Sounds like you guys are looking for some coverage data. I admit, it probably should have been in the story as well.
2011 Coverage grades: Hawk +1.7, Bishop -2.1 and Smith -0.4 For Bishop and Hawk, that's good for 14th and 32nd respectively among top 50 ILB and MLBs in snaps.
2010 Coverage grades: Hawk +5.6, Bishop +4.7
On a game by game basis, our grades show Hawk was up and down in coverage. Good games (@CHI, STL, DET) and poor (NO, @SD, @KC and against NYG in playoffs)
Bishop had 2 poor games (CHI, @ATL) and no particularily good games. Smith was pretty bad @NYG and really good against OAK.
More 2011 stats:
Hawk 64.3 comp %, 1 TD, 0 INT, 4 PD, 90.6 NFL rating
Smith 76.2 comp %, 0 TD, 1 INT, 0 PD, 75.5 NFL rating
Bishop 78.7 comp %, 2 TD, 0 INT, 3 PD, 117.2 NFL rating
PFF signature stats for coverage.
Coverage snaps/target = Hawk 9.6 (13th), Smith 5.3, Bishop 7.2 (38th)
Coverage snaps/reception allowed = Hawk 15.1 (7th), Smith 6.9, Bishop 8.7 (46th)
Yards allowed per coverage snap = Hawk 0.67 (4th), Smith 1.35, Bishop 1.38 (48th)
What these signature stats don't take into account, is how a player is used in the scheme. For example, when the Packers were caught with out enough DBs to cover the slot, it was Bishop who moved out on either the tight end or even WR which likely meant longer pass routes. The large disparity in coverage snaps per reception allowed could be explained by the fact that just because Hawk was dropping into coverage, didn't mean he had a pass route to cover (i.e. in man defense, if the RB stays into pass block) so that would reduce the number targets. The signature stats can help give you a picture of things, but coverage grades give the best idea of actual performance in coverage.
Bryan Hall - Pro Football Focus