LeRoy Butler says

[Partial]

That Bishop and Thompson look very good, and should be starting over Matthews and Hawk (I'm pretty sure Thompson is starting, but LeRoy is convinced Matthews will ultimately get the nod due to his draft spot).

He said Bishop is by far the best linebacker out there. He is a torpedo that is bowling people over. He said the collision between Bishop and Johnson yesterday was one for the ages.

Evidently Johnson is just a throwback, vintage fullback. He is evidently standing out in practice big time said the WSSP crew, and while he can't catch the ball, he will knock you on your ass and the job is his to lose as lead blocker.

Interesting observations from two former Packers, Gary Ellerson and LeRoy Butler.

[Fritz]

. . . that Cutler is a pussy?

[Freak Out]

That Bishop and Thompson look very good, and should be starting over Matthews and Hawk (I'm pretty sure Thompson is starting, but LeRoy is convinced Matthews will ultimately get the nod due to his draft spot).

He said Bishop is by far the best linebacker out there. He is a torpedo that is bowling people over. He said the collision between Bishop and Johnson yesterday was one for the ages.

Evidently Johnson is just a throwback, vintage fullback. He is evidently standing out in practice big time said the WSSP crew, and while he can't catch the ball, he will knock you on your ass and the job is his to lose as lead blocker.

Interesting observations from two former Packers, Gary Ellerson and LeRoy Butler.

Where are you reading/hearing this stuff?

[DonHutson]

Sounds like Chillar has been making a lot of plays, too. If nothing else, he and Bishop should provide quality depth.

I'd love to see somebody take the FB job and run with it. Kuhn and Hall are both decent, but rarely noteworthy. Johnson, along with the apparent emphasis on bigger and stronger OL, should boost the yards per carry if he's as good as they make him sound.

[Fritz]

Sounds like Chillar has been making a lot of plays, too. If nothing else, he and Bishop should provide quality depth.

I'd love to see somebody take the FB job and run with it. Kuhn and Hall are both decent, but rarely noteworthy. Johnson, along with the apparent emphasis on bigger and stronger OL, should boost the yards per carry if he's as good as they make him sound.

You funny guy, you.

[bobblehead]

One of the big things I liked about MM and TT in the beginning was the declaration that they didn't care where you were drafted or what you were paid, the best player would get the job. Several years later I am disappointed as they must have meant: I don't care where Sherman drafted you or pays you, but if you are my guy then you will be handed the job.

Last year Chillar was by far the best LB on the team but almost never started. It sounds like he is lights out so far this year, and if it continues and he doesn't start I will begin to join those who question the current regime. Same with BJack last year as he was clearly superior to Grant early on, but we paid grant so..........

[Fritz]

The only problem with your logic, Bobble, is that Chillar was a TT signing.

[PlantPage55]

LeRoy Butler has a history of being very vocal and very wrong.

[Fritz]

Dude should sign up for Packerrats then.

[Partial]

That Bishop and Thompson look very good, and should be starting over Matthews and Hawk (I'm pretty sure Thompson is starting, but LeRoy is convinced Matthews will ultimately get the nod due to his draft spot).

He said Bishop is by far the best linebacker out there. He is a torpedo that is bowling people over. He said the collision between Bishop and Johnson yesterday was one for the ages.

Evidently Johnson is just a throwback, vintage fullback. He is evidently standing out in practice big time said the WSSP crew, and while he can't catch the ball, he will knock you on your ass and the job is his to lose as lead blocker.

Interesting observations from two former Packers, Gary Ellerson and LeRoy Butler.

Where are you reading/hearing this stuff?

WSSP. He frequently hosts the afternoon show with Gary Ellerson and a couple of other guys.

[Lurker64]

I don't think Bishop should be starting at all. Bishop plays LB like a college LB, where he attacks a hole before the play develops. When he guesses right, he's successful in the form of TFLs, sacks, or "blowed up" plays. When he guesses wrong, he gets burned. His successes will be visually exciting and impressive, but he'll get you burned too much to start.

