Rockmolder
15 years ago

Hawk played well today. Was good at cutting off angles for the running back and made a few nice tackles. Seemed pretty aggressive and assignment sure. Of course, since he didn't have 2 sacks and an interception, I fully expect people to dog him.

Same for Barnett.

"evad04" wrote:



So because we've been down on him when he plays average, we can't see it when he plays a very good game?

I liked Hawk's play this game. I liked our entire LBing core, really, and Hawk was standing out even from the rest of them.

Like Greg A. Bedard said during the game.

What has gotten into Hawk? Why doesn't he do this all the time? This is the player the Packers thought they were getting.

bozz_2006
15 years ago
I think limiting his playing time the last two games was a clever ploy. Coach was crazy to not be giving him any more PT. Yeah, crazy like a fox!
UserPostedImage
15 years ago
Yeah limiting his playing time looks like it payed off.
UserPostedImage
Stevetarded
15 years ago
God I hope Hawk plays like he did today for the rest of his career.
blank
buckeyepackfan
15 years ago
Put his butt on the field for more than 9 plays, and he will show up in the stats.

But it was just The Browns....Better off cutting his ass.
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
all_about_da_packers
15 years ago

Yeah limiting his playing time looks like it payed off.

"cheeseheads123" wrote:




Actually, no one really limited his playing time.

Capers matches personnel packages based on what the opposing team does. When the opposing team is running 3-wide sets, 4-wide sets ... then you're going to see Capers play Nickel and Dime packages... it's only logical he do so.


Today, a lot of snaps came Hawk's way because the Browns were playing their base offense a ton.

Hawk was never benched; next week he may very well return to 10-15 snaps because the Vikings might employ 3-wide a lot, forcing the Packers to go to their Nickel package. A lot of Hawk's limited play was directed by what opposing teams did.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
evad04
15 years ago

Hawk played well today. Was good at cutting off angles for the running back and made a few nice tackles. Seemed pretty aggressive and assignment sure. Of course, since he didn't have 2 sacks and an interception, I fully expect people to dog him.

Same for Barnett.

"Rockmolder" wrote:



So because we've been down on him when he plays average, we can't see it when he plays a very good game?

I liked Hawk's play this game. I liked our entire LBing core, really, and Hawk was standing out even from the rest of them.

Like Greg A. Bedard said during the game.

What has gotten into Hawk? Why doesn't he do this all the time? This is the player the Packers thought they were getting.

"evad04" wrote:


Hawk hasn't played poorly at all this year. He just wasn't getting as many snaps. A lot of nickel defense means less Hawk. It isn't rocket science.

The point I'm trying to make is that people continue to hold him to his draft stock. How come we don't make differing qualifications for players not selected in the first five picks? "Man, Johnny Jolly played like crap today -- he's not living up to that 6th round draft pick!" Hawk was drafted a while ago. I don't find it necessary to demand top-five performances from him. He's a cog in a wheel, he always plays hard, and for years he's had the undesirable task of having more or less "boring" duties in our defenses.
William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."
buckeyepackfan
15 years ago
"The point I'm trying to make is that people continue to hold him to his draft stock. How come we don't make differing qualifications for players not selected in the first five picks? "Man, Johnny Jolly played like crap today -- he's not living up to that 6th round draft pick!" Hawk was drafted a while ago. I don't find it necessary to demand top-five performances from him. He's a cog in a wheel, he always plays hard, and for years he's had the undesirable task of having more or less "boring" duties in our defenses. "

The voice of reason and understanding!!!!!! To bad it will be lost on those who Think AJ is overpaid and underachieving.
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
Rockmolder
15 years ago

Hawk played well today. Was good at cutting off angles for the running back and made a few nice tackles. Seemed pretty aggressive and assignment sure. Of course, since he didn't have 2 sacks and an interception, I fully expect people to dog him.

Same for Barnett.

"evad04" wrote:



So because we've been down on him when he plays average, we can't see it when he plays a very good game?

I liked Hawk's play this game. I liked our entire LBing core, really, and Hawk was standing out even from the rest of them.

Like Greg A. Bedard said during the game.

What has gotten into Hawk? Why doesn't he do this all the time? This is the player the Packers thought they were getting.

"Rockmolder" wrote:

"evad04" wrote:


Hawk hasn't played poorly at all this year. He just wasn't getting as many snaps. A lot of nickel defense means less Hawk. It isn't rocket science.

The point I'm trying to make is that people continue to hold him to his draft stock. How come we don't make differing qualifications for players not selected in the first five picks? "Man, Johnny Jolly played like crap today -- he's not living up to that 6th round draft pick!" Hawk was drafted a while ago. I don't find it necessary to demand top-five performances from him. He's a cog in a wheel, he always plays hard, and for years he's had the undesirable task of having more or less "boring" duties in our defenses.



I didn't say poorly, I said average. That's what he has been, if you ask me, average. If that boring job is picking up blockers, I have to admit that he's doing a pretty good job. He's been containing 5 yards deep very good, as well.

Today, however, we saw that that isn't his only job. When he's supposed to stuff the run, you usually see him 5 yards deep on our side. Today, he was 5 yard deep on theirs. He was getting everywhere faster. He was playing more aggressive. He was hitting the holes harder than normally.

This game was great, so far this year (and last), he's been above average.

I guess your point is 'lost on me'.
RaiderPride
15 years ago
Great post ROCK. I understand where you are coming from.

From the way he played today... Led the team in tackles (7-1)

I hope is is "Unhappy" for the rest of the season.

Some people in life have to be Unhappy to be Happy.
""People Will Probably Never Remember What You Said, And May Never Remember What You Did. However, People Will Always Remember How You Made Them Feel."
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (43m) : I see what you did there Mucky
    Zero2Cool (43m) : dammit. 3:25pm
    Zero2Cool (44m) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
    Mucky Tundra (51m) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
    Mucky Tundra (52m) : Yeah baby!
    Zero2Cool (1h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
    Zero2Cool (2h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
    beast (2h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
    Zero2Cool (3h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
    Zero2Cool (3h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
    packerfanoutwest (3h) : ok I stand corrected
    Zero2Cool (3h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
    Zero2Cool (3h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
    beast (3h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
    beast (3h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
    Zero2Cool (3h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
    beast (3h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
    beast (3h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
    beast (3h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
    Zero2Cool (3h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
    Zero2Cool (3h) : I literally just said it.
    packerfanoutwest (3h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
    Zero2Cool (3h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
    Zero2Cool (3h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
    packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
    Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
    packerfanoutwest (4h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
    packerfanoutwest (4h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
    packerfanoutwest (4h) : if bucs win out they win their division
    beast (4h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
    packerfanoutwest (4h) : falcons are already ahead of us
    beast (4h) : Packers will get in
    beast (4h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
    packerfanoutwest (4h) : they still are in the playoffs
    packerfanoutwest (4h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
    Zero2Cool (6h) : We can say it. We don't play.
    Mucky Tundra (7h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
    Mucky Tundra (7h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
    Mucky Tundra (7h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
    buckeyepackfan (8h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
    Mucky Tundra (17h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
    beast (17h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
    bboystyle (17h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
    Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
    Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses
    Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch
    buckeyepackfan (21h) : 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
    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 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    2h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    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

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