I don't even see this as a glass half empty/glass half full thing. Our glass is overflowing with talent at the interior linebacker position. It is one of the strongest position groups on our team. I think it was pretty crappy for the writer to praise Matthews at the expense of Hawk. I'm just happy that Matthews played such a great game.

---

I'm not saying Bishop is a better option. He plays slower than Hawk. What I'm saying is that there doesn't appear to be any room in our defense for the skillset that Hawk (and Bishop, imo) bring to the table. Our OLBs are outside rushers and contain guys. That essentially means our ILBs need to be able to cover. If you can't cover, you can't play much ILB in this defense. Hawk can't cover...

---

i think the packers could have used hawk yesterday even in nickel packages. vick hurt the packers big time yesterday with his runs, so they could have easily brought him on the field to pay attention on the qb without any coverage responsibilities.

---

I was wondering why AJ was not playing. This makes my report on him real easy this week.

AJ Hawk is being wasted by The Packers. But I am sure he will be ready when his number is called.

Someone else said it, when The Packers knew Vick was going to be the qb the 2nd half, Hawk should have been in there helping to stop the run game.

Someone quoted stats that were dwindling for Hawk, how easy it is to forget that AJ played through groin and shoulder injuries 2 years ago, without missing a game, while being moved to middle linebacker(a position he had never played), when Barnett went down for the year.

Something just isn't right with Hawk and the coaches, IMHO he will not be re-signed next year and that will be a big mistake. We will see.

---

---

Clay is officially "the shit!"! Damn he's good!

---

Does someone have video of his first sack? I didn't get to see it because the first game (1pm EST) ran over, so I missed the first 5 minutes of the Packers game.

---

Blanket statements are wrong. Including this one.

Hawk had a pretty good int to seal a win against a decent TE last year. Was it Baltimore and Heap? Whatever, it was a great play. Saying he can't cover is not accurate. He isn't our best cover MLB.

But I would like him in against a strong rushing team.

He does make Barnette better by taking more attention on blitzes than Chillar.

---

Your gross oversimplification of what this defense needs notwithstanding, there's plenty of room for Hawk's skill-set. "That essentially means our ILBs need to be able to cover." Ability to cover is a prerequisite for all non-super-fatty defensive players. Hawk may not be a coverage dynamo, but you make it sound like he's Jarrett Bush blindfolded. Hardly the case.

As far as skills the translate, how about tackling? Hawk is a very sure tackler, one of the Packers' best. You don't think play recognition, pursuit, and tackling are important for an ILB in a 3-4? My God, ILBs account for the majority of tackles in those defenses.

You're oversimplifying things WAY too much.

---

And you're saying that I'm saying tackling, recognition, and pursuit don't matter? Riiiiiiiiight. I'm saying that the way this defense is shaped, it often leads to Hawk being the odd man out, even though he is a sure tackler and is strong in pursuit. Aaron Kampman had a great skillset, but unfortunately it didn't fit this team's needs very well. And no, I'm not equating the two, it's just an illustration.

---