Packers Safety Search: Three names i'll throw out there

[HardRightEdge]

McCarthy's recent comments about Hyde are reminiscent of his comments about Cobb last off season...he wants to find as many ways as possible to keep Hyde on the field. I can't say I disagree.

I would expect a majority of Hyde's snaps will be at safety assuming Heyward returns to form at slot and there's no injuries to Shields or Williams necessitating a shuffle.

I would expect Thompson to draft somebody to compete for the 3rd. safety spot with Richardson; more a player-in-waiting or developmental guy than a guy expected to compete for a starting job right away.

It seems to me a year premature to draft high for a safety. Burnett needs to put together back-to-back s*cking seasons, coupled with reduced dead cap money in 2015, before writing him off. Hyde looks promising in filling the other spot; I would not rule out his taking over the play calling eventually.

Richardson gets spot duty like last year when a big, physical presence is needed situationally unless somebody beats him out.

All in all, I have a hard time seeing Thompson going higher than the 3rd. round for a safety in this draft.

 

[Forderick]

A name I haven't seen tossed around is Ryan Clark. I will admit I haven't followed the Steelers all that much and don't know his health status etc but for the longest time he has been one of the most underrated safeties in the game. He allowed Polamalu to do what he does.

I just think he would be a good fit, He knows the system and would add some veteran leadership.

 

[TJV]

Edit on an earlier post: In addition to getting the top WI bracket wrong, I meant to post Clemons' deal was modest, certainly not Byrd's . If Clemons' deal is $2.7M for two years with $450K guaranteed, even if it would have taken a little more to get him to Green Bay, it would have been worth it IMO to have a veteran safety on the roster other than Burnett.

 

[Ace]

A name I haven't seen tossed around is Ryan Clark. I will admit I haven't followed the Steelers all that much and don't know his health status etc but for the longest time he has been one of the most underrated safeties in the game. He allowed Polamalu to do what he does.

I just think he would be a good fit, He knows the system and would add some veteran leadership.

If TT wasn't willing to give Clemons a look at 2.7M total I highly doubt any veteran safety will be signed. We're going into the draft as is now I believe outside of maybe a depth guy here or there.

 

[TJV]

When Thompson worked with Holmgren and Reinfeldt in Seattle, Holmgren said many times when they were considering a UFA, Thompson would say, ‘I can find better in the draft’. And many times I think that’s true. [IMO] But NFL experience is more important at some positions than others and safety is one of those positions. Right now they have one safety with a lot of NFL experience in Burnett. And he’s coming off his worst year. I hope Richardson can translate his physical attributes into being a great or good safety but relying on that happening without a solid backup plan isn’t a good idea. Banjo is the only other player on the roster listed at safety and counting on him as a starter isn’t a good plan either. Hyde is the logical player to be counted upon at safety even though he hasn’t started there because we’ve seen his football instincts and he has some NFL experience. But McCarthy has said he’ll get a chance to be an every-down player whether it’s at, “corner, nickel, dime, safety…”.

If Tramon, Shields, and Hayward are healthy it seems to me the best way to get Hyde on the field is to start him at safety and if that’s the plan, I think adding one of the top 5 or so safeties in the draft to the current roster makes sense and with the rookie and Richardson I am fine with not adding a vet safety. But if Hyde is really only going to be a part-time safety I think it makes sense to add a veteran safety – at least a solid backup – because experience is important. BTW, I know there have been safeties who have had success as rookies – I just think that’s the exception compared to most other positions and I don’t think counting on starting a rookie (who, if you have one in mind you aren’t certain will be available) is a good ‘Plan A’.[/IMO]

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When Thompson worked with Holmgren and Reinfeldt in Seattle, Holmgren said many times when they were considering a UFA, Thompson would say, ‘I can find better in the draft’. And many times I think that’s true. [IMO] But NFL experience is more important at some positions than others and safety is one of those positions. Right now they have one safety with a lot of NFL experience in Burnett. And he’s coming off his worst year. I hope Richardson can translate his physical attributes into being a great or good safety but relying on that happening without a solid backup plan isn’t a good idea. Banjo is the only other player on the roster listed at safety and counting on him as a starter isn’t a good plan either. Hyde is the logical player to be counted upon at safety even though he hasn’t started there because we’ve seen his football instincts and he has some NFL experience. But McCarthy has said he’ll get a chance to be an every-down player whether it’s at, “corner, nickel, dime, safety…”.

