Hayward - does this raise or lower concerns about hsi health?

[Patler]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/casey-hayward-eyes-playmaking-role-on-packers-defense-b99224654z1-250275091.html


Now, the 24-year-old Hayward is ever so carefully inching his way back. He started running two weeks ago and is aiming to be back at full speed by Day 1 of organized team activities.

Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/casey-hayward-eyes-playmaking-role-on-packers-defense-b99224654z1-250275091.html#ixzz2w7XNyIlv
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

The last he played was on 10/27 when he experienced a slight tear of his hamstring, per the article. He admitted that he had not stretched properly before beginning his workout last summer when he first injured his hamstring working out on his own.

GB needs him back.

[pbmax]

Raises it because I didn't know about a slight tear (they are all tears of course, but the third occurrence was obviously worse) and anything that takes 3 + months to begin running from (part Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb) is significant, not slight.

[3irty1]

I love Hayward but he doesn't really have a step to lose. Raises it for sure.

[red]

raises

seems like a chronic issue. he pulled it twice then tore it? somethings not right there

[mraynrand]

raises

seems like a chronic issue. he pulled it twice then tore it? somethings not right there

perhaps Browner could be brought in for a consult: how to stretch while on PEDs.

[Patler]

Raises it because I didn't know about a slight tear (they are all tears of course, but the third occurrence was obviously worse) and anything that takes 3 + months to begin running from (part Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb) is significant, not slight.


I love Hayward but he doesn't really have a step to lose. Raises it for sure.

That was my first thought. He is doing light running only? He just started running two weeks ago? It is getting close to a year from the first injury, and the last was an actual tear?

I had hoped to hear that he was fully healed and resuming regular workouts. This is starting to feel like something that won't be over with when TC starts. Hamstring tears have grossly altered and even ended some careers. I hope this one isn't one of those.

[Fritz]

Crap. Are they going to lose yet another promising young player to a career-ending injury? If he tears that thing again, he'll be the next injury-prone Packer not to make it. Like Harrell - I know Harrell was not as productive, but he never could stay on the field. And like Sherrod. And like Nick Collins, and like Terrance Murphy, and maybe Jermichael Finley.

That's a long list.

[Joemailman]

Raises it because I didn't know about a slight tear (they are all tears of course, but the third occurrence was obviously worse) and anything that takes 3 + months to begin running from (part Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb) is significant, not slight.

After what happened last year though, extreme caution would be understandable. The good news is he's working with trainers this year. My guess is we won't be seeing him do much in OTA's. The goal will probably be to have him ready for training camp.

[Brandon494]

How would it lower our concerns?

[Brandon494]

Another reason why we need to draft a safety, if Hayward can't go we need Hyde to play the slot CB.

[pbmax]

How would it lower our concerns?

Prior to this article, you had no positive confirmation he was not dead, mute or unable to walk.

[red]

Another reason why we need to draft a safety, if Hayward can't go we need Hyde to play the slot CB.

exactly

[Patler]

How would it lower our concerns?


Prior to this article, you had no positive confirmation he was not dead, mute or unable to walk.

Yup. I think I mentioned in another thread that I was concerned about Hayward because no one was saying anything. In talking about the defense improving, those from the team mentioned Hyde possibly going to safety, Williams being his old self, etc.; but very little encouragement about Hayward.

What I should have written in the first post was this:

"We have heard very little about Hayward since October when he went out. Now we have. Does this make you feel better or worse than when you heard nothing at all?"

[Patler]

Another reason why we need to draft a safety, if Hayward can't go we need Hyde to play the slot CB.

I agree completely with that. Draft one or sign a proven commodity at safety because Hyde might be needed in the slot and/or might not adapt to being a safety, with the first more likely than the second. Besides, Banjo and Richardson need to win spots on the roster, not get them by default.

[gbgary]

yup...another reason to look at safety. tt might need to trade up.

[smuggler]

No trading up in this deep draft. Just gotta cross those fingers.

[Cheesehead Craig]

No trading up in this deep draft. Just gotta cross those fingers.
Hope is a bad strategy. If there's a player that the Pack needs/wants, go get him.

[Guiness]

Prior to this article, you had no positive confirmation he was not dead, mute or unable to walk.

Ya, that about sums it up.

Would be so good for this team if he came back strong - he was a DROY candidate in 2012.

[smuggler]

Hope is a bad strategy. If there's a player that the Pack needs/wants, go get him.

Nope. Sacrificing players is a bad strategy. To trade up in the first round, you have to sacrifice a rookie starter. Very bad strategy.

[Joemailman]

Trading away a 3rd round pick to move up in the 1st round would be a bad move IMHO. A 3rd round pick this year is like a 2nd round pick next year because of the depth of this draft.

