Hawk at MLB ... after thoughts

[packers11]

Loved it, he never got run over and he made every sure tackle.

I hope when Nick gets back they move him to the weak side and Hawk in the middle...

Thoughts?

[Brando19]

Hawk needs to be at MLB. The Bears couldn't run up the middle without getting "Hawked".

[Joemailman]

I tend to agree. I think Hawk has natural leadership abilities, and MLB's are often the leader of great defenses. Now that Nick has a big contract extension, he might be more agreeable to a switch than he may have been in the past.

[red]

he didn't just make tackles, he was plugging holes making the rb run into his own guys

i was impressed, he looked like he belonged there. but it was just one game, he has at least 6 more games to show what he's got there

[denverYooper]

he didn't just make tackles, he was plugging holes making the rb run into his own guys

i was impressed, he looked like he belonged there. but it was just one game, he has at least 6 more games to show what he's got there

Yup. He called up some nice adjustments out there today.

[texaspackerbacker]

When the Packers first got Hawk and there was all the discussion of moving Barnett to the outside, I was always against it. However, after seeing Hawk play in the middle--excellent, after seeing Hawk play outside--mediocre, and after seeing Barnett even before he was hurt, play at a lower level than last season, I ready to change my mind.

I hereby agree with the idea of Hawk in the middle and Barnett outside for next season.

And for this season, I hope we see a whole lot more of what we saw today: just two LBs and 5 DBs. If it worked that well against a team like the Bears that has a decent rushing game and likes to use two TEs, then the 5 DB thing ouhgt to work even better against teams with better and more used wideouts.

[Joemailman]

The Packers also played the nickel extensively against Indy. It's worked well twice, but the game plan of the opposing offense may dictate how often you can use it. Will it work against a powerful running team like Carolina?

[Cheesehead Craig]

So far so good with Hawk. I won't anoint him the next MLB until he has a few more games under his belt at the position. New Orleans has a much better offense than the Bears, let's see how he does against them.

[Guiness]

The Packers also played the nickel extensively against Indy. It's worked well twice, but the game plan of the opposing offense may dictate how often you can use it. Will it work against a powerful running team like Carolina?

Bigby and Rouse are what make this option interesting. Bigby likes to lay the lumber, and is pretty solid. Rouse is your classic 'tweener'. Big safety, small LB - can he hold up against the run all game?

[boiga]

I really liked the defensive call on the 4th and 1 play. We used a 4-4 defense of four LBs with Hawk and Bishop in the middle. Together they ganged up on Forte and got us back the ball.

Hawk upped his game today, but the real star is the depth we've built into the line backing core. Chillar has turned into a good pickup and even Bishop is making contributions.

[Deputy Nutz]

Barnett missed one game a two years ago and Hodge filled with a mixed bag. Barnett hasn't missed any games since. It seems to me that it certainly didn't take the Packers' coaches very longs to switch Hawk. In other words I think they have been waiting for an opening to put Hawk in the middle.

Barnett objected strongly when Hodge was drafted. Part of it was that he wanted he big contract, another big part is pride. Barnett has been a slightly above average middle linebacker, but Hawk was a 5th pick in the draft and has yet been dynamic at WLB.

Hawk has 6 more games and hopefully the playoffs to secure the middle for the 2009 season and beyond.

[Partial]

Barnett missed one game a two years ago and Hodge filled with a mixed bag. Barnett hasn't missed any games since. It seems to me that it certainly didn't take the Packers' coaches very longs to switch Hawk. In other words I think they have been waiting for an opening to put Hawk in the middle.

Barnett objected strongly when Hodge was drafted. Part of it was that he wanted he big contract, another big part is pride. Barnett has been a slightly above average middle linebacker, but Hawk was a 5th pick in the draft and has yet been dynamic at WLB.

Hawk has 6 more games and hopefully the playoffs to secure the middle for the 2009 season and beyond.

If they end up switching schemes and go with a 3-4, I could see Barnett being the odd man out. Unfortunate as he seems like a good guy.

[oregonpackfan]

Assigning Barnett at MLB was a gamble that Mike Sherman took as Barnett never played MLB in college.

In his first two years at Oregon State, Barnett was a safety. For his last two years, he played outside linebacker. OSU had a solid MLB in Richard Seigler(who played a couple of seasons in the NFL).

