agreed, we should be talking about Dom, not complaining Ted let a 6 mil dollar "backup" leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LargeFarva Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 A "backup" that played 80% of the defensive snaps last year and tied for second on the team in INTs and PDs. You could also make the case he was the defensive MVP against the Cowboys, and there isn't a DB on this team that would make that INT where he jumped the WR screen. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm mis-remembering how bad Hyde was, but I'm not looking at it like '$6 million is too much for a backup;' I'm looking at it like $6 million (actually a $4 million cap this year) is justifiable for a hybrid DB that can play at least average at multiple positions, makes plays, returns punts, and doesn't get hurt. There's a lot of value - especially on this team - for a guy like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, LargeFarva said: A "backup" that played 80% of the defensive snaps last year and tied for second on the team in INTs and PDs. You could also make the case he was the defensive MVP against the Cowboys, and there isn't a DB on this team that would make that INT where he jumped the WR screen. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm mis-remembering how bad Hyde was, but I'm not looking at it like '$6 million is too much for a backup;' I'm looking at it like $6 million (actually a $4 million cap this year) is justifiable for a hybrid DB that can play at least average at multiple positions, makes plays, returns punts, and doesn't get hurt. There's a lot of value - especially on this team - for a guy like that. You have to remember, he played 80% of the defensive snaps last year because of attrition. He wasn't slotted to play that much. Going back to 2015, he played in a bit over 60% of the defensive snaps. In 2014, he played just under 65% of the defensive snaps. In 2013, he played in just under 40% of the defensive snaps. He's probably closer to 60% of the defensive snaps when everyone is healthy. Are you paying $6M/year for a guy whose only playing in 60% of the defensive snaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 10 minutes ago, LargeFarva said: A "backup" that played 80% of the defensive snaps last year and tied for second on the team in INTs and PDs. You could also make the case he was the defensive MVP against the Cowboys, and there isn't a DB on this team that would make that INT where he jumped the WR screen. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm mis-remembering how bad Hyde was, but I'm not looking at it like '$6 million is too much for a backup;' I'm looking at it like $6 million (actually a $4 million cap this year) is justifiable for a hybrid DB that can play at least average at multiple positions, makes plays, returns punts, and doesn't get hurt. There's a lot of value - especially on this team - for a guy like that. I guess I don't understand why nobody cared at the time and now it all makes so much sense to so many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LargeFarva Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 8 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Are you paying $6M/year for a guy whose only playing in 60% of the defensive snaps? That depends on a lot of things, but especially how well I thought he would play/what type of impact he would have on those snaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted November 4, 2017 Author Share Posted November 4, 2017 So, the only point to be made IMO is: Why didn't Dom use Hyde in the same type of role that he's being used in Buffalo. He's clearly better in a deep zone than m2m or close to the LOS zone or cornerback roles. If the answer is Burnett was taking his spot, then why wasn't Burnett used in the role he was for the first games this year (at ILB). Why does the talent at DB leave and have success elsewhere while not having as much success here. @Cadmus would say that House was a top 20-40 CB on Jax until they neutered him with scheme. Hayward is a clear example, and Hyde appears to be one as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 19 minutes ago, LargeFarva said: That depends on a lot of things, but especially how well I thought he would play/what type of impact he would have on those snaps. As we discussed, he wasn't slotted to be a starting safety, which means he was coming back as a utility DB. Given the up and down play of Rollins and Randall, majority of his snaps would likely be coming at CB. At least until Brice was put on the IR, which would likely push him to the safety spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 7 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: Why didn't Dom use Hyde in the same type of role that he's being used in Buffalo. He's clearly better in a deep zone than m2m or close to the LOS zone or cornerback roles. Because the need wasn't there. We had our two starting safeties in HHCD and Morgan Burnett, and neither one were going to be replaced by Hyde. He was playing CB out of need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted November 4, 2017 Author Share Posted November 4, 2017 1 minute ago, CWood21 said: Because the need wasn't there. We had our two starting safeties in HHCD and Morgan Burnett, and neither one were going to be replaced by Hyde. He was playing CB out of need. replace joe thomas and the other jokesters at ILB... that's the point right? ILB was our worst position to the point we were playing clay matthews at ILB for multiple seasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: replace joe thomas and the other jokesters at ILB... that's the point right? ILB was our worst position to the point we were playing clay matthews at ILB for multiple seasons So then the question is, why was Burnett at S for as long as he was? Is it because they didn't have a S they felt could start next to HHCD, or did the emergence of Brice make that possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted November 4, 2017 Author Share Posted November 4, 2017 Just now, CWood21 said: So then the question is, why was Burnett at S for as long as he was? Is it because they didn't have a S they felt could start next to HHCD, or did the emergence of Brice make that possible? Well, when fully healthy we saw a lot of Hyde playing the position that Burnett/Jones are playing now. The problem is, he was much worse at it than they were. He couldn't compete with athletic TEs or shifty receivers, and wasn't a great run defender either. We never saw Hyde at pure safety in the Brice/HHCD role outside of perhaps a few emergency situations where Burnett missed time.(8 games in 3 years). Hyde was repeatedly miscast as a slot CB or close to the LOS type player. Buffalo correctly identified his skills as a deep safety, which is a position he was never given a chance at in GB. The irony is that Burnett is clearly a much better slot/close to LOS type player than Hyde, and always was the better tackler and run defender. Swapping Burnett and Hyde was the logical move, based on the small sample size of Burnett this year and Hyde this year. Not sure why coaches didn't make that change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 1 minute ago, skibrett15 said: Swapping Burnett and Hyde was the logical move, based on the small sample size of Burnett this year and Hyde this year. Not sure why coaches didn't make that change. If it was so logical, why didn't the Packers try that? Do we really believe that Dom would put our players in worse positions, or it this a situation where he didn't trust Hyde back there? My guess is the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 3 minutes ago, CWood21 said: If it was so logical, why didn't the Packers try that? Do we really believe that Dom would put our players in worse positions, or it this a situation where he didn't trust Hyde back there? My guess is the latter. Let's not assume that coaches are 100 % correct in the use of players. GB did not use Hyde in a role that Buffalo is. Early return results on impact plays look good for that. Further same size will determine if it holds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted November 4, 2017 Author Share Posted November 4, 2017 Just now, CWood21 said: If it was so logical, why didn't the Packers try that? Do we really believe that Dom would put our players in worse positions, or it this a situation where he didn't trust Hyde back there? My guess is the latter. But he trusts Brice back there? What? It's logical in hindsight, I'm not saying it's logical in the moment. Still, it's clear Buffalo saw something we didn't. Hyde was miscast and misused based on what we've seen so far. Are you trying to make the case that S in the capers scheme wouldn't be a fit for Hyde but it's fine in McDermott's scheme in Buffalo? What is it about the scheme in Buffalo that makes it work for Hyde? He's playing a lot of the coverages that we also play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted November 4, 2017 Share Posted November 4, 2017 13 minutes ago, squire12 said: Let's not assume that coaches are 100 % correct in the use of players. GB did not use Hyde in a role that Buffalo is. Early return results on impact plays look good for that. Further same size will determine if it holds up. Did I say that I thought they were 100% correct? I asked why Green Bay didn't opt to try that. And my guess is they tried that sometime in either camp or preseason, and either didn't like what they saw from that or they needed him in that utility role. My guess is a combination of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.