Hawk hesitates a bit much to be great in the middle (but he hesitates the perfect amount for a WLB), while Barnett basically displays the perfect ratio of anticipation to participation. He declares basically at the exact instant that the offensive play does. IMO, Hawk is going to give us fewer impact plays in the middle, but is going to get burned much, much less than Bishop and be better against the run than Chillar.

The starting two should be Hawk and Barnett, if Barnett is healthy.

[sharpe1027]

One of the big things I liked about MM and TT in the beginning was the declaration that they didn't care where you were drafted or what you were paid, the best player would get the job. Several years later I am disappointed as they must have meant: I don't care where Sherman drafted you or pays you, but if you are my guy then you will be handed the job.

Last year Chillar was by far the best LB on the team but almost never started. It sounds like he is lights out so far this year, and if it continues and he doesn't start I will begin to join those who question the current regime. Same with BJack last year as he was clearly superior to Grant early on, but we paid grant so..........

1.) Chillar was not a Sherman pick.
2.) Chillar was the 14th highest salary; Poppinga was the 12th highest. It doesn't get much closer than that.
3.) Why are you hung up on "starter" vs. "nonstarter"? They played Chillar alot, and did so to play to his strength last year, pass coverage.
4.) What the hell does MM care about TT's guys vs. Sherman's guys? TT doesn't set the starting lineup.

Perhaps you have an axe to grind and are seeing conspiracies where there are none because of it? If something like this does not make you sit back and reflect on your feelings/objectivity... :huh:

[Partial]

I don't think Bishop should be starting at all. Bishop plays LB like a college LB, where he attacks a hole before the play develops. When he guesses right, he's successful in the form of TFLs, sacks, or "blowed up" plays. When he guesses wrong, he gets burned. His successes will be visually exciting and impressive, but he'll get you burned too much to start.

Hawk hesitates a bit much to be great in the middle (but he hesitates the perfect amount for a WLB), while Barnett basically displays the perfect ratio of anticipation to participation. He declares basically at the exact instant that the offensive play does. IMO, Hawk is going to give us fewer impact plays in the middle, but is going to get burned much, much less than Bishop and be better against the run than Chillar.

The starting two should be Hawk and Barnett, if Barnett is healthy.

While I don't have an opinion on the topic because I don't know enough at this point since I haven't seen them in the new scheme, it is at least interesting hearing two former NFL players, including one very, very good one cite these observations.

I'm not making any judgements about this team period until I see them. I wouldn't write those guys off yet.

Sharpe,

I'm off the opinion that a general manager has far more influence over a starting lineup than first glance would reveal.

[Deputy Nutz]

Ellerson played in the NFL almost 20 years ago, and if Butler was so knowledgeble about football he would have landed that coaching job he has been seeking for the better part of 5 years.

What 3 days into training camp? Nice to know that certain players are adjusting to the scheme, but Thompson was reported a day or so ago as getting lit up.

[ND72]

So here is what I've read via twitter & other packer blogs regarding most everyone mentioned here.

* Jeremy Thompson looks good in pass coverage, but chad clifton has been making him look like a high school cheerleader on his pass rush.

* Bishop has played solid on blitz's, but has been lost in pass coverage, and is a liability.

* Hawk has had his best camp since coming to Green Bay.

* Chillar has been the most impressive LB to date in camp.

* Johnson is great in his blocks, when he's been in. He has been seen wearing oxygen masks, and has been getting schooled in O vs. D drills, and has been getting the scorn of most of Edgar's yelling to date. Yesterday he was the first one to the field by demand by Edgar, as he made a fool of himself in a drill sunday morning.

* Woodson, Harris, & Collins have all looked sharp.

* It is Barbre's job at RT, no other competition besides rookie Lang.

* Rodgers has looked good, but the defense is kicking the Offenses butt routinely.

* Also...the "collision for the ages" that was commented on, was between Bishop and Wynn.

[Partial]

Ellerson played in the NFL almost 20 years ago, and if Butler was so knowledgeble about football he would have landed that coaching job he has been seeking for the better part of 5 years.

What 3 days into training camp? Nice to know that certain players are adjusting to the scheme, but Thompson was reported a day or so ago as getting lit up.

I'm just reporting it the way they said it. Note I haven't expressed an opinion either way because I have no idea what this team will do.