As a couple of posters have noted, it is too early to judge Hawk's effectiveness from just one game. I do think, however, that Barnett could be an effective outside backer, be it strong or weak side.

[Tarlam!]

If they end up switching schemes and go with a 3-4, I could see Barnett being the odd man out. Unfortunate as he seems like a good guy.

They run the Bates scheme. I am surprised by you bringing a 3-4 scheme into the discussion. They haven't drafted or recruited players that can play that scheme, nor do they have a coaching staff that could employ it.

Or do they?

I wonder why you took the discussion in this direction. It seems absurd to me, but, what do I know?

[cheesner]

I always thought Barnett should be outside. Independently, I feel Hawk should be a MLB. I am hoping that this opportunity for Hawk will result in a permanent change in positions.

[The Gunshooter]

Assigning Barnett at MLB was a gamble that Mike Sherman took as Barnett never played MLB in college.

In his first two years at Oregon State, Barnett was a safety. For his last two years, he played outside linebacker. OSU had a solid MLB in Richard Seigler(who played a couple of seasons in the NFL).

As a couple of posters have noted, it is too early to judge Hawk's effectiveness from just one game. I do think, however, that Barnett could be an effective outside backer, be it strong or weak side.

It has been my philosophy for years that the reason teams who play on artificial turf fade at the end of the season and have only won two super bowls out of 42 is because those teams tend to utilize smaller players. These smaller guys tend to get banged up as the season progresses and then they are no longer more agile than the bigger player who plays on grass. Once that happens the smaller guy gets mauled.

That's why Barnett is useless to me. With his reduced agilty due to age, ACL and his sizable salary, he is not part of a championship formula.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Assigning Barnett at MLB was a gamble that Mike Sherman took as Barnett never played MLB in college.

In his first two years at Oregon State, Barnett was a safety. For his last two years, he played outside linebacker. OSU had a solid MLB in Richard Seigler(who played a couple of seasons in the NFL).

As a couple of posters have noted, it is too early to judge Hawk's effectiveness from just one game. I do think, however, that Barnett could be an effective outside backer, be it strong or weak side.

It has been my philosophy for years that the reason teams who play on artificial turf fade at the end of the season and have only won two super bowls out of 42 is because those teams tend to utilize smaller players. These smaller guys tend to get banged up as the season progresses and then they are no longer more agile than the bigger player who plays on grass. Once that happens the smaller guy gets mauled.

That's why Barnett is useless to me. With his reduced agilty due to age, ACL and his sizable salary, he is not part of a championship formula.
He's only 27 years old. I don't think his age is a factor at all at this point with his agility. His ACL injury will have more to say about that then anything next season. He has no history of being repeated injured so I don't see how your philosophy of injury to these types of players applies to Barnett at this point.

We'll see how he comes back from his injury but if he heals fine I think he's still a very good LB.

[prsnfoto]

I tend to agree. I think Hawk has natural leadership abilities, and MLB's are often the leader of great defenses. Now that Nick has a big contract extension, he might be more agreeable to a switch than he may have been in the past.


And if he don't like it they should trade him to Seattle for not being a team player and being a selfish primadonna. Hawk looked good today lets keep our fingers crossed it doesn't take much to look better than the softest MLB in the game. Ya Ya I know he can cover well but he is a frickin pussy against the run this is a good move any coach with balls would have already made our last two have lacked the balls.

[Partial]

If they end up switching schemes and go with a 3-4, I could see Barnett being the odd man out. Unfortunate as he seems like a good guy.

They run the Bates scheme. I am surprised by you bringing a 3-4 scheme into the discussion. They haven't drafted or recruited players that can play that scheme, nor do they have a coaching staff that could employ it.

Or do they?

I wonder why you took the discussion in this direction. It seems absurd to me, but, what do I know?

WSSP, the milwaukee sports radio station that covers the Packers has speculated at it from Week 4 or 5. Evidently their Packer Insider, Rob Demosky or the Green Bay Press Gazzette, thinks it will happen as well.

From a secondary perspective, I think we'd stick with the same style of physical play, it would just be a matter of adding the pieces in the front 7. Many of them are already in place and are versatile players. Jason Hunter, a back-up in the 4-3 has tremendous athletic ability and could be a dangerous starting OLB in a 3-4.

