Linebackers: Will Hawk Be A Two Down Player?

[pbmax]

Pete Dougherty has Chillar pushing AJ Hawk (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090806/PKR01/90806150/1058&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL) for a starting gig and in line to take reps from him in nickel and other sub packages. He also pegs Chillar as a better cover backer than Barnett and the LB's best blitzer.

Bedard and Tom Silverstein have Desmond Bishop making Hawk look bad with big plays and hits and little hesitation.

Who has the better angle on this? Can Hawk stay with the Packers next year playing two downs? Can Bishop take his spot eventually on 1st and 2nd down? Or does all this come out in the wash when they actually play an exhibition game?

[rbaloha1]

Where are the Hawk apologists?

[Partial]

The question is whether this is excellent that Chill is playing so well, or if Hawk is that big of a dissapointment. I wish I knew whether they were both playing very well (good problem to have) or playing just average (bad problem to have).

[BallHawk]

Where are the Hawk apologists?

3rd year is the year that usually tells you whether the player is gonna be for real or not. Hawk has this year to make an impact.

At this point, I'm not holding my breath with Bishop. I'll believe it when I see him produce on the field. Chillar I'm more inclined to believe he's playing at a realistic level because he's had success elsewhere in the NFL.

To be honest, I think some people are rushing to declare Hawk a bust and thus are trying to justify this by proclaiming mediocre LBs as "outplaying" him. If August turns to Fall and Hawk is getting outplayed ON THE FIELD then I will maybe buy that he's just not that good. Until then, I still believe he's the 2nd best LB on this team.

[Lurker64]

Chillar can't stop the run.

Bishop can't cover.

Hawk can do both.

[Partial]

Chillar can't stop the run.

Bishop can't cover.

Hawk can do both.

I would say you're jumping to conclusions here. How can you say those things when they haven't played a game yet? The responsibilities are going to be significantly different this year. I really think the coverage liabilities will be covered up significantly as you're playing the QB and his eyes versus having to run in a back pedal to keep up with a man breaking off the line.

I'm sticking with not having an opinion on this team until I see them play. Their are a lot of positive signs that some of the players I did not expect to are taking a step up this year though so that is very encouraging.

[b bulldog]

Agree that all posts in here are jumping the gun but I think Bishop may be a better fit than Hawk but we shall see. AJ doesn't have any physicality to his play and he is just an average LB at this point.

[SkinBasket]

Just cut Hawk now. He obviously blows. Maybe we can sign Vick to take his spot and run the wildcat defense.

[Bretsky]

yawn; didn't they just put pads on and are in the process of incorporating a new defense. Guess that still makes me a Hawk apologist

[pbmax]

Just cut Hawk now. He obviously blows. Maybe we can sign Vick to take his spot and run the wildcat defense.
I think you should do a spoken word podcast of your snark. I would subscribe. :lol:

My question is what am I supposed to take away from these reports? Chillar has been all but dismissed by JSO. I have seen reports that they have done nothing with nickel or sub defenses yet. So exactly how has Chillar been shining?

I have not read as much Press Gazette coverage, but there other than his hits, there is very little of Bishop's play mentioned.

There was a play described by someone where Tramon Williams found himself alone in deep coverage with no safety help as the safety had been committed to a shorter zone to cover for a blitzing LB. They stated this rarely happened with Sanders defense.

That kind of play makes me think you cannot afford to go one dimensional in the base 3-4. And that this will all look different once they play an actual game.

[Waldo]

As Lurker pointed out, we have yet to hear about the Golden Boys doing good at what they previously were bad at.

At SILB one of the tasks that will frequently happen is clobbering lead blockers. Making sure that the back alone is the one running beyond the line, and that the TE, FB, and pulling G's stop there. Poppinga absolutely excels at this, Hawk has been pretty good over the last few years. I've never seen Bishop do it since he's been at Mike, but all his glowing reports this camp lead me to believe he is not doing this task. A back gets by the line, past the SILB, and has a FB in front of him, chances are an explosive play is about to occur. Back gets past the SILB, but there is no lead blocker, chance of a play going 10+ isn't that great.