If Tramon, Shields, and Hayward are healthy it seems to me the best way to get Hyde on the field is to start him at safety and if that’s the plan, I think adding one of the top 5 or so safeties in the draft to the current roster makes sense and with the rookie and Richardson I am fine with not adding a vet safety. But if Hyde is really only going to be a part-time safety I think it makes sense to add a veteran safety – at least a solid backup – because experience is important. BTW, I know there have been safeties who have had success as rookies – I just think that’s the exception compared to most other positions and I don’t think counting on starting a rookie (who, if you have one in mind you aren’t certain will be available) is a good ‘Plan A’.[/IMO]

I was all in favour of bringing in a veteran safety this offseason and I think it would have been possible to get Clemons for a very reasonable deal. Right now though there aren´t many veterans left with Jim Leonhard and Ryan Clark the only guys who would be an upgrade, at least in coverage, over the guys we have on the roster.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Texans have released safety Danieal Manning, maybe he´s another veteran option for the Packers at the position.

 

[Ace]

Texans have released safety Danieal Manning, maybe he´s another veteran option for the Packers at the position.

I'd be surprised. He didn't want to take a pay cut to stay in Hou. Makes me think he's going to want too much

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd be surprised. He didn't want to take a pay cut to stay in Hou. Makes me think he's going to want too much

We´ll see. If he doesn´t get any offers close to what he was earning with the Texans on the open market either the Packers could be in the mix.

 

[yooperpackfan]

We´ll see. If he doesn´t get any offers close to what he was earning with the Texans on the open market either the Packers could be in the mix.

It ain't happening.
I believe the Packers have decided to go with what they have plus the draft.

 

[Poppa San]

When Thompson worked with Holmgren and Reinfeldt in Seattle, Holmgren said many times when they were considering a UFA, Thompson would say, ‘I can find better in the draft’. And many times I think that’s true. [IMO] But NFL experience is more important at some positions than others and safety is one of those positions. Right now they have one safety with a lot of NFL experience in Burnett. And he’s coming off his worst year. I hope Richardson can translate his physical attributes into being a great or good safety but relying on that happening without a solid backup plan isn’t a good idea. Banjo is the only other player on the roster listed at safety and counting on him as a starter isn’t a good plan either. Hyde is the logical player to be counted upon at safety even though he hasn’t started there because we’ve seen his football instincts and he has some NFL experience. But McCarthy has said he’ll get a chance to be an every-down player whether it’s at, “corner, nickel, dime, safety…”.

If Tramon, Shields, and Hayward are healthy it seems to me the best way to get Hyde on the field is to start him at safety and if that’s the plan, I think adding one of the top 5 or so safeties in the draft to the current roster makes sense and with the rookie and Richardson I am fine with not adding a vet safety. But if Hyde is really only going to be a part-time safety I think it makes sense to add a veteran safety – at least a solid backup – because experience is important. BTW, I know there have been safeties who have had success as rookies – I just think that’s the exception compared to most other positions and I don’t think counting on starting a rookie (who, if you have one in mind you aren’t certain will be available) is a good ‘Plan A’.[/IMO]

What is the difference in responsiblity between the free safety in a cover one position and playing a third CB over the top? Why would a team need a coverage safety if they can put a bulked up (relatively) CB in the same spot?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It ain't happening.
I believe the Packers have decided to go with what they have plus the draft.

I agree, after TT didn´t go after Clemons it´s probably pretty safe to assume he won´t sign a veteran at the position.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

What is the difference in responsiblity between the free safety in a cover one position and playing a third CB over the top? Why would a team need a coverage safety if they can put a bulked up (relatively) CB in the same spot?