With that said, I think Hawk played very well in his debut, despite being injured. I think he's more instinctive and better at shedding blockers than Barny.

[sharpe1027]

I don't think any of us should be too surprised that Hawk was better in the run than Barnett, at least when playing against a physical-run oriented team like the Bears. It should be interesting when they play a pass-first team this coming week.

[Tony Oday]

I just like when Olin Kreutz got his pawns on Hawk middle of the first drive (I think) Hawk just pushed him off...that was great!

[MadtownPacker]

I was extremely impressed with Hawk at MLB. The whole flow of the defense seemed to follow his movement. His awareness of the ballcarriers location on the field is something Barnett has never showed. I dont recall too many, if any, plays of Hawk chasing someone down from behind. Nope, all his tackles where in your face hits. The defense was just brutal yesterday and I think that White boy in the middle had a lot to do with it. Remember this is coming from someone who has been a Barnett supporter this whole time.

[Joemailman]

Another thing I like about Hawk in the middle is that he's almost as ugly as Nitschke. Your MLB can't be ugly enough, as far as I'm concerned.

[rbaloha1]

Hawk looks more natural playing in the middle. Took on blocks and filled gaps very well.

Always thought Hawk appeared stiff and out of position on the outside.

Barnett should be on the strong side covering tes and backs.

[pbmax]

Its one game and a game we won in dominating fashion. Everyone looked good and separating out the truly gifted versus the tag alongs will take time and a few closer games. The one development that was evident was the lack of a monster run. Whether this was the D Line maintaining gaps or LBs in the correct hole, is a question for someone with game tape.

Some of the same folks who have been talking about the 3-4 were excitedly discussing the son to come ouster of Sanders last off-season. So their radar might be stuck.

The Packers have no ends for a 3-4. Thompson, Kampman and Montgomery are all too small to play end in a 3-4. Cole and Jolly are the right size but undisciplined. Its possible Jolly could do it, but as valuable as Chillar and Bishop might be, they are not going to dump Kampman and Thompson to switch schemes short term.

I have my doubts that Pickett is strong enough for a 3-4 nose tackle. He is big enough, but he can be washed out. And the only inside backer they have for a 3-4 might be Hawk. I seriously doubt this is going to happen due to personnel. It might only happen if they decide Sanders isn't going to get it done and the best hire they can find is a 3-4 guy. Even then, the tendency will be to stick with the program and personnel who are here in the short term.

[Fritz]

I'm with Joe - the mlb is all about ugliness.

Hawk is uglier than Barnett.

Thus, Hawk is a better mlb than Barnett.

Don't make football any harder, okay? It's not that hard of a game, really.

But I am also with those who caution us that it's only been one game with Hawk in the middle. I agree. He's got six more games to show that he can get even uglier. Nietschke certainly got uglier over time.

[The Gunshooter]

Assigning Barnett at MLB was a gamble that Mike Sherman took as Barnett never played MLB in college.

In his first two years at Oregon State, Barnett was a safety. For his last two years, he played outside linebacker. OSU had a solid MLB in Richard Seigler(who played a couple of seasons in the NFL).

As a couple of posters have noted, it is too early to judge Hawk's effectiveness from just one game. I do think, however, that Barnett could be an effective outside backer, be it strong or weak side.

It has been my philosophy for years that the reason teams who play on artificial turf fade at the end of the season and have only won two super bowls out of 42 is because those teams tend to utilize smaller players. These smaller guys tend to get banged up as the season progresses and then they are no longer more agile than the bigger player who plays on grass. Once that happens the smaller guy gets mauled.

That's why Barnett is useless to me. With his reduced agilty due to age, ACL and his sizable salary, he is not part of a championship formula.
He's only 27 years old. I don't think his age is a factor at all at this point with his agility. His ACL injury will have more to say about that then anything next season. He has no history of being repeated injured so I don't see how your philosophy of injury to these types of players applies to Barnett at this point.

We'll see how he comes back from his injury but if he heals fine I think he's still a very good LB.

If you like the George Cumby type LB then you will love Barnett.

[LL2]

I really liked the defensive call on the 4th and 1 play. We used a 4-4 defense of four LBs with Hawk and Bishop in the middle. Together they ganged up on Forte and got us back the ball.

Hawk upped his game today, but the real star is the depth we've built into the line backing core. Chillar has turned into a good pickup and even Bishop is making contributions.