[pbmax]

JSOnline had Harris getting beaten in coverage in practices #3 and #4. Woodson looking All-Pro. Williams also had some struggles.

Giacomini has looked good, esp. footwork and agility. But not as good as Barbre. They had Lang getting abused a few plays when he was with the 2s after Clifton stepped out.

They said they could hear when Q Johnson was FB, but he was having a terrible time catching the football.

Colledge had a quad seize up on him and came out. Moll promptly got steamed rolled by Jenkins when he went in at LG.

Spitz/Wells/Sitton rotating through Center and Right Guard (Spitz only one playing both).

[Bossman641]

Everything I've read has said that Thompson hasn't been very strong at the point of attack while Matthews has held up pretty well.

[CaptainD]

That Bishop and Thompson look very good, and should be starting over Matthews and Hawk (I'm pretty sure Thompson is starting, but LeRoy is convinced Matthews will ultimately get the nod due to his draft spot).

He said Bishop is by far the best linebacker out there. He is a torpedo that is bowling people over. He said the collision between Bishop and Johnson yesterday was one for the ages.

Evidently Johnson is just a throwback, vintage fullback. He is evidently standing out in practice big time said the WSSP crew, and while he can't catch the ball, he will knock you on your ass and the job is his to lose as lead blocker.

Interesting observations from two former Packers, Gary Ellerson and LeRoy Butler.

I was at camp all weekend. Leroy is full of crap. So is Bedard. Hawk looked fine except they kept putting him in coverage and not attacking.
The other issue was and is that are DT wasn't holding the O-lineman long enough which made the MLB look stupid including Bishop.

Thompson looked like shit on Sunday . he was slow and was replaced on the depth chart today by Matthews who is not that great. I saw Clifton pancake him on two separate occasions.

Bottom line it's way too early to draw any conclusions about any of them yet.

[pbmax]

Both publications had Matthews as getting reasonable pressure as well. Clifton pancaking a rookie LB might not be too odd. Did he may any hay against Clifton at all in pass rush?

[Fritz]

Can we somehow get "waffling" included in the football vernacular?

[SkinBasket]

That Bishop and Thompson look very good, and should be starting over Matthews and Hawk (I'm pretty sure Thompson is starting, but LeRoy is convinced Matthews will ultimately get the nod due to his draft spot).

He said Bishop is by far the best linebacker out there. He is a torpedo that is bowling people over. He said the collision between Bishop and Johnson yesterday was one for the ages.

Evidently Johnson is just a throwback, vintage fullback. He is evidently standing out in practice big time said the WSSP crew, and while he can't catch the ball, he will knock you on your ass and the job is his to lose as lead blocker.

Interesting observations from two former Packers, Gary Ellerson and LeRoy Butler.

Where are you reading/hearing this stuff?

WSSP. He frequently hosts the afternoon show with Gary Ellerson and a couple of other guys.

Hey nutz, is that the radio show you listened to while painting our house? The one where I would walk outside to people just yelling, "BITCH!!!!" and that made you a lot less than lucid by the end of the day, heat stroke notwithstanding?

[sharpe1027]

Sharpe,

I'm off the opinion that a general manager has far more influence over a starting lineup than first glance would reveal.

What if I told you it was my sixth glance? :lol:

Of course he has some input, but bottom line, it is not his decision.

[ND72]

Sharpe,

I'm off the opinion that a general manager has far more influence over a starting lineup than first glance would reveal.

What if I told you it was my sixth glance? :lol:

Of course he has some input, but bottom line, it is not his decision.

depends on the GM, Jerry Jones...

[Bretsky]

Dude should sign up for Packerrats then.


Robert Meacham- Future Pro Bowl; mark it down :wink:

[Waldo]

One of the big things I liked about MM and TT in the beginning was the declaration that they didn't care where you were drafted or what you were paid, the best player would get the job. Several years later I am disappointed as they must have meant: I don't care where Sherman drafted you or pays you, but if you are my guy then you will be handed the job.

Last year Chillar was by far the best LB on the team but almost never started. It sounds like he is lights out so far this year, and if it continues and he doesn't start I will begin to join those who question the current regime. Same with BJack last year as he was clearly superior to Grant early on, but we paid grant so..........

