Here’s the test: knowing the injuries we’ve had, I don’t think Ted signs Hayward if he can go back in time machine. Hayward won't make any difference in our ability to advance in playoffs and his signing would have created substantial future harm.

The key to winning is the 1st thing Ted thinks of on every contract considered or every roster move: the winners are teams with the most 1st contract studs, period!

Like Beast, I also had some trepidation about our CB depth; but to say we were “clearly thin” has been proven wrong. The staff knew what Beast and I didn’t, that it was not about potential, they knew the young CBs were ready. I’m shocked by Gunter’s leap, Joe Whitt was not. I was slightly surprised by how well Goodson has played [many other fans stunned and shocked], Whitt was not. We all had some doubt, but the staff knew Randall and Rollins were already established [only injuries have slowed them]. FACT is in hindsight we now know, what the staff knew, no other team had CBs # 4, 5 and 6 as good as Gunter, Hyde and Goodson.

Sure we’d be better at CB with Hayward as #4 outside CB and as a tie for #3 slot CB [#1 Randall w/ Gunter on edge, #2 Rollins, #3 tie Hyde (better at blitz, runs support and covering TEs; Hayward only better at covering slot WRs); but we’d also have been better at QB if we signed Andrew Luck and Tony Romo. The issue is not is a position better; but is the team better by a signing.

Signing Hayward created 3 problems: (1) the loss of $15.3M [not $5M] to spend on other players [EG this subsidized 1/3 of Bak’s extension-Now think about how much we’d be paying for Bak now; we probably saved another $15M by signing Bak when we did]; and (2) Hayward’s presence blocks the development of the youngsters; and WORST OF ALL (3) a good UDFA DB is CUT to help another team.

GB has had unparalleled success finding UDFA DBs. And trust me Ted’s staff was all over Hawkins, Dorelant and Brice, plus probably of few others. Ted knew in March that signing Hayward would have directly to the loss of one good UDFA [Lke Hawkins, Dorleant or Brice].

We don't need Hayward, we've got Dorleant!

---

It boggles my mind, that your arguing against signing talented players for reasonable prices... because that doesn't make any sense.

Packers have had a lot of high draft picks on defense not work out... and the Packers did exactly what you're arguing against at OLB (assuming Peppers deal was reasonable, which I'm sure some would argue against. But the Packers had Perry and Neal at OLB and went and got Peppers. Same thing here... add value and depth to the team.

---

Peppers was signed a starter. Ted rarely signs vets to back-up and if so only in short term min type deals.

Notwithstanding the spot Hayward would have occupied on the our fan depth charts with 2 CB and 2 safeties; Steve points out we play alot of DBs and Hayward may have been a starter in a few packages [unless injuries occurred] like 3 WR sets on passing downs and most 4 WR sets. But, generally he'd be a back-up and Ted wont pay 15.3M for a back-up unless the situation is dire.

When I said the money not spent on Casey Hayward should have been used to shore up a position of weakness, what I am saying is we shouldn't sign talent players. Precisely. [whead] [whead]

---

We agree... the money that Hayward got, should of been spent shoring up a position of weakness... such as the CB position... because it's depth was weak. That's where we disagree... you say it was a strength... I respectfully disagree.

They should of shored up the weak CB area by signing Hayward.



And you're making the case for signing Hayward... as Hayward started 11 games and was signed cheap for a talented CB just like the other vets to back-up deals that Ted Thompson signs. Hayward perfectly fits into the mold you're describing... which just points to the fact they should of signed him with a deal that low.

---

Peppers was "signed" as a starter but he was kept this season as a situational pass rusher. That's all they talked about him this offseason was limiting his reps and playing him on pass downs. Hayward on this team was the best slot corner by far. That is a starting position on this defense point blank, not situational and no maybe about it.

Hayward's play the last 3 years in GB, isn't anywhere near as good as Rollins or Randall play in the slot this year. Plus he is an absolute liability in run support or tackling someone in the secondary; he avoids contact like i'd avoid eboli. Heck, given how great Gunter's been outside; GB may have envisioned having Randall and Rollins in slot on 4 WR sets.

If Hayward was so good; then why did he only get 5.1M per/6M Guaranteed?

Brent Grimes and his wife Miko got 7.5M per. Alan Ball signed with Bears last year for 3m per and he just sucks. House got 6.5M per/10M Guarenteed 2 years ago and he wasn't ever a starter.

Fact 1: Good CBs make big bucks.
Fact 2: 32 GMs didnt think Casey was a legitimate starting CB, because all 32 would have paid more than 5M for a starting CB including Ted and SD.

He got 5m (I guess it's back to 5m now when it suits you after you've been insisting it was 15) because he's a slot CB, teams pay more for boundary guys. There are a couple positions where you can pay top dollar and have relatively little hit to your cap like slot CB and RT. Similarly good S and ILB can come fairly cheap as well. Casey played over 900 snaps for us (86%), if that doesn't fit your definition of a starter then the word starter is meaningless.

A guy that starts one year is not always the starter next. In 2015, GB had this thing called influx of cheap youthful CB talent; this means going forward no past starting CBs' job is safe, especially one called a "slot CB" [Read below on the hysteric nature of the fan term "slot CB"]. Kuhn wasn't resigned because the staff saw what Rip does in practice and in meetings; Kuhn doesn't get to keep his job in 2016 because of what he did in 2015. Neither does "slot CB" Hayward.

Hayward got as many snaps as he did in 2015 ONLY because youngters were learning the playbook. In 2016, the dynamic is different; suddenly Hayward's numerous mental lapses and refusal to make contact makes him lesser than 3 youngsters, who last year didn't have as good of a command of the playbook as Hayward, but in 2016 do.

In the black-white/sound- bite world reading comprehension, accuracy is not important. Here's some help with the TRUTH of the matter, less all the hysteric semantics:

"5M" and "5.1M per 6M Guaranteed [emphasis added]" is not the same. To discuss cap implications and misrepresent Hayward's contract as 5M, when its 3yr/15.3M, at best lacks proper care, at worst its an attempt to deceive because there is some ulterior agenda. Packer fans more than any others get into an irrational hyper-rage when their team loses and GMs and Coaches bear the brunt of their rage, because idols need to be protected.

Illuminating the hysteric use of the euphemistic fan term "Slot CB" with use of some simile:

In baseball "long relief pitchers" are only this because they are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to start, set-up or close. Lets take Travis Wood. In 2014 he led the team is starts. In May of 2015, Wada [and later Haren] became the 5th starters relegating Wood to Long-R. They didn't call Wood the starter even though he started 2 more games or ended up with more starts than Wada. And in 2016, no one gave him any mind at all that he was a starter.

Likewise, a "slot CB" is by definition a guy who is not good enough to play CB. When 3 CBs are needed the worst of the 3 plays the slot. If a team has 4 good "boundary CBs" to use your terminology then the "slot CB" will never see the field, be is a back-up. EG Sherman is a "boundary CB," if Seattle got 2 better one's, he takes the bench. If a 3rd CB is needed, Sherman is NOT remaining on the bench in favor of a "slot CB."

The hysteric flipptity-flop use of time:

Consider the statement: "Bart Starr would be a starter in 2016 because took 90+% of snaps in 1967; if that is not your definition of starter the term is meaningless." In the sound-bite world things have to be static; because there is no time to recognize the application of dynamics in a situation. But Rosters, starters, football is DYNAMIC, not STATIC, it is in a constant state of flux.

Now Grasshopper use this knowledge for good.