Bishop has been beyond terrible at pass coverage. I'm am typically critical of those who are critical or glowing about LB pass coverage, but Bishop was really, really bad. I haven't heard anything to lead me to believe that he has actually improved at this.

Let the reports glow about Bishop. The awfulness of his weaknesses, not the greatness of his strengths, is what is keeping him on the bench.

Likewise with Chillar. He can cover great. He can blitz. He's actually a pretty good tackler too. But, that which Pops was so great at, gap control and lead blocking destruction, Chillar is atrocious at. He is our most easily pancaked linebacker. Chillar is also easily victimized by deception. He's just not good at reading what an offense is trying to do. At SLB last year he let blockers get past him, letting them hit Barnett and the S's. He could be blocked out of his gap. Backs could run through his gap. At WLB he stepped toward the POA and let plays get wide of him, he would get hung up on a backside blocker on occasion, letting a big cutback get past him outside. If hung up on the blocker, redirect the back to the center, to the MLB and FS. The WLB is the last line of defense before an explosive play on the backside. AJ has kept the weak edge closed for 3 years, it opened when Chillar played WLB, and cutback running off a strong POA got far more effective when Chillar was at WLB over Hawk, as Chillar couldn't redirect toward help when beaten.

At WILB he is also going to have to pick up the Barnett task. Namely he has to become the "chase and drag" linebacker. For his faults, Barnett absolutely excels at not letting backs into the third level without first going through him. Basically the FS of the LB's. He is the last line of defense before an explosive play. He must be involved in everything. He must be athletic enough to get to spots and excel at reading where the back is going. Chillar plays a lot like a S, but this is not one of the traits of a safety that I've seen out of him. To excel at WILB he must treat every play as if it is a TD if it gets past him. I've seen this trait in Barnett and he's very good at it (one reason I think that he will excel at WILB).

Just keep the reports of Bishop in the backfield, "blowing up plays", "always around the ball", and Chillar "great pass breakup", and "unblockable blitzer" coming. They really tell us nothing, we know how good they are at that.

I want to hear Bishop "blow up Hall", or "great coverage against Finley", "stop Colledge in his tracks", or hear Chillar "tackling everything", "Grant getting nowhere", "Chillar is always around the ball", "blowing up Kuhn in the hole". These things will indicate to me that their weaknesses aren't as weak, and they might not have as many splinters in their butt this year.

Obviously Barnett is still on the PUP, but one has to assume that he will continue to excel at what he has excelled at. Hawk might not have as much glowing fanfare for his work at SILB, maybe he is doing a better job blowing up the FB's, it just isn't noticed as the back has to cut elsewhere because of what Hawk did. We have heard of Hawk at least being able to get his hands on passes intended for Finley deep down the field.

[Patler]

Bedard's blog comment about Hawk after last night's practice:


This may sound familiar, but the next big play A.J. Hawk makes in practice will be the first. While Desmond Bishop is constantly shooting gaps and trying to make plays, Hawk is still reading and reacting. He is seldom around the ball. He takes on blockers, but is easily turned around. It’s a repeat of last season when he was playing Mike after Barnett went down. On a DeShawn Wynn draw, Hawk could have exploded into the gap but took on Finley -- and lost. However, the coaches are still high on Hawk.

[Fritz]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

[rbaloha1]

Bottom Line -- Hawk shall be demoted. Its comical to read about Bishop and Chillar from the Hawk lovers -- Bishop makes plays and was mentioned as one of the better lb blitzers by Capers.

Chillar may not be great at the point of attack but the dude still has the ability to fight thru blockers and make plays. Once Hawk is engaged forget it.

Hawk is a missile when he has an opening with a running start. Explosive tackler once he hits the ball carrier. Then everyone goes "Whoa -- no wonder he was the #5 overall pick."

[rbaloha1]

Hawk would actually be a great wedge buster.

[SkinBasket]

Bottom Line -- Hawk shall be demoted. Its comical to read about Bishop and Chillar from the Hawk lovers -- Bishop makes plays and was mentioned as one of the better lb blitzers by Capers.

http://altjapan.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/2008/04/05/catfish1_2.jpg

[MichiganPackerFan]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

Very well said Fritz - same boat here.

