Surviving Sunday: Packers news, notes and links for the football deprived

I think I am the only Packers fan who is a bit troubled that Ted Thompson didn't even bother trying to re-sign Casey Hayward.

Everyone else has been like, "Casey Hayward? Meh. Bye bye." Meanwhile, I'm sitting here all alone on the Casey Hayward bandwagon saying, "Wait a minute. Hayward is a solid, youngish slot cornerback. Shouldn't the Packers have at least tried to bring him back?"

I'm not arguing that Hayward is the second coming of Deion Sanders and an absolutely essential piece of the puzzle if the Packers are to contend for a Super Bowl. But in a league where every team throws 30-plus passes per game, you need all the pass coverage you can get.

While Hayward wasn't a shutdown outside corner and had his injury issues over the years, he was still pretty damn good. Pro Football Focus graded Hayward as the Packers best cornerback last season in coverage and 21st overall in the NFL.

Now, that grade might be a bit generous (Sam Shields would definitely disagree with it), but it's safe to say that Hayward is a good player and a bargain at 3 years, $15 million (we're still not sure how much of that cash is guaranteed).  

Plus, he's only 26 years old. Young players who are reliable in pass coverage aren't easy to come by. That's why I think the Packers should have at least tried to bring Hayward back.

I know Thompson drafted Damarious Randall and Quinten Rollins in anticipation of Hayward's departure. Both players showed promise last season. You know who else showed promise during his rookie season? Davante Adams. How'd he work out in year two?

In the defensive backfield, even Sam Shields took a step backward in 2011 following his promising rookie campaign in 2010. 

To be fair, the Packers have many examples of second-year players stepping up and becoming good players when their veteran counterparts leave, so I shouldn't cherry-pick the few recent cases where the opposite has happened.

But for a team with Super Bowl on its mind, and for a team that refuses to sign free agents so it can always re-sign it's own young talent, letting Hayward walk without putting up a fight is a bit of a head-scratcher. 

Do the Packers really think Hayward isn't that good? Do they think Randall and Rollins are virtual locks to fill Hayward's void in 2016? Or did Thompson look at the list of players due for new deals next offseason (David Bakhtiari, Josh Sitton, T.J. Lang, Eddie Lacy, etc.), gulp, and decide that he needs to build a treasure chest for next spring?

Probably the latter. And Thompson is probably right. But you still don't like to see good players walk without an effort to bring them back.

Despite the dismissiveness of many Packers fans, Hayward was, indeed, a good player.

Packers news, notes and link

Non-Packers links and other nonsense

  • I stopped caring about Johnny Manziel a long time ago, but this piece from the MMQB on Manziel's downfall was fascinating.
  • If you're a policy nerd/wonk like me, you'll find this piece on President Obama's foreign policy engrossing.
  • As the election approaches, everyone is angry. Angry at Muslims. Angry at cops. Angry at their own lives. Angry, angry, angry. One of my favorite writers and author of "When Pride Still Mattered" David Maraniss attempts to dig deeper into the issue (no examination of Packers' fans anger at Ted Thompson, unfortunately).
  • Cancer update: Round 4 of chemotherapy kicked off on Thursday. New side effect: Uncontrollable hiccups. Otherwise, it hasn't been a bad week. Be sure to check out my latest Caring Bridge update. I included a section on how I'm never going to stop fighting. Ever.
0 points
 

Comments (30)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
NickPerry's picture

March 20, 2016 at 08:57 am

Thanks Adam! Today was the first time I read your update at Caring Bridge, gave me goosebumps. Please, don't ever give up and keep fighting! BTW.. Loved the song!

Thompson has almost $9 million for Starks, Taylor, and Perry. I really think that money could have been used in ways that would have actually improved our heros instead of keeping us the same which hasn't been good enough, at least not the last few seasons.

I've thought the same thing about Hayward but after the 4 he's decided to keep, the incoming rookie class, Thompson really only has about $5 or $6 million left. A tweak here or there and I'm sure they could have some extra space if needed.