I like Chillar too...He's a real solid back up and now starter.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Assigning Barnett at MLB was a gamble that Mike Sherman took as Barnett never played MLB in college.

In his first two years at Oregon State, Barnett was a safety. For his last two years, he played outside linebacker. OSU had a solid MLB in Richard Seigler(who played a couple of seasons in the NFL).

As a couple of posters have noted, it is too early to judge Hawk's effectiveness from just one game. I do think, however, that Barnett could be an effective outside backer, be it strong or weak side.

It has been my philosophy for years that the reason teams who play on artificial turf fade at the end of the season and have only won two super bowls out of 42 is because those teams tend to utilize smaller players. These smaller guys tend to get banged up as the season progresses and then they are no longer more agile than the bigger player who plays on grass. Once that happens the smaller guy gets mauled.

That's why Barnett is useless to me. With his reduced agilty due to age, ACL and his sizable salary, he is not part of a championship formula.
He's only 27 years old. I don't think his age is a factor at all at this point with his agility. His ACL injury will have more to say about that then anything next season. He has no history of being repeated injured so I don't see how your philosophy of injury to these types of players applies to Barnett at this point.

We'll see how he comes back from his injury but if he heals fine I think he's still a very good LB.

If you like the George Cumby type LB then you will love Barnett.
Sorry never saw him play so don't understand your reference.

[Lurker64]

We have one data point here. Barnett was a house on fire last year, and was a big part of that defense that got us to 13-3. This year, he was underwhelming. Who knows if it was the grim hand of age, minor nagging injuries, a tumultuous offseason, or what. Hopefully next year he returns to his 2007 form. Hawk has demonstrated himself as steady but unspectacular with occasional flashes at Will, and he played a good game at Mike. But one good game is not enough to determine anything. The Bears offense really wasn't on the field long enough to really get a good scouting report with Hawk at MLB.

[The Gunshooter]

Assigning Barnett at MLB was a gamble that Mike Sherman took as Barnett never played MLB in college.

In his first two years at Oregon State, Barnett was a safety. For his last two years, he played outside linebacker. OSU had a solid MLB in Richard Seigler(who played a couple of seasons in the NFL).

As a couple of posters have noted, it is too early to judge Hawk's effectiveness from just one game. I do think, however, that Barnett could be an effective outside backer, be it strong or weak side.

It has been my philosophy for years that the reason teams who play on artificial turf fade at the end of the season and have only won two super bowls out of 42 is because those teams tend to utilize smaller players. These smaller guys tend to get banged up as the season progresses and then they are no longer more agile than the bigger player who plays on grass. Once that happens the smaller guy gets mauled.

That's why Barnett is useless to me. With his reduced agilty due to age, ACL and his sizable salary, he is not part of a championship formula.
He's only 27 years old. I don't think his age is a factor at all at this point with his agility. His ACL injury will have more to say about that then anything next season. He has no history of being repeated injured so I don't see how your philosophy of injury to these types of players applies to Barnett at this point.

We'll see how he comes back from his injury but if he heals fine I think he's still a very good LB.

If you like the George Cumby type LB then you will love Barnett.
Sorry never saw him play so don't understand your reference.

http://www2.jsonline.com/packer/news/mar02/30481.asp

[vince]

We have one data point here. Barnett was a house on fire last year, and was a big part of that defense that got us to 13-3. This year, he was underwhelming. Who knows if it was the grim hand of age, minor nagging injuries, a tumultuous offseason, or what. Hopefully next year he returns to his 2007 form. Hawk has demonstrated himself as steady but unspectacular with occasional flashes at Will, and he played a good game at Mike. But one good game is not enough to determine anything. The Bears offense really wasn't on the field long enough to really get a good scouting report with Hawk at MLB.
Point taken, but Hawk appears to have good football instincts, be a more punishing run stuffer than Barnett, and appears to be fast and athletic enough to get from sideline to sideline. While one game is one game, seeing his play over the last two years leads me to believe A.J. Hawk may have the goods to get it done in the middle. In fact, he may well be better in the middle than he's been at the weakside. If that pans out, I don't know what you do with Barnett, Popp, and Chillar, but whatever you do, you may well have gotten both tougher and faster in all the right places. And as you say, we'll get plenty of opportunity to see Hawk in multiple different matchups for the rest of this year to see how he pans out.