[ThunderDan]

Chillar may not be great at the point of attack but the dude still has the ability to fight thru blockers and make plays. Once Hawk is engaged forget it.



When last season do you see him take on a block, shed it and then make a tackle? I sure don't remeber that at all.

He was excellent in pass coverage and when he ran free from the backside of the play to make a tackle.

[rbaloha1]

Chillar may not be great at the point of attack but the dude still has the ability to fight thru blockers and make plays. Once Hawk is engaged forget it.



When last season do you see him take on a block, shed it and then make a tackle? I sure don't remeber that at all.

He was excellent in pass coverage and when he ran free from the backside of the play to make a tackle.

Chillar does not over power at the point of attack like Ray Lewis--Chillar uses angles to knife thru blockers to reach ball carrier. However, like Hawk, once engaged forget it.

IMO the most complete lb is Barnett prior to the injury.

[wist43]

I've been a critic of the Packers LB'ers for years... historically, the have never really scouted or drafted the position well - but, of course, they haven't scouted or drafted well on the defensive side of the ball in general. We won the SB in '96 b/c Wolf went out and bought himself an entire DL.

Matthews is the only LB on the roster that actually fits the 3-4. Hawk should be a decent fit in the middle, but he's never going to be a difference maker. Chiller is soft, Bishop is a slug, Barnett is soft and stupid, and Kampman and Thompson are both DE's trying to play LB.

TT has a long way to go to make over this position.

[rbaloha1]

I've been a critic of the Packers LB'ers for years... historically, the have never really scouted or drafted the position well - but, of course, they haven't scouted or drafted well on the defensive side of the ball in general. We won the SB in '96 b/c Wolf went out and bought himself an entire DL.

Matthews is the only LB on the roster that actually fits the 3-4. Hawk should be a decent fit in the middle, but he's never going to be a difference maker. Chiller is soft, Bishop is a slug, Barnett is soft and stupid, and Kampman and Thompson are both DE's trying to play LB.

TT has a long way to go to make over this position.

Agree with a portion of your post. A new scheme requires a different skill set for lbs. -- something which is not completely apparent with the current roster Give TT one more season to find the correct pieces.

Yes, Matthews may be a step in the right direction.

[gbgary]

hawk's had a pretty quiet two years that's for sure. nothing real good...nothing real bad. is that consistency or is something else?

[pbmax]

Bottom Line -- Hawk shall be demoted. Its comical to read about Bishop and Chillar from the Hawk lovers -- Bishop makes plays and was mentioned as one of the better lb blitzers by Capers.

Chillar may not be great at the point of attack but the dude still has the ability to fight thru blockers and make plays. Once Hawk is engaged forget it.

Hawk is a missile when he has an opening with a running start. Explosive tackler once he hits the ball carrier. Then everyone goes "Whoa -- no wonder he was the #5 overall pick."
Its an interesting case study in the psychology of deduction.

We have reporters telling us Chillar is great in coverage and blitzes and is running around making plays. Also that Bishop is great at charing through gaps, making big hits and tackles. Hawk does not get notice, except by the lack of notice.

One group takes all this in and proclaims Hawk needs to be replaced by these two as he is clearly less than adequate.

Others take this in and note the coaches still have Hawk a starter and Barnett lined up to reclaim his starting position after he is cleared medically. And these coaches might know more than the reporters or fans.

One group concludes that there might be something lacking in Bishop and Chillar.

The other group concludes that folks that don't agree with them are blinded because they are Hawk Lovers. And, and I am supposing here. that the GM is interfering here in the natural football order. Probably because he is protecting his precious draft pick

And only Bretsky and Skin note we haven't played a down of real football yet.

[MadScientist]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

Can we get Waldo in as our TC reporter? An article or two from him would blow away anything we get from reporters (and be a hell of a lead for the home page).

[SkinBasket]

And only Bretsky and Skin note we haven't played a down of real football yet.

Hell, we haven't played a down of fake football yet.