[woodbuck27]

Prior to this article, you had no positive confirmation he was not dead, mute or unable to walk.

Yes.

Now I'm really concerned. :idea:

[woodbuck27]

Nope. Sacrificing players is a bad strategy. To trade up in the first round, you have to sacrifice a rookie starter. Very bad strategy.

With the depth in this draft trade down not up.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Nope. Sacrificing players is a bad strategy. To trade up in the first round, you have to sacrifice a rookie starter. Very bad strategy.

To get a better player? No it isn't. What other rookie starter are we getting in this draft if not a Safety?

[pbmax]

To get a better player? No it isn't. What other rookie starter are we getting in this draft if not a Safety?

WR. Could see a high draft pick push Boykin.

[Brandon494]

To get a better player? No it isn't. What other rookie starter are we getting in this draft if not a Safety?

ILB

[mraynrand]

WR. Could see a high draft pick push Boykin.

Or TE. TT is gonna draft a WR or two, or a WR and TE. People on Packerrats are going to freak out when he doesn't draft a safety at 21!

[gbgary]

dal needs a safety too and they're ahead of us. I'd try to jump ahead of them if I could.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

The massive amounts of injuries will finally stop this year. Hayward will be fine.

[smuggler]

Somebody will fall to us and we'll either draft them if they fit or trade back and stock up on talented guys. If Barr falls into the mid teens I could see the argument for a trade up.

[Smidgeon]

The massive amounts of injuries will finally stop this year. Hayward will be fine.

Until you went and wrote all that. Now we're screwed again. :|

;)

[Cheesehead Craig]

WR. Could see a high draft pick push Boykin.
There's no WR in this draft that's going to start over what we currently have at WR.


ILB
Not Hawk, he's too entrenched. I could see a 3rd round pick being good enough at the other ILB spot.


Or TE. TT is gonna draft a WR or two, or a WR and TE. People on Packerrats are going to freak out when he doesn't draft a safety at 21!
Maybe here too. But I won't freak out if they don't take a S at 21.

So I stand corrected that it's possible to get a starter other than S with a pick that would be used to trade up to get a S (I'm thinking 3rd round).

[Zool]

There's no WR in this draft that's going to start over what we currently have at WR.


Not Hawk, he's too entrenched. I could see a 3rd round pick being good enough at the other ILB spot.


Maybe here too. But I won't freak out if they don't take a S at 21.

So I stand corrected that it's possible to get a starter other than S with a pick that would be used to trade up to get a S (I'm thinking 3rd round).

I agree if you end the first 2 with "at our draft position". If Sammy Watkins is available at 21 I'm pretty sure he'd overtake Boykin. I'd take Bell over Hawk or Jones, or possibly both and switch to a 4-3.

[Brandon494]

There's no WR in this draft that's going to start over what we currently have at WR.


Not Hawk, he's too entrenched. I could see a 3rd round pick being good enough at the other ILB spot.


Maybe here too. But I won't freak out if they don't take a S at 21.

So I stand corrected that it's possible to get a starter other than S with a pick that would be used to trade up to get a S (I'm thinking 3rd round).

1. We still need depth at WR and whos to say a rookie can't come in and win the starting #3 job and/or return duties especially in this deep draft class?

2. I never mentioned Hawk's name but you do realize we have two starting ILBs. Hawk and Jones need to be replaced but you are right it won't happen this season for Hawk.

3. If Haha or Pryor are available at 21 and we pass on either one I will freak out.

[Cheesehead Craig]

1. We still need depth at WR and whos to say a rookie can't come in and win the starting #3 job and/or return duties especially in this deep draft class?

2. I never mentioned Hawk's name but you do realize we have two starting ILBs. Hawk and Jones need to be replaced but you are right it won't happen this season for Hawk.

3. If Haha or Pryor are available at 21 and we pass on either one I will freak out.

The whole conversation was about a starter. PB mentioned that a draft pick WR could come in and start. Not talking about depth or a #3 WR.

I am aware we have 2 ILB, just noted that Hawk is not the one going to be replaced first.

I may agree with you on pt 3. But I don't think they will be there.

[pbmax]

The whole conversation was about a starter. PB mentioned that a draft pick WR could come in and start. Not talking about depth or a #3 WR.

I am aware we have 2 ILB, just noted that Hawk is not the one going to be replaced first.

I may agree with you on pt 3. But I don't think they will be there.

No, I mean start as a #3, since 3 wide might be the most common Packer O alignment. Essentially take Boykins job.

I love the guy, but it would not be unheard of for a talent such as his to be passed by a hot rookie. Packers O is tough to learn, but as #3 and not a slot WR, he would need to learn only one position.

[smuggler]

#3 WR is a starter in this offense.