Actually you´re right there isn´t a lot of difference in the body type needed to play either CB or FS. The position is different though as a FS isn´t asked to play a lot of man coverage vs. receivers but is there to cover a lot of space, helping out CBs all over the field. In addition he´s the last line of defense and should be the guy calling the plays in the secondary. So I rather prefer someone who has played that position for quite some time than move a CB there.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Another one of the safeties gones as Ryan Clark has agreed to terms with the Redskins.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

I'm really intrigued by the recent release of Daniel Manning from the Texans. He's looked good in recent years and is a fast, cover safety. Plus he's a "cut player" so it won't mess up any future compensatory picks.

 

[TJV]

What is the difference in responsiblity between the free safety in a cover one position and playing a third CB over the top? Why would a team need a coverage safety if they can put a bulked up (relatively) CB in the same spot?

As far as I know, with all the variations of schemes Capers has used he's never had fewer than 2 safeties on the field. And as we all know, the safeties in his scheme are interchangeable . To answer your question, IMO a bulked up CB playing playing over the top is a FS for as long as he's playing that assignment. Nick Collins came out of college as a CB, was he a "bulked up (relatively) CB" playing safety? If so, I would certainly love another one at S if he can play like that.

If they don't add a stud rookie safety, I'd be fine with a defensive backfield of Tramon, Sheilds, Burnett, and Hyde no matter what you call the position Hyde plays, with Hayward playing nickel. In Capers' D those five would be on the field about 75% of the time. With more pressure on the QB, I'd like to see that D backfield.

What I'm unclear about is what McCarthy said about Hyde playing CB, nickel, dime, and S. Assume one of the top safeties in the draft wins the starting job opposite Burnett. It wouldn't make any sense to have Hyde play S unless Capers is installing a 3-safety scheme (extremely unlikely!), would it? OTOH, assume neither Richardson, Banjo, nor a rookie wins the job. Why wouldn't Hyde play S full time if he's the best option there? And if Hyde isn't the starting safety is Hyde going to replace a healthy Hayward at nickel? Hyde played well but IMO he didn't play as well as Hayward did his rookie season.

Don't get me wrong, I'm more curious than concerned. As a matter of fact I think it would be very difficult not to improve the safety play from last season. It may take Hyde some time to settle in at S if that's where they have him, but I can't envision him being worse than Jennings. I just think it makes sense to bring in a vet safety for insurance. But if they don't and if the Packers draft a rookie DB who is good enough to earn PT they'll have the great problem of dividing up PT whenever they aren't in dime. One of the youngsters on the roster may also cause that "problem".

 

[FrankRizzo]

The silver fox must really have something up his sleeve.......

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As far as I know, with all the variations of schemes Capers has used he's never had fewer than 2 safeties on the field. And as we all know, the safeties in his scheme are interchangeable . To answer your question, IMO a bulked up CB playing playing over the top is a FS for as long as he's playing that assignment. Nick Collins came out of college as a CB, was he a "bulked up (relatively) CB" playing safety? If so, I would certainly love another one at S if he can play like that.

Collins started at free safety for the last two years of his college career. And it took him some years to produce at the NFL level. That´s why I would rather have a guy who started at FS for a bigger college, as there would be hope it doesn´t him that long to adjust to the league.

If they don't add a stud rookie safety, I'd be fine with a defensive backfield of Tramon, Sheilds, Burnett, and Hyde no matter what you call the position Hyde plays, with Hayward playing nickel. In Capers' D those five would be on the field about 75% of the time. With more pressure on the QB, I'd like to see that D backfield.

The Packers would take a huge risk if their only plan at safety is to move Hyde there.

