Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TJV" data-source="post: 618878" data-attributes="member: 4300">I’m not sure what the OP is advocating for. Is it to have Hayward sit in favor of one of the youngsters, even when Hayward is healthy? If so, that doesn’t make any sense to me: In essence you would be telling Hayward, 'even though you’re the best option, you’re going to sit because we anticipate you will get injured in the future'. The way they are proceeding makes the most sense to me: Whitt believes a healthy Hayward is the best option opposite Shields. So he should start and if someone else beats him out for the starting job, so be it. When Hayward is sitting out, whoever they consider the next best option (right now that looks like Rollins) gets snaps with the 1s. And when the regular season begins, if Hayward is the starter I expect them to move him to the slot in the dime and have Rollins or Randall (or perhaps Gunter?) take over outside. So even if Hayward is healthy, a youngster is likely to get meaningful snaps outside. (BTW, don’t tell the 2010 Packers how important continuity is! <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" data-shortname=";)" />)</blockquote>

Total: 100 (members: 2, guests: 98)