PackFanWithTwins
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
15 years ago
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
15 years ago

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
15 years ago

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
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.

"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
15 years ago

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
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.

"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:



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.

"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
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.

"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:



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.

"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
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.

"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
15 years ago
you can show all the stats , but im not buying hawk is the 5th best !!
jimmy b.
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (6h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (7h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (7h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (10h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Mucky Tundra (10h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
Mucky Tundra (10h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
buckeyepackfan (11h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks
Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.
Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak
beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other
beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)
Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.
beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs
packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.
beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating
Zero2Cool (20-Dec) : There is a rule that if your name starts with 'b' you lose 15 points. Hey, I don't make the rules, I just enforce them!
wpr (20-Dec) : and then there is Beast. Running away with it all.
beast (20-Dec) : As of tonight, 3 way tie for 2nd in Pick'em, that battle is interesting!
beast (20-Dec) : Lions vs Vikings could be the main last game as it could determine division winners or #1 vs #2 seed
Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Or if KC needs to win for the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : Right now it looks like the only prime worthy games are Det-Minny and KC-Denver (if Denver can clinch a wild card spot)
Mucky Tundra (20-Dec) : The entirety of week 18 being listed as flex is weird
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Matt LaFleur today says unequivocally "Ted Thompson had nothing to do with the drafting of Jordan Love."
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Apparently, the editing is what pieces comments together. That Ted thing ... fake news.
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : LaFleur "opportunity that Ted Thompson thought was too good to pass up"
Zero2Cool (19-Dec) : Jordan Love pick was Ted Thompson's idea.
Mucky Tundra (19-Dec) : Kyle Shanahan on signing De'Vondre Campbell as a FA last offseason: “We obviously made a mistake.”
packerfanoutwest (19-Dec) : Alexander’s last season with GB
Martha Careful (18-Dec) : if I were a professional athlete, I would probably look to see who the agent is for Kirk Cousins and then use him
beast (18-Dec) : $100 million fully guaranteed Kirk Cousins gets benched for rookie
Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : a lower case b
Mucky Tundra (18-Dec) : The real lie is how beast capitalized his name in his message while it's normally spelled with
packerfanoutwest (18-Dec) : haha that's a lie
beast (17-Dec) : Despite what lies other might tell, Beast didn't hate the Winter Warnings, it felt refreshing to Beast for some reason.
Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : whiteout uniforms in general are pretty lame and weak. NFL greed at it's worst
Martha Careful (17-Dec) : The Viking uniforms, the whiteout uniforms specifically absolutely suck
beast (17-Dec) : Thanks Zero2Cool, looks a lot better now
beast (17-Dec) : Seems like someone has a crush on me, can't stop talking about me
Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : Should be gooder now. The forum default theme went to goofy land.
Zero2Cool (17-Dec) : What the hell
packerfanoutwest (17-Dec) : yeah beast hates the Winter Warning Unies
Mucky Tundra (16-Dec) : Okay I'm glad to know it's not just something happening to me lol
Mucky Tundra (16-Dec) : Zero, did you copy the Packers uniforms from last night and white out the board?
beast (16-Dec) : Oh crap, is the board going to the Winter Warning Uniforms too?!? It's all white on white right now!
Zero2Cool (16-Dec) : WR Odell Beckham Jr is officially a free agent after clearing waivers.
Zero2Cool (16-Dec) : Packers are 6th in sacks.
Zero2Cool (16-Dec) : RB David Montgomery will undergo season-ending knee surgery.
Mucky Tundra (16-Dec) : Dan Campbell on onside kick with 12 minutes left: In hindsight, wish I didn’t do that
Zero2Cool (16-Dec) : They have that whole 12th man thing so ...
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.