What I'm unclear about is what McCarthy said about Hyde playing CB, nickel, dime, and S. Assume one of the top safeties in the draft wins the starting job opposite Burnett. It wouldn't make any sense to have Hyde play S unless Capers is installing a 3-safety scheme (extremely unlikely!), would it? OTOH, assume neither Richardson, Banjo, nor a rookie wins the job. Why wouldn't Hyde play S full time if he's the best option there? And if Hyde isn't the starting safety is Hyde going to replace a healthy Hayward at nickel? Hyde played well but IMO he didn't play as well as Hayward did his rookie season.

I wouldn´t put too much faith into what MM is saying right now. I was surprised by his comments about Hyde as well, as I don´t think it would be a great idea to replace the safety in the dime package with someone who wouldn´t play there most of the time. I agree that Hayward is the better option at the nickel position, so if TT is able to get a starter at FS I would be fine with Hyde being the dime CB only.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Thomas DeCoud - Falcons http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/11332/thomas-decoud
Rafael Bush - Saints http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/13544/rafael-bush
Chris Clemons - Dolphins http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/12645/chris-clemons

All Free Safeties

All of these guys remain unsigned. Any three of those guys would come relatively cheap and would look nice along side Burnett. Also, all three would be upgrades over MD. All three are also relatively young.

Bush's stats are that way because the Saints used three Safeties a lot last season. Bush always played that single high Safety in their defense, but the guy is actually a pretty solid player.

What about Patrick Chung, or Michael Huff?
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/freeagency/?year=2014&position=36&type=-1

 

[HardRightEdge]

What about Patrick Chung, or Michael Huff?
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/freeagency/?year=2014&position=36&type=-1

I liked Huff quite a bit for us last off season; Baltimore signed him pretty cheap to take over for Reed. I don't know what happened there, but Baltimore benched him then cut him mid-year and then Denver picked him up for their bench. Now Denver doesn't have any interest in keeping him. Despite all that, I have a hard time thinking he would have done worse for us than Jennings.

Nonetheless, Huff has gone from a decent second tier safety to journeyman status and I don't know why, but some scratching below the surface would be required to justify considering him.

To paraphrase that dreadful '80s hair music hit, I don't think Packers fans would have fun this season if we Pat Chunged this season. Having seen the guy play here and there with the Pats, it seems to me he can hit just fine while being a fairly consistent liability in coverage.

 

[adambr2]

What about Patrick Chung, or Michael Huff?
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/freeagency/?year=2014&position=36&type=-1

I heard from an Eagles fan that a barrel out on the field with a jersey on it would have been an upgrade from Patrick Chung, which is similar to how I felt about MD Jennings, so I wouldn't be interested in him.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Michael Huff?

2006 NFL Draft - First Round

#5- Packers, AJ Hawk
#6- Niners, Vernon Davis
#7- Raiders, Michael Huff
#8- Ravens, Haloti Ngata

http://packersinsider.com/?p=6310 <More on Huff> http://packersinsider.com/?p=6310

He might just be bad.
But that's a helluva lot better than what we put on the field last year at safety.

 

[ExpatPacker]

Considering that TT hasn't made any noticeable movement at all concerning the safety position other than to talk up Hyde, I'd be surprised to see him do something now. Either TT thinks the safety position is going to be fine or he has his sights on someone in the draft.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Michael Huff?

2006 NFL Draft - First Round

#5- Packers, AJ Hawk
#6- Niners, Vernon Davis
#7- Raiders, Michael Huff
#8- Ravens, Haloti Ngata

http://packersinsider.com/?p=6310 <More on Huff> http://packersinsider.com/?p=6310

He might just be bad.
But that's a helluva lot better than what we put on the field last year at safety.

Just because he was the 7th overall pick eight years ago doesn´t mean he would be an upgrade now. The only veteran worth looking at at the moment would be Jim Leonhard IMO.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Just because he was the 7th overall pick eight years ago doesn´t mean he would be an upgrade now. The only veteran worth looking at at the moment would be Jim Leonhard IMO.

Leonhard is slow, has had a very serious knee injury that nobody fully recovers from, and many don't make it back from.

Huff might be bad. He has been.
But that still would have been our 2nd best safety last year.