McGinn: Hawk, Epitome of Mediocrity

[wist43]

We definitely need upgrades at both ILB positions, but of course 1265 doesn't agree.

I reluctantly signed off on the Hawk pick b/c I figured he at least wouldn't be a bust, but he's underperformed even what I expected. Most Packerrats expected he'd be a probowler, but I just didn't see it. He had great stats in college, but when I watched him in college he didn't look dynamic at all. He garbaged into sacks, and he looked average in every way to me - he's proven to be just that as a pro.

I wanted Vernon Davis or Ngata in that draft as I remember, and both have been much better than Hawk. Hawk hasn't been a bust per se, but you need to get more out of a #5 pick. Hopefully both he and Brad Jones will be gone next year, and we can start over at ILB.

[Fritz]

We definitely need upgrades at both ILB positions, but of course 1265 doesn't agree.

I reluctantly signed off on the Hawk pick b/c I figured he at least wouldn't be a bust, but he's underperformed even what I expected. Most Packerrats expected he'd be a probowler, but I just didn't see it. He had great stats in college, but when I watched him in college he didn't look dynamic at all. He garbaged into sacks, and he looked average in every way to me - he's proven to be just that as a pro.

I wanted Vernon Davis or Ngata in that draft as I remember, and both have been much better than Hawk. Hawk hasn't been a bust per se, but you need to get more out of a #5 pick. Hopefully both he and Brad Jones will be gone next year, and we can start over at ILB.

Uh, even morose McGinn understands that the Packer execs know an upgrade at ILB is needed - both Shazier and Mosely are mentioned in the article. Your insistence that somehow the Packer front office walks around saying "yeah, we're happy to be mediocre on defense" is not only preposterous but takes away from some of the decent points you try to make.

I think the front office understands Hawk's value and his limitations, and I don't think if they had a chance they'd somehow pass on the opportunity to put a better player than he is in that spot. They've been spending their draft resources on other areas, though sadly the last few first rounders have not played up to what I'd consider a first-round status.

But any knucklehead could write an article lamenting a weak position on a football team, and point out examples of players from other teams that are way better.

But every team's resources are limited, so it's really not very helpful to say that the Packers, or any team, shoulda coulda got these other players. Sure, but if they'd, say, traded up to get Shazier or Mosely, there'd be no Clinton-Dix.

No, the Packer inside linebackers aren't very good. But I highly doubt that the Packer front office is content and happy and wouldn't want anyone else.

[Carolina_Packer]

Uh, even morose McGinn understands that the Packer execs know an upgrade at ILB is needed - both Shazier and Mosely are mentioned in the article. Your insistence that somehow the Packer front office walks around saying "yeah, we're happy to be mediocre on defense" is not only preposterous but takes away from some of the decent points you try to make.

I think the front office understands Hawk's value and his limitations, and I don't think if they had a chance they'd somehow pass on the opportunity to put a better player than he is in that spot. They've been spending their draft resources on other areas, though sadly the last few first rounders have not played up to what I'd consider a first-round status.

But any knucklehead could write an article lamenting a weak position on a football team, and point out examples of players from other teams that are way better.

But every team's resources are limited, so it's really not very helpful to say that the Packers, or any team, shoulda coulda got these other players. Sure, but if they'd, say, traded up to get Shazier or Mosely, there'd be no Clinton-Dix.

No, the Packer inside linebackers aren't very good. But I highly doubt that the Packer front office is content and happy and wouldn't want anyone else.

I think the front office never tries to outspend what turn out to be mistakes, meaning, if they sign a guy to an extension and he doesn't grade out to the level they are paying him, they don't just kick him to the curb and bring in a free agent like some teams do. Like it or not, TT is never going to swing for the fence on free agent signings because I think he views one of his core jobs as GM is to keep the salary cap situation healthy and flexible. That said, I agree with Fritz that they know it's time to move on from what they have, and they'll do that in their deliberate, non-splashy, player development way. They are probably still wondering if Sam Barrington has the goods to take over, instead of some teams who might spend a boat load on a FA ILB.

[Zool]

I reluctantly signed off on the Hawk pick b/c I figured he at least wouldn't be a bust

I'm just glad they asked for your opinion.

[wist43]

I'm just glad they asked for your opinion.

Sand in your vagina??

[Fosco33]

Hawk may bring leadership/vet appeal and communication. But I've been saying for a long time here that he's a soft pillow for opponents to land on. There are way too many plays where he takes a bad angle and his coverage is poor at best.

If they found the magic pony of leadership and upgraded athleticism - I think the brass would've done so by now.

[Zool]

Sand in your vagina??

Head too large to use doors?