0 points
0
0
Nelson Cobb's picture

March 20, 2016 at 10:18 am

Actually, the way we sit we're at least gonna have around 10 mil in cap space week 1. NFL daily cap report says we have just over 15 mil in cap space with the top 51 before Starks. The draft will have around a 1.75 mil net difference on our cap , taking us around 13.25. Factor in 2 extra contracts to fill out the 53 and 10 practice squad guys, we're looking at another 1.75. That drops us to 11.5. Say Starks has a 2 mil cap hit, that's a net difference of 1.55 over the minimum salary he knocks off, that'd put us around 10 mil. Gotta figure Masthay is cut eventually, that'll clear another 1.3 mil, 850K net, pushing us around a projected 11 mil in cap space week 1.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 20, 2016 at 01:07 pm

Are you counting the incoming draft class in those figures? According to Sportac the Packers have about $13,356,470 in Cap Space. According to Over The Cap they have $12,692,706 in space so lets call it $13,000,000. It's my understanding it will cost a little more that $6,000,000 to sign the rookie class leaving about $7,000,000.

Now I'm not certain I'm looking at this the correct way and it's quite possible I'm wrong but from what I've read it seems about right. Thompson likes to have some space availble to him when he goes into a season so as much as I'd like to see Dansby signed I doubt it would happen. Hell I think TT could sign Zack Brown and Cook and still have space left.

BTW... I'm with you on the Masthay cut. I'd be in favor even if it didn't save us a dime.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 20, 2016 at 12:58 pm

Double post...

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 21, 2016 at 02:15 am

I'd use Nick's estimate of $13 million. We should deduct $1.75 million net to sign the rookie pool (see link - in a previous comment I calculated last year's net cost to sign our drafted players at $1.63 million) and the UDFA pool (teams have a limit as to how much money they can guarantee to UDFAs - in 2014 it was $80K - but most teams, including GB, never come close to the limit). The $1.75 million net to sign the draft class is the most it should cost, and thus is safe to use. It is possible that instead of displacing a rookie min. contract, some draftees displace say Boyd and Nate Palmer instead. So, if TT wants to spend every last nickel on FAs, he has about $11 million to spend, roughly.

About $11 million is a good answer, but surely TT will keep a sizeable amount for in-season acquisitions and to roll over into 2017. How much? Even TT may not know, but I am sure he has an idea. I mean, there might be a June 1 cut that is too good to pass up and TT stretches the cap to sign the guy. Unlikely, but not inconceivable. IMO it would be prudent to keep at least $5 million to roll over, leaving TT with about $6 million in "mad money."

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 21, 2016 at 10:38 am

Thanks TGR... So I was WAY off in the amount it would cost to sign our rookies (God, where did I get that amount!!! : / )

$6 million is enough to sign a TE and/or ILB, especially with what's left. I'm starting to think it's more and more possible TT drafts for the O-Line in Round one this year, especially if one of the "Great" ones are still there. The Packers landed Bulaga because he fell a few spots. Most had him going in the top 15 if I remember so at 23 he was a steal.

I'd still like Cook, drops and all. We have a pretty good TE coach and a great QB, maybe Cook could be taught to be better. Speed, size, and Cooks physical qualities can't be taught.

0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

March 20, 2016 at 07:28 am

Great to read your posts Adam! Keep fighting.

0 points
0
0
Gumbydoc's picture

March 20, 2016 at 08:53 am

Good on you, Adam. Stay positive. We are with you.

0 points
0
0
Ferrari Driver's picture

March 20, 2016 at 09:13 am

Good attitude, Adam

Well thought out and well written article.

I have continued to include you in my prayers.

0 points
0
0
gr7070's picture

March 20, 2016 at 09:44 am

Finally someone at CheeseheadTV properly evaluates Hayward. The guy was very solid at worst, and he signed for reasonably little and fire only 3 years. There's not a lot of risk there and he's been at least this good every year, sans injury.

What happens one of Shields, Rollins or Randall get hurt? It's bound to happen, and if it happens early in the season another injury is likely to follow. Gunter shows promise, but that leaves three (potentiallike good) CBs. Three is essentially the starting number.

