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

[Joemailman]

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.

The Hayward situation was interesting. He injured himself right before training camp. He was held out until the 3rd preseason game when he injured it again. Then he played in games 7-9 before getting hurt, and being shut down for the season. It's hard to know whether the original injury was that serious, or whether he was brought back too early, resulting in a re-aggravation. The Hayward situation and the House consistency situation are the 2 biggest question marks IMO.

[KYPack]

The Hayward situation was interesting. He injured himself right before training camp. He was held out until the 3rd preseason game when he injured it again. Then he played in games 7-9 before getting hurt, and being shut down for the season. It's hard to know whether the original injury was that serious, or whether he was brought back too early, resulting in a re-aggravation. The Hayward situation and the House consistency situation are the 2 biggest question marks IMO.

The "Hayward hammy" drove me nuts all year.

So much so, I don't know how to second guess it.

Should we have held him back until the 4th regular season game? or at least the opener?

I hate to join the herd and blame the trainer.

[Patler]

The Hayward situation was interesting. He injured himself right before training camp. He was held out until the 3rd preseason game when he injured it again. Then he played in games 7-9 before getting hurt, and being shut down for the season. It's hard to know whether the original injury was that serious, or whether he was brought back too early, resulting in a re-aggravation. The Hayward situation and the House consistency situation are the 2 biggest question marks IMO.

Hayward worries me. I'm tired of seeing promising careers in GB cut short or permanently altered by injuries. There are always some, and I remember a few from the Lombardi era and ever since, but it just seems so much more common now.

No one from the team seems to be talking about Hayward. I'm not sure if that is good or bad.

[mraynrand]

I was going to create an iterative probability matrix to assess the likelihood of these what ifs, their cumulative probabilities, including several alternative scenarios, calculating the influence of topological mixing (assuming stationary Markov principles of course) on positive reinforcement; then integrate it with other positives and negatives, but I figured, what's the point? Everything is going to work out well for the Packers this year and they will win it all. Or not.

[PlantPage55]

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

If I were TT (and thank heavens I'm not), I would get a FA safety (mid-tier guy), draft one, AND try Hyde out at the position. I don't feel like that would be too many resources put toward a position that is easily our most attackable weakness.

While I think Burnett is fine at that position going forward, it wouldn't be a bad thing if we overdid it on Safeties and ended up finding one better than him, too, by pure chance.

[Patler]

If I were TT (and thank heavens I'm not), I would get a FA safety (mid-tier guy), draft one, AND try Hyde out at the position. I don't feel like that would be too many resources put toward a position that is easily our most attackable weakness.

While I think Burnett is fine at that position going forward, it wouldn't be a bad thing if we overdid it on Safeties and ended up finding one better than him, too, by pure chance.

Besides, you need one in addition to the starters, and I'm not sure Richardson should be the #3 safety, either. Maybe he can be, but it's no sure thing either.

[3irty1]

Hyde's a great football player and I wouldn't count him out but I agree it'd be foolish not to bring quality competition for that spot. Personally I think the best solution both long and short term would come through the draft. It's not uncommon for a rookie safety to be solid right out of camp so an early big school player would be a good get. My 2nd choice would be to sign a starting calibre fella like Chris Clemons or Mike Mitchell. My 3rd choice would be to roll with what we got and hope that Richardson, Hyde, Banjo, and new late round rookies/street FA's can produce a starter. My last choice would be to add a big name FA like Byrd to an already overpaid secondary. We don't need to turn a strength into a weakness at the cost of a fat contract. Just plug the hole.

[denverYooper]

I was going to create an iterative probability matrix to assess the likelihood of these what ifs, their cumulative probabilities, including several alternative scenarios, calculating the influence of topological mixing (assuming stationary Markov principles of course) on positive reinforcement; then integrate it with other positives and negatives, but I figured, what's the point? Everything is going to work out well for the Packers this year and they will win it all. Or not.

Molecular phylogeny or figuring out when the Packers' DBs will gel again... it's pretty much the same science. I don't know why they haven't unified the two fields by now.

[run pMc]

So maybe sign Nate Allen and draft a safety in R3 or 4?
Not sold on Richardson (yet), definitely not sold on Jennings, and I think Banjo's a ST guy. Hyde can play S and would be used to cover in the dime, but I agree with those who think the safety starting next to Burnett isn't on the roster.

As to the if's, I worry a little about Shields being happy at getting paid and his play suffers for it.

[mraynrand]

Molecular phylogeny or figuring out when the Packers' DBs will gel again... it's pretty much the same science. I don't know why they haven't unified the two fields by now.

it's far easier to figure out how proteins fold than how Packer dbs do the same.

[pbmax]

Banjo has to stick, Packers running out of good football names for Threads.

[Joemailman]

Banjo has to stick, Packers running out of good football names for Threads.

Just wait until they draft Clinton-Dix.

[denverYooper]

Just wait until they draft Clinton-Dix.

Keep it in FYI.

[smuggler]

Anything concerning the defense is too much to hope for.

[pittstang5]

IMO, regarding the safety position, the Packers just need a guy back there that knows what the hell they are doing and can line everybody up. Since Collins left, there's been too many "miscommunications." Get a vet. that knows the system or is at least familiar with it (don't know if there is anyone out there like that) or get someone that has the intelligence to play in this system. I don't think we need a world beater or a high dollar FA. Someone average/mid-tier will be better than what we have now. Then you draft a guy that you feel can be the future after a year or two and learn from said vet.