It'll be interesting to see how everyone is used. Hopefully, everyone can stay healthy from here on out, as one more injury makes us very light at LB. Chillar's a very important guy on this defense now.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081117/PKR01/81117162/1058


“It’s only one game,” Packers linebackers coach Winston Moss said. “I hate to speculate. We’ll take it a game at a time, but he looked awfully good in there. He looked extremely comfortable. He did play to some of his strengths that we liked with him when we evaluated him coming out of college, so if he continues to improve on that, we’ll revisit that question maybe at the end of the year.”

After a successful debut in place of injured starter Nick Barnett, Hawk almost certainly will finish the season as the starting middle linebacker. There were some scouts who believed Hawk was more suited to play the middle after the Packers drafted him fifth overall in 2006. But the Packers had long been reluctant to move Barnett, the starter in the middle since 2003.

Hawk had no trouble getting the play calls to his teammates and seemed to excel while operating more in the box and less in coverage than he did playing the weak side.

“We’ve always thought (Hawk) had great instincts, and those instincts showed up (on Sunday),” Moss said. “When his matchup is more in the box, it allowed him to stay in the box and actually be a little bit more aggressive. When that tight end is releasing all the time and he has to get downfield and cover and has to play in space, I think he does an adequate job of that, but he is better staying around the box and playing up the field and attacking guys as opposed to playing off and reacting to the guy.”

[run pMc]

It has been my philosophy for years that the reason teams who play on artificial turf fade at the end of the season and have only won two super bowls out of 42 is because those teams tend to utilize smaller players. These smaller guys tend to get banged up as the season progresses and then they are no longer more agile than the bigger player who plays on grass. Once that happens the smaller guy gets mauled.

That's why Barnett is useless to me. With his reduced agilty due to age, ACL and his sizable salary, he is not part of a championship formula.

He's only 27 years old. I don't think his age is a factor at all at this point with his agility. His ACL injury will have more to say about that then anything next season. He has no history of being repeated injured so I don't see how your philosophy of injury to these types of players applies to Barnett at this point.

We'll see how he comes back from his injury but if he heals fine I think he's still a very good LB.

I think it's early to speculate that Barnett won't recover from the surgery and offseason rehab. He hasn't even had the surgery yet. I do think he was having an off-year, but I'm guessing the DL had a lot to do with it. I don't think his age will be a factor -- Woodson seems to be able to hang with WRs.

All players take a pounding, especially as the weather gets colder and the run game becomes more important. I wouldn't put too much stock in the turf or size as anything more than interesting theories -- TB, IND won recent Super Bowls with fast undersized LBs in the Cover 2.

As for GB switching to a 3-4, I don't see that happening. It usually requires a regime change and several years of drafting for that to take place (see: SF) and even then it's no guarantee to take root. From what I can tell TT hasn't been drafting 3-4 players, and the Sanders/Bates is a 4-3 style of defense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

All players take a pounding, especially as the weather gets colder and the run game becomes more important. I wouldn't put too much stock in the turf or size as anything more than interesting theories -- TB, IND won recent Super Bowls with fast undersized LBs in the Cover 2.

As for GB switching to a 3-4, I don't see that happening. It usually requires a regime change and several years of drafting for that to take place (see: SF) and even then it's no guarantee to take root. From what I can tell TT hasn't been drafting 3-4 players, and the Sanders/Bates is a 4-3 style of defense.

Agreed. I do get the feeling the coaches were almost waiting for something like this to happen, so they could move Hawk to the middle. If Hawk flourishes, it will be a lot easier for them to convince Barnett that a move outside is for the best.

[The Leaper]

Hawk is a natural MLB...he is playing out of position at OLB, which is why he will never be dominant there.

He looked very good in his first game at MLB against a pretty solid OL and run game. I'm guessing he only gets better from here.

[texaspackerbacker]

No way a change of scheme is gonna happen, however, I have come around to the point of view that Hawk in the middle and Barnett on the outside makes more sense.

[Joemailman]

I don't think any of us should be too surprised that Hawk was better in the run than Barnett, at least when playing against a physical-run oriented team like the Bears. It should be interesting when they play a pass-first team this coming week.

You'll probably see the nickel a lot again this week. N.O. has the #1 pass offense, but are near the bottom in rushing defense, averaging just 3.7 p/c.