0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

March 20, 2016 at 09:44 am

I don't think losing Hayward is a big deal plus to tell you the truth I think Shields is overpaid and overrated , I like our young guys.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

March 20, 2016 at 09:46 am

I too am a Hayward fan Adam. The skills he showed as a rookie impressed everyone. The kid has football instincts you just can't teach. The injuries held him back and if he can stay healthy will turn out good for him. Keep up the good work and fight on Adam. Enjoy your posts and hope to be reading them for years.

0 points
0
0
ff4packers's picture

March 20, 2016 at 09:54 am

First (and most importantly) keep fighting my friend. Packer Nation has your back.

Now onto Hayward. Casey was a solid slot corner who couldn't quite make the transition to the outside. $5 Mil per year isn't a crazy number for a slot DB, but when you factor in the play of Randall, Rollins, and even Gunter - TT had to let him walk. Throw in Hyde (who can play multiple positions) and even Goodson. That's a crazy amount of depth and talent.

Like you said, TT needs to keep a cap space for next season. Sitton, Lang, Bakhtiari, and Lacy are all set to become free agents.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 20, 2016 at 02:02 pm

Can we throw out Goodson, instead? He's a poor man's Jarrett Bush...which really doesn't say much.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 20, 2016 at 05:51 pm

Was thinking just same thing. Why is Goodson still in the conversation?

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 21, 2016 at 06:53 am

Ditto!!

0 points
0
0
Nelson Cobb's picture

March 20, 2016 at 10:10 am

Nope, you're not the only one. I'm with you.

0 points
0
0
Nelson Cobb's picture

March 20, 2016 at 10:27 am

The thing that bothers me the most about it, It was just 6.8 guaranteed. If he doesn't work out, SD can cut him with just a 1.6 mil dead cap hit next year. If we aren't going to sign any outside guys, it really made no sense to let Hayward walk for that cheap. Thompson can still spend about 5 mil on free agency and still carry over about 6-7 mil to next year. I'm not cool with losing Hayward if we're gonna stand pat and refuse to upgrade anywhere else outside the draft. If we go and at least sign Cook, I'm more ok with letting Hayward go. I still find it just completely insane that we didn't even bother contacting either of the 2 best players on the market for our 2 biggest holes, especially after seeing the contracts they signed for. I've always been a Thompson supporter, but I've put the Kool Aid down this year and now I see clearly, and can't wait to see him gone.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

March 20, 2016 at 08:34 pm

"The thing that bothers me the most about it, It was just 6.8 guaranteed."

I wrote a few days ago that Hayward is a nice player, so we agree on that. Your statements about "JUST 6.8 million guaranteed" or "letting Hayward walk for THAT CHEAP" though, seem a little off to me... as if it's a relatively trivial amount of money. I don't think it is, especially in comparison to the cheaper options already on the roster. Even as a first round pick, Randall's entire four year contract is only 1 million more than Hayward's guaranteed money, and Randle comes with a fifth year option, while Hayward's deal is only three years. Hayward's guaranteed money alone is 3.1 million more than Rollins' entire contract, with the same differences in contract length. And when you start talking about Hyde, Goodson or Gunther, their guaranteed money is not even 400,000 for all three together. Heck, Gunter's guaranteed money was 5000 bucks.

It seems to me that 6.8 million guaranteed is actually a pretty big deal when you need to assemble a 53 man roster.

Based on average salary, the 10 highest contracts in GB total more than 103 million. That means that you'll have only about 50 million left over for 43 other players. I know that there are a few flaws in this "average salary" calculation, but throwing seven million guaranteed at Casey Hayward might be little more problematic than it seems.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 21, 2016 at 02:29 am

I agree with your comment, Marpag1. One might point out that of the $6.8 million guaranteed, $5.13 million is paid out in year one. Dead money if cut after one year is $1.67 million. That would still be a lot for TT to eat - TT just doesn't have a lot of dead money absent a career ending injury, and too much for me. I agree with letting Hayward walk.

0 points
0
0
EdsLaces's picture

March 20, 2016 at 11:01 am

Never ever stop.

