Hawk = Packers 5th best linebacker· Page 2

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

15 years ago

Can't compare stats on these guys. I have used this analogy before. Hawk is the FB of the defense. He many not be making as many tackles or getting huge sacks and making the highlights. He is just doing his job. He takes on the lead blockers so Barnett or who ever can make the tackle. He is sacrificing himself for the team.

"Stevetarded" wrote:

So what is Hawk doing that Lansanah or some other big LB couldn't have? It seems like a waste to me.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

That may be, but I don't blame Hawk for the change in the scheme. The first two years, Hawk was pretty good. Last year, I am not even looking at because of injury and getting shuffled around.

But he is on the team. Should we just bench him because a cheaper player may be able to do the same thing, close to the same? I don't think so. I would be for trading Hawk as long as Chillar is around to take his role. We then need a backup for him. Bishop is not it.

Leading on the cross blitz or taking on the FB is Hawks job, We don't want Barnett or Bishop with that responsibility, they are to small. Chillar and Hawk are sharing time because the each are better at one aspect over the other. Until one of them is no longer around, that is the way it should stay. Just because they are not getting the tackles doesn't matter because that is the job.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

buckeyepackfan
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#12

I hope everyone saw the sarcasm in my first post.

A.J. Hawk=SOLID LB, in this system he isn't going to lead the team in tackle(like he did his rookie year).

I agree if A.J. Hawk is the weekest link in defense, then we don't have a lot to worry about.

I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!

Felipe7777777
Registered

15 years ago

#13

A.J. Hawk was the best pick at the time at the 5th spot. He was heralded by all as the safest defensive player on the board even before the first selection was made.

Huff or Ngata could have been better, but at the 5 spot, it was the best pick at the time and I think we also had a need at LB. Best player available and fit a need.

I can't fault Ted on that pick.

I can fault for Hawk declining in production year after year. I like it when he hits someone, because he hits them hard. It's neat. I like Hawk more than Barnett.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I agree Hawk was the consensus safe pick in that draft and i still dont see why people want him benched for someone else, the LBers are playing pretty good right now no need to change anything up EVEN IF he was a first round pick, he's doing what he's supposed to do in this 3-4 scheme and in turn making the other LBers look better and vice versa....

what i do disagree is that Huff would've been a better pick...Huff is garbage, horrible safety, Ngata on the other hand is beastin

blank

Tezzy
Senior Member

15 years ago

#14

Bottomline: We're getting less production from Hawk than the other linebacker positions, and it's getting worse, not better. Barnett's our best, statistically speaking.

"macbob" wrote:

I still stand behind Hawk, and more now than ever. Just like this last statement about Barnett being the best statistical LB, statistically speaking. But yet most of use would agree that Barnett is near the bottom in what he does for the defense. I believe Hawk's physical play brings a lot to the LB corp and the front 7 unit as a whole. And when needed, hawk has repeatedly been to the sidelines making tackles on plays that could have been big hitters. He isn't going to get to the QB unless there is a breakdown in the protection when we send everyone. His numbers can also be an indication of how well the defensive trenches have played. So I liked the stats, but worth isn't always in the numbers. As you point out about Barnett. If all we're doing is comparing him to expectations from draft, that's fine. But in my reality his worth is right there.

On top of every beard grows a man.
"The Bears are shell-shocked... and it's breaking my heart."

nerdmann
Premier Member

15 years ago

#15

"macbob" wrote:

I'm not buying it. He was a 1st round, 5th pick in the draft. He needs to be more than the FB of the defense. He needs to be the star QB/RB/WR.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

This may all be the case, but I'd like to see Bishop out there. Give Bishop a chance, if he F's up, then at least we'd know. Then we can go back to Hawk.
Bishop just makes plays, flat out.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

nerdmann
Premier Member

15 years ago

#16

Well, I'm glad you brought this up. Not to denigrate Hawk, but to silence Barnett's critics. I've always loved Nick (in a manly way). He's consistent. Sure, he gets caught doing something dumb, but name one LB who ever played the game who never got juked or missed a tackle.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I'd take Hawk over Barnett.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

nerdmann
Premier Member

15 years ago

#17

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

So what is Hawk doing that Lansanah or some other big LB couldn't have? It seems like a waste to me.

"Stevetarded" wrote:

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

Bishop is bigger than Hawk, is he not?

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#18

"nerdmann" wrote:

So what is Hawk doing that Lansanah or some other big LB couldn't have? It seems like a waste to me.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

"Stevetarded" wrote:

Bishop is bigger than Hawk, is he not?

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

Bishop is 6'2" 238
Hawk is 6'1" 248

Bishop is much closer to Barnett at 6'2" 236

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

Tezzy
Senior Member

15 years ago

#19

"nerdmann" wrote:

I'm not buying it. He was a 1st round, 5th pick in the draft. He needs to be more than the FB of the defense. He needs to be the star QB/RB/WR.

"macbob" wrote:

This may all be the case, but I'd like to see Bishop out there. Give Bishop a chance, if he F's up, then at least we'd know. Then we can go back to Hawk.
Bishop just makes plays, flat out.

"PackFanWithTwins" wrote:

Bishop needs to help himself. The snaps he has gotten he needs to take better advantage of. I believe that if he had committed less penalties from those snaps he'd get more opportunities. The one that really sticks out was the offside penalty on that play that PI got called on. To me the preseason Bishop looks much different then the regular season Bishop in those snaps he has had. And I honestly believe he makes more mistakes than big plays in the big picture.

On top of every beard grows a man.
"The Bears are shell-shocked... and it's breaking my heart."

nyrpack
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#20

you can show all the stats , but im not buying hawk is the 5th best !!

jimmy b.

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 (11h) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?

beast (11h) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach

Zero2Cool (20h) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one

Zero2Cool (20h) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.

dfosterf (23h) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you

wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.

wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.

wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.

Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.

Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down

Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor

dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious

beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere

beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.

beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.

beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...

beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered

wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.

wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.

wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet

beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury

beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State

beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled

Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.

Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.

Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE

packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome

Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.

Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.

Mucky Tundra (20-Jan) : what's so funny?

Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

25 - 27

Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

22 - 24

Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM

Eagles

10 - 22