I'm a little confused as to how Hawk has somehow become a punching bag over the off season. I don't remember anywhere near this level of criticism at the end of the season. You know, the season where he played injured the entire year and was filling a position he was unfamiliar with for a third of it? The same season we lost our starting DE in front of him and had a revolving door at safety behind him.

But whatever. Bishop must be a superior player because he hits people hard in preseason and TC, then generally looks like his brain's been addled when called upon in the regular season. And Chillar has proven what a reliable player he is every time he steps on the field and makes it look like he's taken coverage lessons from Bigby and plays like he walks at 150 pounds.

[SkinBasket]

Can we get Waldo in as our TC reporter? An article or two from him would blow away anything we get from reporters (and be a hell of a lead for the home page).

A picture of a dead squirrel would be a better lead for the home page right now as long as it linked to the forum instead of claiming the entire site has been down for maintenance for several months.

[bobblehead]

As Lurker pointed out, we have yet to hear about the Golden Boys doing good at what they previously were bad at.

At SILB one of the tasks that will frequently happen is clobbering lead blockers. Making sure that the back alone is the one running beyond the line, and that the TE, FB, and pulling G's stop there. Poppinga absolutely excels at this, Hawk has been pretty good over the last few years. I've never seen Bishop do it since he's been at Mike, but all his glowing reports this camp lead me to believe he is not doing this task. A back gets by the line, past the SILB, and has a FB in front of him, chances are an explosive play is about to occur. Back gets past the SILB, but there is no lead blocker, chance of a play going 10+ isn't that great.

Bishop has been beyond terrible at pass coverage. I'm am typically critical of those who are critical or glowing about LB pass coverage, but Bishop was really, really bad. I haven't heard anything to lead me to believe that he has actually improved at this.

Let the reports glow about Bishop. The awfulness of his weaknesses, not the greatness of his strengths, is what is keeping him on the bench.

Likewise with Chillar. He can cover great. He can blitz. He's actually a pretty good tackler too. But, that which Pops was so great at, gap control and lead blocking destruction, Chillar is atrocious at. He is our most easily pancaked linebacker. Chillar is also easily victimized by deception. He's just not good at reading what an offense is trying to do. At SLB last year he let blockers get past him, letting them hit Barnett and the S's. He could be blocked out of his gap. Backs could run through his gap. At WLB he stepped toward the POA and let plays get wide of him, he would get hung up on a backside blocker on occasion, letting a big cutback get past him outside. If hung up on the blocker, redirect the back to the center, to the MLB and FS. The WLB is the last line of defense before an explosive play on the backside. AJ has kept the weak edge closed for 3 years, it opened when Chillar played WLB, and cutback running off a strong POA got far more effective when Chillar was at WLB over Hawk, as Chillar couldn't redirect toward help when beaten.

At WILB he is also going to have to pick up the Barnett task. Namely he has to become the "chase and drag" linebacker. For his faults, Barnett absolutely excels at not letting backs into the third level without first going through him. Basically the FS of the LB's. He is the last line of defense before an explosive play. He must be involved in everything. He must be athletic enough to get to spots and excel at reading where the back is going. Chillar plays a lot like a S, but this is not one of the traits of a safety that I've seen out of him. To excel at WILB he must treat every play as if it is a TD if it gets past him. I've seen this trait in Barnett and he's very good at it (one reason I think that he will excel at WILB).

Just keep the reports of Bishop in the backfield, "blowing up plays", "always around the ball", and Chillar "great pass breakup", and "unblockable blitzer" coming. They really tell us nothing, we know how good they are at that.

I want to hear Bishop "blow up Hall", or "great coverage against Finley", "stop Colledge in his tracks", or hear Chillar "tackling everything", "Grant getting nowhere", "Chillar is always around the ball", "blowing up Kuhn in the hole". These things will indicate to me that their weaknesses aren't as weak, and they might not have as many splinters in their butt this year.

Obviously Barnett is still on the PUP, but one has to assume that he will continue to excel at what he has excelled at. Hawk might not have as much glowing fanfare for his work at SILB, maybe he is doing a better job blowing up the FB's, it just isn't noticed as the back has to cut elsewhere because of what Hawk did. We have heard of Hawk at least being able to get his hands on passes intended for Finley deep down the field.