0 points
0
0
Ibleedgreenmore's picture

March 20, 2016 at 11:16 am

I liked Hayward like what was not to like his rookie year. Then he got injured, could not play and it seemed he lost his edge. I think the next two years TT is going to have to let many walk or find some way to restructure some of these contracts. He has a hard job but gets paid very well, you know one of the O lineman is gone next year. To me there are way to many that need signed can they get a loan at the bank lol.

0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

March 20, 2016 at 01:37 pm

I'm in complete agreement with Nick Perry above. I do not think that the combination of Perry/Starks and Lane frigging Taylor are worth the cost of Trevathan or Freeman or Green. TT sucks in the first half of his job in the offseason - period. And if GB doesn't win another super bowl before ARod retires, it will sit almost completely at TT's feet. With a small portion at MMs. TT has done a wonderful job building a very good team - but I also think he has thoroughly displayed that he is not adept at building a championship team. The kool-aid is done for me too. If GB doesn't show considerable improvement this year - netting a CG or SB appearance in the process at the very least - then I am done with TT as well. I will be calling for him to be replaced immediately.

PS: Adam. Keep fighting. We are still praying for your spirits and your family's health and your recovery.

0 points
0
0
LeagueObsrvr's picture

March 20, 2016 at 01:49 pm

I'm not the least bit concerned about the departure of Hayward. The writing was on the wall when they drafted Quinten Rollins, who I think will end up being great for the Packers as a slot corner.

0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

March 20, 2016 at 01:51 pm

Casey was everything than reliable CB this, past season... my opinion is that both picks (1. and 2.) were better than Casey. This was correct move by my opinion! And PFF people and their rankings... phew!

0 points
0
0
JJB's picture

March 20, 2016 at 03:07 pm

I have a feeling TT will always be known for having 2 hall of fame QBs and only getting to one super bowl which is pathetic. SF is the other team with back to back hall of famers and we all know what they did.
As for FA. Next years list is Sitton, Bak, Lang, Lacy, Tretter, Barrington, Palmer, Hyde, Boyd, Pennel, Peppers, Banjo, and Elliot. So every penny is needed for next yr. Sitton, Bak, Lacy, Tretter, Hyde, Barrington and Pennel are all must signs. Sitton, Lacy and Bak will have big paydays. Bak could get a $8 mil/yr raise. That will cut into the money gained by. Peppers contract off the books. Sitton could get a 2mil/yr raise and I have no clue what Lacy could get. Hoping a huge raise which would mean he had a big yr.
I would have liked to sign one of the top FA in MlB or TE but not with what we have coming up next year I knew it wouldn't happen.
I ready do believe this is a very important draft for TT. For the Pack to stay near the top he has to hit this yr.

-1 points
0
1
pakmann's picture

March 20, 2016 at 11:06 pm

100% cure for hiccups.
Take a small piece of paper 1/8" x!/8" square. and drop in glass of water. Paper will float and object is drink the glass down watching piece of paper go to bottom, or possibly stick to side, of glass finishing all the water.
Idea is to concentrate on paper while drinking water. Should do the trick.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 21, 2016 at 02:47 am

Hayward is a nice player. I'd love to keep him. For GB, Hayward is the nickelback, and no team can pay a $5.13 million cap hit to its nickelback or sub package person. Obviously, the argument that Rollins and Randall might regress or get hurt is potent, but it is tough to be deep everywhere. Hayward's marginal value to GB is not big enough to justify $5 mill/yr for 3 yrs. For another team, with lesser talent where Hayward will be the starting outside CB or starting slot guy, and where Hayward is an upgrade, that is a reasonable contract with a chance at some surplus value if Hayward reaches his full potential.

0 points
0
0
PackerBacker's picture

March 21, 2016 at 09:22 am

I think letting Hayward go is less about Hayward and more about Lang, Sitton and Bahktiari. All of their contracts are up next year and it will not be cheap to bring them back (I only expect one of the G's to get signed). TT has traditionally rolled over 6-7 million to the next year. He'll need all of that with the group of FA's he has next year.
I think he made the right decision. Don't waste your money on a luxury (another above average slot CB) when you need it for important things (good O-linemen).

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 22, 2016 at 01:32 am

I read the Atlantic piece because I often do read such articles from across the entire political spectrum. It was both interesting and chilling.

0 points
0
0