Also makes me question Alexander again as there would be too many cooks in the kitchen.
Yep. Keep your flexibility as long as you need to, but this is probably the final nail in any chance Jaire plays with us this year. Despite uneven performance, it made no sense to not leave a spot for Bullard after one year and spending a 2nd-round pick on him.
Also makes me question Alexander again as there would be too many cooks in the kitchen.
Yep. Keep your flexibility as long as you need to, but this is probably the final nail in any chance Jaire plays with us this year. Despite uneven performance, it made no sense to not leave a spot for Bullard after one year and spending a 2nd-round pick on him.
Currently have 5 CBs with legit NFL starting experience.
3 of them have legit experience as a slot. 4 of them have legit experience as an outside guy.
3 of them are under contract after 2025. It's not a terrible spot to be in for the exception that we don't have a red chipper or let alone blue chipper unless a healthy Jaire Alexander is motivated in that situation.
Re: Packers signing Nate Hobbs, CB 4 years, $48M
Posted: 11 Mar 2025 10:18
by lupedafiasco
No shot Alexander stays on this team. If anything this deal confirms it for me.
Re: Packers signing Nate Hobbs, CB 4 years, $48M
Posted: 11 Mar 2025 10:58
by Pugger
My only hesitation is he has issues staying on the field.
Re: Packers signing Nate Hobbs, CB 4 years, $48M
Posted: 11 Mar 2025 12:17
by NCF
Re: Packers signing Nate Hobbs, CB 4 years, $48M
Posted: 11 Mar 2025 18:58
by APB
We essentially traded the Raiders Eric Stokes for Hobbs and more money.
I’ll take that trade.
Re: Packers signing Nate Hobbs, CB 4 years, $48M
Posted: 11 Mar 2025 21:52
by lupedafiasco
I know reports are he’s playing outside. I think that will really be a mistake. It’s so hard to find nickel CBs like this that can cover but tackle this we’ll.
I know reports are he’s playing outside. I think that will really be a mistake. It’s so hard to find nickel CBs like this that can cover but tackle this we’ll.
My guess is they are high on Bullard but I agree that I hate putting a guy outside his natural position. I also don't love Bullard needing to cover guys like St Brown in the slot - it's just a natural advantage for St. Brown but do think Bullard can do well against TEs, RBs and larger WRs in the slot.
My ultimate hope is Hobbs can play both and they move him around like they did with Woodson. I view Valentine and Nixon as outside only and Bullard inside only and robber role and Hobbs as either inside or outside.
Re: Packers signing Nate Hobbs, CB 4 years, $48M
Posted: 12 Mar 2025 10:50
by lupedafiasco
What I saw last year from Bullard, I am not high on him at all. His coverage was really poor IMO. Good tackler though.
Re: Packers signing Nate Hobbs, CB 4 years, $48M
Posted: 12 Mar 2025 11:05
by Labrev
While I usually dislike trying to pigeonhole guys into certain spots rather than just playing them at their best spot, I think it makes sense to try him there again and see if it works.
For one thing, Hafley is specifically good at coaching up DBs, so I would let him cook. Two, personnel. We have a guy to play in the slot. Bullard. If he struggles again then just bench him and slide Hobbs over.
Three, I think it should be a lot easier for him to do the job here than it was in LV. We can generally get pressure when we're not going up against the elite OLs of the league (whereas if you block up Maxx Crosby, LV isn't getting any), there's great support behind him from our starting safety tandem, and we have an offense that (when they're on) can force teams to abandon the run.
I mean, Jaire played on the boundary for us too but from time to time would line up at nickel. Having that flexibility is a huge help against the Justin Jeffersons of the world who can line up outside but then motion inside.
Re: Packers signing Nate Hobbs, CB 4 years, $48M
Posted: 12 Mar 2025 11:06
by Labrev
Ultimately, if he proves up to the task, it makes him significantly more valuable than he already is. We are paying him a lot of money so we may as well try to maximize the investment. And if we are going to try to experiment with him, I rather get him to start working on it ahead of camp than in-season.
