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 (3h) : Seems like he was just pissed because he was no longer the starter

beast (3h) : Campbell is right, he's rich and he doesn't have to explain sh!t... but that attitude gives teams reasons to never sign him again.

dfosterf (22-Feb) : I have some doubt about all that

dfosterf (22-Feb) : I read De'Vondre Campbell's tweet this morning (via the New York Post) Florio says that if he invested his earnings wisely, he will be good

beast (20-Feb) : I haven't followed, but I believe he's good when healthy, just hasn't been able to stay healthy.

dfosterf (20-Feb) : Hasn"t Bosa missed more games than he has played in the last 3 years?

Mucky Tundra (19-Feb) : He hasn't been too bad when healthy but I don't feel like I ever heard much about when he is

Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Felt like he was more interested in his body, than football. He flashed more than I expected

Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : When he was coming out, I thought he'd be flash in pan.

Mucky Tundra (19-Feb) : Joey seems so forgettable compared to his brother for some reason

Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : NFL informed teams today that the 2025 salary cap will be roughly $277.5M-$281.5M

Zero2Cool (19-Feb) : Los Angeles Chargers are likely to release DE Joey Bosa this off-season as a cap casualty, per league source.

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : If the exploit is not fixed, we'll see tons of "50 top free agents, 50 perfect NFL team fits: We picked where each should sign in March" lo

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Issue should be solved, database cleaned and held strong working / meeting. Boom!

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : It should be halted now.

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : usually spambots are trying to get traffic to shady websites filled with spyware; the two links being spammed were to the Packers website

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : you know when you put it that way combined with the links it was spamming (to the official Packers website)

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yep. You can do that with holding down ENTER on a command in Console of browser

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : even with the rapid fire posts?

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I'm not certain it's a bot.

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I've got to go to work soon which is a pity because I'm enthralled by this battle between the bot and Zero

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, I see what that did. Kind of funny.

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : now it's a link to Wes Hodkiezwicz mailbag

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Now they're back with another topic

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : oh lol

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : I have a script that purges them now.

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : 118 Topics with Message.

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : what's 118 (besides a number)?

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : They got 118 slapped in there.

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : that's why it confused the hell out of me

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Yeah, but this is taking a headline and slapping it into the Packers Talk

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Wasnt there a time guests could post in the help forum?

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : lol good question, kind of impressed!

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : So how is a guest posting?

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Tell them its an emergency

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Working. Meetings.

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Lots of fun; the spam goes back 4 or 5 pages by this point

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought you'd look for yourself and put 2 and 2 together lol. I overestimated ya ;)

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : I thought Guests couldnt post?

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : And gosh that's gonna be fun to clean up! hahaa

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : Oh. Why not just say that then? Geez.

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : check the main forum, seems a spam bot is running amok

Zero2Cool (18-Feb) : What?

Mucky Tundra (18-Feb) : Is the Packers online game "Packers Predict" now available for 2024? I can't tell

Zero2Cool (17-Feb) : Bengals planning to Franchise Tag Tamaurice Higgins

Zero2Cool (14-Feb) : Packers are hiring Luke Getsy as senior offensive assistant.

Martha Careful (12-Feb) : I would love to have them both, esp. Crosby, but either might be too expensive.

Zero2Cool (12-Feb) : Keisean Nixon is trying to get Maxx Crosby and Davante Adams lol

Mucky Tundra (11-Feb) : Yeah where did it go?

packerfanoutwest (11-Feb) : or did you resctrict access to that topic?

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