Where do you guys get this stuff. He can blitz, he can cover. Vs. the run, he is the least stout and worst linebacker on the roster, by a decent margin. Barnett, Hawk, Pops, Bishop, and Lansanah were all better run stopping backers. Chillar doesn't have very good feel for run plays and overpursues, and is easily blocked out of a play. He absolutely blows at controlling a gap. There is a reason that the basement dweller Rams had no interest in resigning him. Being good in coverage does not a good linebacker make. That's what DB's are for.

Chillar is basically a SS.

[Lurker64]

Chillar is basically a SS.

Well, if we ever decide to make heavy use out of the "Big Nickel" package, we have our third safety right there!

[HarveyWallbangers]

Reports I've read say Hawk looks outstanding. They also said Thompson was real soft, and Clay took over the starting ROLB spot today. I've heard Johnson makes big hits, but that he runs too high and can't catch. He has some work to do. Funny how different reporters can see different things.

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090803/PKR01/90803149/1058


Matthews working with starting defense

It took Clay Matthews three training camp practices to work his way into the Green Bay Packers’ starting lineup. In the first major lineup change of camp, Matthews moved up from the second unit Monday and worked as the starting right outside linebacker, surpassing second-year pro Jeremy Thompson.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/52366632.html


Johnson runs way too high


q johnson can block but he can't catch today

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/ic/blogs/insider/index.shtml


Defensive standout of the day: Hawk, who was a difference-maker in the running game. Most notable, he shed Finley to stuff RB Ryan Grant for a loss in team run; absolutely blew up a power run to Grant in red zone; and got outside to stop RB Kregg Lumpkin for a loss on a toss left.


We also had the first apparent depth-chart jump of camp: rookie Clay Matthews leap-frogging Jeremy Thompson as the first-team right outside linebacker. Coach Mike McCarthy and others downplayed the significance of the switch, but Matthews spent the entire practice with the No. 1 defense while Thompson worked with the 2s and 3s. Matthews seems to be stronger at the point and showed some cover ability when he ran with TE Evan Moore about 15 yards downfield to break up a pass during red-zone work.

[bobblehead]

The only problem with your logic, Bobble, is that Chillar was a TT signing.

Small money and not a high profile draft pick. He should have been playing from about week 3.

My point is that they are "falling in love" with certain guys and giving them extra credit for it. I'm a results kinda guy. The only LB I saw cover anyone last year was Chillar and he was ok against the run as well. I don't recall Barnett before the injury, but we all agree Hawk was playing hurt....Chillar wsa healthy and outplaying him badly, he should have been in the lineup.

[bobblehead]

One of the big things I liked about MM and TT in the beginning was the declaration that they didn't care where you were drafted or what you were paid, the best player would get the job. Several years later I am disappointed as they must have meant: I don't care where Sherman drafted you or pays you, but if you are my guy then you will be handed the job.

Last year Chillar was by far the best LB on the team but almost never started. It sounds like he is lights out so far this year, and if it continues and he doesn't start I will begin to join those who question the current regime. Same with BJack last year as he was clearly superior to Grant early on, but we paid grant so..........

1.) Chillar was not a Sherman pick.
2.) Chillar was the 14th highest salary; Poppinga was the 12th highest. It doesn't get much closer than that.
3.) Why are you hung up on "starter" vs. "nonstarter"? They played Chillar alot, and did so to play to his strength last year, pass coverage.
4.) What the hell does MM care about TT's guys vs. Sherman's guys? TT doesn't set the starting lineup.

Perhaps you have an axe to grind and are seeing conspiracies where there are none because of it? If something like this does not make you sit back and reflect on your feelings/objectivity... :huh:
I would say you misread my post. I would also say you have a preconceived notion about me and my objectivity. I'm a huge TT and MM fan in the way they go about business.

1) Never said he was. But he wasn't a TT pick either. He came in as a role player to cover non blocking TE's that Popp couldn't handle. As I said above he outplayed Hawk badly and should have been starting instead of Hawk.
2) Popp is a TT pick and his deal was worth far more overall than Chillars. You are comparing base salaries I believe.
3) I'm hung up on the fact that Chillar was the BEST LB we had last year and didn't play enough. He got on the field later when too many injuriees and bad play mounted. I also pointed out the BJack vs. Grant situation, the guy who got paid got the carries even when BJack was outplaying him badly.
4) If you think MM doesn't care about TT's guys you dont' understand the relationship of a hand picked coach and his GM. They discuss most everything from draft picks to player cuts.

I'm not sure what axe you think I have to grind. I've been a huge supporter of TT and MM going back thousands of posts. I criticize when I think its correct and I back them when I think they are right. I don't know what you mean by me seeing conspiracies and questioning my objectivity. Hell, I'm not even sure why you chose to make this a personal dig....If that doesn't make you sit back and reflect on your self esteem..........:huh:

[bobblehead]

One of the big things I liked about MM and TT in the beginning was the declaration that they didn't care where you were drafted or what you were paid, the best player would get the job. Several years later I am disappointed as they must have meant: I don't care where Sherman drafted you or pays you, but if you are my guy then you will be handed the job.

Last year Chillar was by far the best LB on the team but almost never started. It sounds like he is lights out so far this year, and if it continues and he doesn't start I will begin to join those who question the current regime. Same with BJack last year as he was clearly superior to Grant early on, but we paid grant so..........

Where do you guys get this stuff. He can blitz, he can cover. Vs. the run, he is the least stout and worst linebacker on the roster, by a decent margin. Barnett, Hawk, Pops, Bishop, and Lansanah were all better run stopping backers. Chillar doesn't have very good feel for run plays and overpursues, and is easily blocked out of a play. He absolutely blows at controlling a gap. There is a reason that the basement dweller Rams had no interest in resigning him. Being good in coverage does not a good linebacker make. That's what DB's are for.

Chillar is basically a SS.
Whereas I respect your knowledge Waldo I firmly disagree. I would say the PACKAGE of Chillar was far better than anyone on the field last year. I agree Popps is far better v. the run than chillar or anyone else in our LB crew. Hawk overpursued everyone last year and wasn't very good. Chillar was very average against the run, but when coupled with doing EVERYTHING else better than the other guys he was the best LB. Bishop, fuck he got burned by chester taylor by standing still in coverage and blew the gap on Petersons long TD run. He was abysmal other than being a big hitter (when he connected). Hawk sucked all of last year in pass and run. I hope he was hurt, cuz if that was the product I want a refund. Barnett missed half the season, so I wasn't counting him amongst the best LB's on the roster. Lansanah is a practice squad guy....hardly comparable to chillar. The fact that you even made the comparison weakens your argument.

Those same rams didn't resign Pickett....any theories on that??

edit: PS....I never said Chillar was a stud NFL starter, I said he was the best on the team....Our LB's flat out stunk up the joint last year.

[Waldo]

Mmm....k, believe what you want. No coach has ever disagreed with me with their actions. Chillar is the only LB on the roster that appears pigeonholed at one spot. He is in the spot that see the least amount of lead blocking and does the most covering.

If Chillar was in fact more stout agaisnt the run than Hawk, Capers would switch their positions. Fact is Chillar isn't even #2 on the Buck depth chart. Does Dom not see our best LB either? Surely he would have made the preliminary depth chart off of tape, seeing as though he had to fit guys into different roles than they had previously done.

The guy is a glorified SS. Our run D always suffered with him in the game, and took a major blow when he moved to WLB, where the guy had no business playing, as teams could slice through us by cutback running.

Hawk is a habitual underpursuer, big time, I'm not sure how anybody has ever seen overpursuit.

Chillar and Pickett were very different. Chillar wasn't considered a first round bust.

[MichiganPackerFan]

It's not that Thompson wouldn't play Sherman's players: Sherman's acquisitions and draft picks largely sucked big hairy balls so Ted Thompson had to cut Sherman's players or risk the team becoming the Lions by lacking personnel that resembled professional caliber players.

[sharpe1027]

I would say you misread my post. I would also say you have a preconceived notion about me and my objectivity. I'm a huge TT and MM fan in the way they go about business.

1) Never said he was. But he wasn't a TT pick either. He came in as a role player to cover non blocking TE's that Popp couldn't handle. As I said above he outplayed Hawk badly and should have been starting instead of Hawk.
2) Popp is a TT pick and his deal was worth far more overall than Chillars. You are comparing base salaries I believe.
3) I'm hung up on the fact that Chillar was the BEST LB we had last year and didn't play enough. He got on the field later when too many injuriees and bad play mounted. I also pointed out the BJack vs. Grant situation, the guy who got paid got the carries even when BJack was outplaying him badly.
4) If you think MM doesn't care about TT's guys you dont' understand the relationship of a hand picked coach and his GM. They discuss most everything from draft picks to player cuts.

I'm not sure what axe you think I have to grind. I've been a huge supporter of TT and MM going back thousands of posts. I criticize when I think its correct and I back them when I think they are right. I don't know what you mean by me seeing conspiracies and questioning my objectivity. Hell, I'm not even sure why you chose to make this a personal dig....If that doesn't make you sit back and reflect on your self esteem..........:huh:

Axe to grind? Maybe not then, but making statements about the inner workings of their minds? Really? I mean it couldn't be that they truly thought those players were better.... To accept your argument I basically have to believe that not only are you a better talent evaluator than them, but also you are a trained physchologist.

Oh wait, Chillar isn't a Sherman pick? I guess there is some distinction between a draft pick and a free agent signing? Why the hell are Pickett and Woodson playing, shouldn't they be benched as well?

Poppinga's paid much than Chillar? Really? I don't think so....

Discussing draft picks and cuts, yes. Setting the starting lineup no.

Look, I may have jumped the gun on calling you out, but your argument was so full of holes that I admit that it annoyed me. I said "Perhaps you have an axe to grind". If not, fine.

IMO, Chillar only stood out because you could see him making plays in the passing game. That's about it though. I doubt you can find much support for your belief that he was the best LB on the team. I just don't see it.[/b]

[Patler]

Reports I've read say Hawk looks outstanding. ...... Funny how different reporters can see different things.

Yesterday Bedard wrote in his position by position evaluation of the first three practices:

Down
A.J. Hawk: After a promising first day of practice, Hawk appeared to regress into his tentative form from last season. That can’t happen again.
This followed his live blog comment during practice:

Hawk looks lost in this practice. Like last year

So which is it? Is Hawk outstanding as Harvey has read in reports, or is he tentative and lost as Bedard has written? How are we supposed to know?

Someone somewhere should start a website rating reporters, analyzing how good they are at their jobs. Two reporters watching the same practices see Hawk's performance at polar opposites. Only one can be accurate. Which is it?

[Waldo]

Here's what the GBPG had to say after yesterday's practice:

Defensive standout of the day: Hawk, who was a difference-maker in the running game. Most notable, he shed Finley to stuff RB Ryan Grant for a loss in team run; absolutely blew up a power run to Grant in red zone; and got outside to stop RB Kregg Lumpkin for a loss on a toss left.

Patler, one thing, it has been noted that AJ had good days on Sat and Mon, but Sun was an overall mediocre day. Both of your Bedard quotes came from Sun.

Lots of praise for AJ yesterday.

[Bossman641]

Here's what the GBPG had to say after yesterday's practice:

Defensive standout of the day: Hawk, who was a difference-maker in the running game. Most notable, he shed Finley to stuff RB Ryan Grant for a loss in team run; absolutely blew up a power run to Grant in red zone; and got outside to stop RB Kregg Lumpkin for a loss on a toss left.

Patler, one thing, it has been noted that AJ had good days on Sat and Mon, but Sun was an overall mediocre day. Both of your Bedard quotes came from Sun.

Lots of praise for AJ yesterday.

That's what I was thinking as well. AJ "seemed" to have a bad day Sunday. I say seemed because all I can base that off is what I read in the articles and blogs. He was much better yesterday..again from what I have read.

[Patler]

Here's what the GBPG had to say after yesterday's practice:

Defensive standout of the day: Hawk, who was a difference-maker in the running game. Most notable, he shed Finley to stuff RB Ryan Grant for a loss in team run; absolutely blew up a power run to Grant in red zone; and got outside to stop RB Kregg Lumpkin for a loss on a toss left.

Patler, one thing, it has been noted that AJ had good days on Sat and Mon, but Sun was an overall mediocre day. Both of your Bedard quotes came from Sun.

Lots of praise for AJ yesterday.

Very true, but I suspect Harvey has read more than just that to conclude that "Hawk looks outstanding." I know Harvey to be a pretty thorough guy, and I doubt his opinion was based on a single comment focusing on a couple plays in one practice.

Players have good days and bad days. They also have good series and bad series within a practice, and even good plays and bad plays within a series. My pet peeve with the style of reporting popular today is that they often focus minutia, without seeing the big picture. To me, live blogs from a practice may be entertaining to some extent, but they are fairly useless, especially this early in camp. The reflective comments after a practice are only minimally more valuable. Articles looking back at a week, two weeks, etc. start to give the picture of what specific players do.

I would still like to see an objective analysis of the Packer reporters, which ones really know what they are talking about and which ones don't. I have only gut reactions, because I've never really gone back to read articles from a "was he right or was he wrong" angle.

[Patler]

Patler, one thing, it has been noted that AJ had good days on Sat and Mon, but Sun was an overall mediocre day. Both of your Bedard quotes came from Sun.

Lots of praise for AJ yesterday.

I'm not arguing Waldo, but just for the heck of it I went back through yesterdays blog on JSO to see what they said about Hawk on a live basis. They seem to be the most critical of him so far. This was their only live blog comment yesterday that I could find:


Preston lg. Hawk promptly drops grant

I wonder if all of his "big plays" were against Preston and Finley, a backup guard and a TE not really known for his blocking (or anything else for that matter, other than maybe "potential")?

I wonder if there is a job opportunity reporting on the reporters, evaluating the evaluators, commenting on the commentators? What do you think? :D

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bedard has been the most critical of Kampman throughout the summer. I suspect it has to do with him saying that he serious doubts about whether Kampman can make the switch. Bedard seems to be one that sees what he wants to see.

[Patler]

Bedard has been the most critical of Kampman throughout the summer. I suspect it has to do with him saying that he serious doubts about whether Kampman can make the switch. Bedard seems to be one that sees what he wants to see.

I tend to agree about Bedard. When Bedard first came my initial reaction was negative, but he kind of grew on my, and I thought he might be OK. But toward the end of last season and especially now this off season my gut reaction has reverted to negative. For some reason I find myself not considering his opinions and comments very highly.

He seems to comment on only the negative side of some issues (too many).

[rbaloha1]

Plain and simple -- Bishop makes impact plays period. The 2 plays the Hawk apologists mention against Bishop are correctable .

The position Hawk plays in the 3-4 requires the lb to take on a blocker -- not a Hawk strength. Bishop has the physicality to take on the blocker -- Hawk is a run around type player that needs open space and a running start to make plays.

In a skills competition Hawk beats Bishop hands down. In terms of making impact plays and making plays Bishop is the guy.

[HarveyWallbangers]

We'll see if the coaches agree with you. I'll bump this thread when the starting lineup is announced.

[Packnut]

Pre-season games give a much more accurate reading of how a player is doing.

These reports from camp are to subjective based on what someone believes they see. Nothing worth getting worked up over.

Waldo is correst in his evaluation of Chillar vs the run last season. Almost as bad as Poppinga. Only difference is Chillar never gets there and when Brady does, he usually whiffs at the tackle..........

[Waldo]

Pre-season games give a much more accurate reading of how a player is doing.

These reports from camp are to subjective based on what someone believes they see. Nothing worth getting worked up over.

Waldo is correst in his evaluation of Chillar vs the run last season. Almost as bad as Poppinga. Only difference is Chillar never gets there and when Brady does, he usually whiffs at the tackle..........

Brady can control a gap though. His "whiff's" come when he peels out of his gap into another. If his task was to shut down a single gap and nothing more, he absolutely excels at it. Go look at FO's stats for defense running through gaps. GB was ranked 25th or worse through every gap in the defensive front. Except between the LT and the LG. The gap that Brady spent the most time in. GB ranked 6th in the NFL at controlling that gap.

[bobblehead]

I would say you misread my post. I would also say you have a preconceived notion about me and my objectivity. I'm a huge TT and MM fan in the way they go about business.

1) Never said he was. But he wasn't a TT pick either. He came in as a role player to cover non blocking TE's that Popp couldn't handle. As I said above he outplayed Hawk badly and should have been starting instead of Hawk.
2) Popp is a TT pick and his deal was worth far more overall than Chillars. You are comparing base salaries I believe.
3) I'm hung up on the fact that Chillar was the BEST LB we had last year and didn't play enough. He got on the field later when too many injuriees and bad play mounted. I also pointed out the BJack vs. Grant situation, the guy who got paid got the carries even when BJack was outplaying him badly.
4) If you think MM doesn't care about TT's guys you dont' understand the relationship of a hand picked coach and his GM. They discuss most everything from draft picks to player cuts.

I'm not sure what axe you think I have to grind. I've been a huge supporter of TT and MM going back thousands of posts. I criticize when I think its correct and I back them when I think they are right. I don't know what you mean by me seeing conspiracies and questioning my objectivity. Hell, I'm not even sure why you chose to make this a personal dig....If that doesn't make you sit back and reflect on your self esteem..........:huh:

Axe to grind? Maybe not then, but making statements about the inner workings of their minds? Really? I mean it couldn't be that they truly thought those players were better.... To accept your argument I basically have to believe that not only are you a better talent evaluator than them, but also you are a trained physchologist.

Oh wait, Chillar isn't a Sherman pick? I guess there is some distinction between a draft pick and a free agent signing? Why the hell are Pickett and Woodson playing, shouldn't they be benched as well?

Poppinga's paid much than Chillar? Really? I don't think so....

Discussing draft picks and cuts, yes. Setting the starting lineup no.

Look, I may have jumped the gun on calling you out, but your argument was so full of holes that I admit that it annoyed me. I said "Perhaps you have an axe to grind". If not, fine.

IMO, Chillar only stood out because you could see him making plays in the passing game. That's about it though. I doubt you can find much support for your belief that he was the best LB on the team. I just don't see it.[/b]

Fair enough. I thought he was very good last year....especially compared to what we had. I agree he isn't a run stuffer (agree with both you and waldo) but when I kept seeing every other LB on the team last year give up 3rd and 7 conversions I started liking Chillar more. I would say he was better against the run last year than Hawk, Popps, Bishop or anyone else was against the pass (again, not counting barnett in street clothes.)

I'm not alone in my "psychology". Bedard and McGinn last year griped about how bad Grant looked and couldn't believe that he was still getting the bulk of the carries when BJack was averaging about a yard a carry more. They paid the guy and felt obligated to play him.

All a chat site is, is a bunch of guys second guessing the coaches and reading minds. I'm no different. My guess is that you disagree with my politics over in FYI and are letting your angst towards me bleed over into my football posts. If thats not it, then I'm completely confused as to why you got personal with my post when most everyone on this board makes similar posts everyday. I don't even mind you debating the "full of holes" part as waldo has, but the personal shot irked me (only a little though, as is my nature).

[bobblehead]

Brady Poppinga:

4 years, 13.9 million. Also had 2008 salary bumped by about 1 million in deal.

Brandon Chillar:

2 years, 5.4 million 3 million in first year. Possible 1 million escalator.
(note to Waldo...chillar took less to play for a winner http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/29506369.html )

funny, the article talks about his one weakness....can't be counted on to cover TE's and running backs full time. Apparently he started for 2 years with the rams as a 1st and 2nd down guy. Not bad for such a bad run stopper. Not sure where you guys get this stuff from.

Sharpe, you are looking at the reworked 2008 pay to Poppinga and comparing it to the FA salary of Chillar in a 2 year deal. Poppinga's contract was/is far superior.

[Deputy Nutz]

"We talking about Practice?!"
Allen Iverson

[Partial]

More raving today from the WSSP guys about Bishop. They also said the competition to keep an eye on is Jordy/Jones because the playing field is basically level right now.

[DonHutson]

Can we somehow get "waffling" included in the football vernacular?

I have a story that I guess you've never heard before, Fritz. It starts out, once upon a time the Packers traded for a young QB from Mississippi...