If he can't hack it, then whatever, move him back inside.
Re: Packers signing Nate Hobbs, CB 4 years, $48M
Posted: 12 Mar 2025 11:33
by Madcity_matt
At this point, he looks to be a good physical DB. I'm more than willing to let camp determine where he plays most of the snaps, and also would love to see him be semi-interchangeable as that gives Hafley more ways to disguise coverage and deal with injuries.
What I saw last year from Bullard, I am not high on him at all. His coverage was really poor IMO. Good tackler though.
I am there with you as well. Wasn't impressed with Bullard. The Vikings game was atrocious but I think the coaches admit they put him in a terrible spot.
Still. Not encouraging to see a player suck as bad as he did.
What I saw last year from Bullard, I am not high on him at all. His coverage was really poor IMO. Good tackler though.
I am there with you as well. Wasn't impressed with Bullard. The Vikings game was atrocious but I think the coaches admit they put him in a terrible spot.
Still. Not encouraging to see a player suck as bad as he did.
jmo, both Bullard and LVN worked hard to do well with combine drills, good cod scores, that do not transfer to ball skills, both are very tight in the hips, and that's what we have seen with both, again jmo, but this is common, happens with a lot of players, and they become over drafted and never pan out.
It's probably why football people say the combine is now not as good as just pro days to grade players
What I saw last year from Bullard, I am not high on him at all. His coverage was really poor IMO. Good tackler though.
I am there with you as well. Wasn't impressed with Bullard. The Vikings game was atrocious but I think the coaches admit they put him in a terrible spot.
Still. Not encouraging to see a player suck as bad as he did.
jmo, both Bullard and LVN worked hard to do well with combine drills, good cod scores, that do not transfer to ball skills, both are very tight in the hips, and that's what we have seen with both, again jmo, but this is common, happens with a lot of players, and they become over drafted and never pan out.
It's probably why football people say the combine is now not as good as just pro days to grade players
Team's don't care about the combine outside of being able to talk to the players. It's only a tool to reinforce what they've seen on tape.
Unless you are the Raiders, then you just wait for 40 times.
I am there with you as well. Wasn't impressed with Bullard. The Vikings game was atrocious but I think the coaches admit they put him in a terrible spot.
Still. Not encouraging to see a player suck as bad as he did.
jmo, both Bullard and LVN worked hard to do well with combine drills, good cod scores, that do not transfer to ball skills, both are very tight in the hips, and that's what we have seen with both, again jmo, but this is common, happens with a lot of players, and they become over drafted and never pan out.
It's probably why football people say the combine is now not as good as just pro days to grade players
Team's don't care about the combine outside of being able to talk to the players. It's only a tool to reinforce what they've seen on tape.
Unless you are the Raiders, then you just wait for 40 times.
haha, the AL Davises of GManship will attest to that, they all carry two stop watches
it is a great way for teams to get a profile on a player, find out more about players teams want to move or wont resign, it still has a purpose obviously.
and players train to do well on the exercises, I would do the same, right now I would guess my 40 time to be in the neighborhood of my age, possibly a smidge lower nice to see you have a bit more free time to post Paco
should have played the song lets get physical I like that part, not so much lining up 10 yards deep on 3rd and 1, and while he brushed off a lousy blocking attempt and made a play, the runner still got a first down.
ya need to play physically, especially in the slot, hopefully Hobbs is worth what we paid for him
should have played the song lets get physical I like that part, not so much lining up 10 yards deep on 3rd and 1, and while he brushed off a lousy blocking attempt and made a play, the runner still got a first down.
ya need to play physically, especially in the slot, hopefully Hobbs is worth what we paid for him
The more and more I am hearing from Raiders fans is Hobbs is absolutely a stud and worth the money...if he's healthy.
Health and availability is absolutely his primary knock.
I like that part, not so much lining up 10 yards deep on 3rd and 1, and while he brushed off a lousy blocking attempt and made a play, the runner still got a first down.