Sean Richardson ready to take over for Morgan Burnett

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

Sean Richardson will make bur Burnett expendable.

Sean Richardson, the fourth but hardly forgotten member of the Green Bay Packers’ resurgent safety position, is ready for extended duty Sunday night in New Orleans if Morgan Burnett isn’t available.

JSOnline wrote:

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

wpr
Preferred Member

10 years ago

Had has had a few decent moments in the past. He will have to step up and play big Sunday nght.

steveishere
Veteran Member

10 years ago

I really think Richardson would excel in the SS role. Him at SS and HHCD at FS actually seems to me like it could make a great combo.

DoddPower
Veteran Member

10 years ago

Drew Breese is just the type of QB I would expect to abuse a player like Richardson in coverage. Especially if Graham is healthy enough. Perhaps Graham's injury will be just enough to level to playing field, though.

Mucky Tundra
Honored Member

10 years ago

Sean Richardson will make bur Burnett expendable.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

"How can he make Burnett expendable if I don't give him the reps on defense, Zero?"

“Nah. I like having the island. It’s pretty cool...not too many visitors”

"I’ve got it." -Aaron Rodgers

beast
Select Member

10 years ago

I really think Richardson would excel in the SS role. Him at SS and HHCD at FS actually seems to me like it could make a great combo.

Originally Posted by: steveishere

The question for me is can Richardson cover in man to man? In the past his hips have seemed too tight to cut and adjust when too close and was better at a distance when he could read and attack ahead of time and didn't have to adjust his hips much. Of course a 1st fully healthy offseason can do a lot for a guy.

TE Jimmy Graham on the other hand has great hip movement which helps him with cuts, movement and controlling his body, I've said the guy reminds me much like a WRs than a TE. At blocking the kid is VERY feisty, but other than maybe speed his limitations seem more like a WR to me, and his in line blocking hasn't look the best.

Then again, if you have Hyde in the nickel/dime covering Graham man to man and Richardson in the SS role playing a zone over the top could be a perfect fit. And then blitzing on of the DBs once in a while.

steveishere
Veteran Member

10 years ago

Originally Posted by: beast

I don't really think any one of us has even seen Richardson in coverage more than a handful of times a year in his entire NFL career so far. At least according to PFF he's only been targeted in coverage 5 times as a pro. We simply don't know at this point. I don't really know how anyone can say he's too stiff or he's awful or anything in coverage. He might be those things but I know that I haven't seen it yet. He does look like he can play downhill, tackle and hit well though which are good traits for a SS. He's probably athletic enough to be decent in coverage and if he gets more play time we'll see how he does.

Even if Richardson were to play a lot against NO I would bet my money on Hayward or Hyde spending the most time covering him.

beast
Select Member

10 years ago

I don't really think any one of us has even seen Richardson in coverage more than a handful of times a year in his entire NFL career so far.

Originally Posted by: steveishere

Last year at times he played more snaps than S Jennings. He's been in coverage more than a handful of times in a few (very few) games.

At least according to PFF he's only been targeted in coverage 5 times as a pro.

Originally Posted by: steveishere

And what does that mean? Only 5 times he's been in man to man coverage when targeting? are they counting zone coverage when the LB sits short and he sits deep? Packers did play a lot of cover 2 last year where the Safety the "target" would of most likely been on someone underneath and not the Safety.

I don't really know how anyone can say he's too stiff or he's awful or anything in coverage.

Originally Posted by: steveishere

I didn't say he was awful in coverage just not sure I want him man to man with a WR... and can say it by watching him play (though limited snaps and he hadn't had a full healthy offseason to that point yet, which as I said a full healthy offseason can sometimes help a ton).

He does look like he can play downhill, tackle and hit well though which are good traits for a SS.

Originally Posted by: steveishere

With out a doubt, yes! Richardson fits the perfect mold of the old school SS/LB tweener like Bigby was but Bigby lacked a lot in coverage which people often times overlooked because of his big hits (and Bigby at times did an amazing job of dislodging the ball to break up the catch at times.

Even if Richardson were to play a lot against NO I would bet my money on Hayward or Hyde spending the most time covering him.

Originally Posted by: steveishere

That's my thought too... but the problem there is height different... 6'6" against a sub 6' guy... I'm sure the Saints are looking at how that match-up worked for Martellus Bennett when the Packers played the Bears. But of course he might of had better WRs on the outside than Graham and more focus MIGHT be on Graham than it was on Bennett.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (1h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (9h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (14h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (16h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS