It's the off-season, how many "ifs" are too many to hope for?

[Patler]

... if Shields continues to get better, or at least doesn't regress
... if Williams plays like the last half of last season, and not like the previous season and a half
... if Burnett proves that 2013 was just an off year for him
... if Hyde flourishes in a transition to safety
... if Hayward returns to health
... if Hayward progresses from his rookie season performance
... if House can find some consistency and play as well as he has shown that he can play

if all that happens, the Packers might have a reasonably competent defensive backfield!

Is that too much to hope for?

[Joemailman]

Not really. To me the one that really matters is Hyde (or someone else currently not on the roster) flourishing at Safety. Hard to have a good backfield with someone like Jennings starting at Safety.

The rest are pretty attainable.

[Patler]

Not really. To me the one that really matters is Hyde (or someone else currently not on the roster) flourishing at Safety. Hard to have a good backfield with someone like Jennings starting at Safety.

The rest are pretty attainable.

But, are there just too many "ifs"? Individually, I think each is very much attainable. But collectively the scenario involves all six members achieving things that players often fail at. The pessimist in me expects that at least one, maybe two will fail, and then the house of cards will fall.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Having a competent backfield also relies on having at least a decent pass rush. If they can discover a consistent pass rush then a lot of the troubles in the secondary will get resolved. With that said, I don't have a lot of faith in Burnett and I still think we need to select a good safety in the draft. Overall, the secondary has talent and they have invested a lot in that talent. Hopefully this year they will see a return in investment.

[denverYooper]

Having a competent backfield also relies on having at least a decent pass rush. If they can discover a consistent pass rush then a lot of the troubles in the secondary will get resolved.

This x1000. Consistent is the key word.

[Patler]

Having a competent backfield also relies on having at least a decent pass rush. If they can discover a consistent pass rush then a lot of the troubles in the secondary will get resolved. With that said, I don't have a lot of faith in Burnett and I still think we need to select a good safety in the draft. Overall, the secondary has talent and they have invested a lot in that talent. Hopefully this year they will see a return in investment.

I disagree. The competency of the players in the backfield is not dependent on having a decent pass rush. The overall effectiveness of the defense requires also a decent pass rush, but a pass rush does not make a bad DB into a good one, it just minimizes the negative impact of the bad DB. Conversely, competent and effective play by the DBs can mask at least partly the ineffective play of those in front of the DBs, but it doesn't make a poor pass rusher into a good pass rusher. It can make him more successful just by giving him more of an opportunity, but that shouldn't be confused with improving his innate ability.

I'm not concerned at this point about the overall performance of the defense. I'm talking about the competency of the DBs in contributing to the defense.

[Joemailman]

But, are there just too many "ifs"? Individually, I think each is very much attainable. But collectively the scenario involves all six members achieving things that players often fail at. The pessimist in me expects that at least one, maybe two will fail, and then the house of cards will fall.

I disagree that they all have to happen. For instance, Hyde doesn't need to flourish at Safety if the safety position is addressed in FA or the draft. If Hyde doesn't have to move to Safety, then he can be used to bolster the nickel position in the event that Hayward continues to have problems. Or the CB position could be addressed by a strong draft for CB's. Obviously some of the things you listed have to happen, but not all. My personal belief is that if they can achieve competency at the Safety position, everything else falls into place.

[red]

i'd say its a bigger "if" for TT to get a competent S in free agency, or even in the draft

[Bretsky]

It would be stupid of Ted Thompson to figure a starting safety is on our roster; it's time to stop jerking around at that position and go get some quality there

[Patler]

I disagree that they all have to happen. For instance, Hyde doesn't need to flourish at Safety if the safety position is addressed in FA or the draft. If Hyde doesn't have to move to Safety, then he can be used to bolster the nickel position in the event that Hayward continues to have problems. Or the CB position could be addressed by a strong draft for CB's. Obviously some of the things you listed have to happen, but not all. My personal belief is that if they can achieve competency at the Safety position, everything else falls into place.

Well, of course, but then you are simply adding more "ifs". I didn't intend the list to be an exhaustive one. My point was that there are significant question marks about each of the top 6 positions in the D-backfield. Shields is probably the most certain of the bunch.

[Fritz]

... if Shields continues to get better, or at least doesn't regress
... if Williams plays like the last half of last season, and not like the previous season and a half
... if Burnett proves that 2013 was just an off year for him
... if Hyde flourishes in a transition to safety
... if Hayward returns to health
... if Hayward progresses from his rookie season performance
... if House can find some consistency and play as well as he has shown that he can play

if all that happens, the Packers might have a reasonably competent defensive backfield!

Is that too much to hope for?

Here is the order of the "ifs" in my mind, from most likely to occur to least likely:

-Williams plays like the last half of last season
- Burnett proves that 2013 was an off year
- Hayward progresses - though this is tied to the last point -
- Hyde flourishes in his transition to safety
- House finds consistency
- Hayward returns to health

I just don't trust that this team can stay healthy the way teams like SF and Seattle have.

[Pugger]

I'd rather Ted get a FA safety or one in the draft rather than relying on Hyde.

[red]

if TT and M3 decided that capers, perry and whitt were not the reason for our secondary being so horrible, then its on the player, so we better be working hard to fix the problems

lets sum it up

capers- not the problem
perry-not the problem
whitt- not the problem
shields-not the problem
tramon- not the problem
hyde- not the problem
hayward-didn't play, but not considered to be the problem
house- not great, but not bad for your #5 cb
bush- see above, but for #6 cb
burnett- a problem that we can't get rid of, but people think he can work with a better safety partner
jennings- a big problem, needs to be replaced

so, looking at that, we just have one problem that can either be fixed by FA or by drafting one

is one safety really the only problem we have with our secondary?

[Fritz]

Safety and that old bugaboo, health.

[Patler]

Here is the order of the "ifs" in my mind, from most likely to occur to least likely:

-Williams plays like the last half of last season
- Burnett proves that 2013 was an off year
- Hayward progresses - though this is tied to the last point -
- Hyde flourishes in his transition to safety
- House finds consistency
- Hayward returns to health

I just don't trust that this team can stay healthy the way teams like SF and Seattle have.

Pretty much agree. House has been given a fair share of chances, and just can't seem to put it together.
That injury to Hayward must have been severe. It happened before TC, and ruined his entire season. Not sure how he comes back from that.

Williams, Burnett and Hyde hitting their "ifs" I view about equally hitting, although I might list Williams as the third as much due to age as to accumulated injuries.