Waldo, we left off in the other thread with me pointing out that with the rams chillar was a 1st and 2nd down LB starter who came out vs. the pass. You also claimed the rams had no interest in resigning him, but they offered him more money than we did, but he chose to play with a winner (or percieved winner anyway).

I agree he isn't poppinga in destroying a running lane, but he is solid (much like hawk) in the run and the best LB we have in pass coverage and blitz. I stand by my guns, he is the best we have and more than likely will start this year at some point if not immediately.

[Waldo]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

Can we get Waldo in as our TC reporter? An article or two from him would blow away anything we get from reporters (and be a hell of a lead for the home page).

I called Bedard on his (and all the other reporters) nonsense in a series of tweets this morning (replies to him, so he surely can read them), basically telling him what I said, it isn't how good their good traits are, it is how bad their bad ones are, that are keeping Bishop and Chillar playing second fiddle and filling their asses with splinters.

When they start telling us that Bishop is cutting down on the overpursuit and is looking good in coverage, or that Chillar isn't letting any backs through anywhere on the field, and is being physical in the hole, I'll start listening to this nonsense.

[Waldo]

Waldo, we left off in the other thread with me pointing out that with the rams chillar was a 1st and 2nd down LB starter who came out vs. the pass. You also claimed the rams had no interest in resigning him, but they offered him more money than we did, but he chose to play with a winner (or percieved winner anyway).

I agree he isn't poppinga in destroying a running lane, but he is solid (much like hawk) in the run and the best LB we have in pass coverage and blitz. I stand by my guns, he is the best we have and more than likely will start this year at some point if not immediately.

I can't respond to it. I really don't care what he did with the Rams.

When he played for the Packers he was blown up by lead blockers, couldn't defend the weak corner, and let runners in cutback lanes cut underneath him.

The only way he starts if if Barnett isn't full go to start the season.

[mission]

Wasn't Hawk last year the only guy who could consistently bring down AP? I seem to remember a few plays where I was thinking "phew, thank god he's such a sure tackler" ...

[bobblehead]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

Can we get Waldo in as our TC reporter? An article or two from him would blow away anything we get from reporters (and be a hell of a lead for the home page).

Waldo is a good poster, but lets not get carried away. Early on he proclaimed that Reggie white played right defensive end. He has also said that chillar is a glorified safety even though the rams used him primarily on 1st and 2nd down. He also said the rams had no interest in resigning him even though they offered him more money than we did. Good poster in general, but hardly infalliable.

[bobblehead]

Waldo, we left off in the other thread with me pointing out that with the rams chillar was a 1st and 2nd down LB starter who came out vs. the pass. You also claimed the rams had no interest in resigning him, but they offered him more money than we did, but he chose to play with a winner (or percieved winner anyway).

I agree he isn't poppinga in destroying a running lane, but he is solid (much like hawk) in the run and the best LB we have in pass coverage and blitz. I stand by my guns, he is the best we have and more than likely will start this year at some point if not immediately.

I can't respond to it. I really don't care what he did with the Rams.

When he played for the Packers he was blown up by lead blockers, couldn't defend the weak corner, and let runners in cutback lanes cut underneath him.

The only way he starts if if Barnett isn't full go to start the season.

you made assertions as to the rams desire to keep him and what he could do in the nfl based on his part time playing status with the packers. Since he didn't even play running downs most of last year I'm not sure how you decided how bad he was. All I can say for certain is that when our defense was collapsing in the 4th quarter of games last year it was always Bishop, hawk or damn near anyone but chillar that was blowing a tackle, coverage or assignment.

Mind you I'm not bashing Hawk here as much as Bishop, we agree on him. I am merely saying that chillar was clearly the best LB on the team after barnett went down last season. You may be right, he might not start at the beginning of the season considering he might be best suited for Kampmans position not Hawks. I'm not trying to compare Hawk directly to Chillar either. The LB positions have different roles in this D, my only declaration is that chillar played linebacker better than anyone last season.

[Waldo]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

Can we get Waldo in as our TC reporter? An article or two from him would blow away anything we get from reporters (and be a hell of a lead for the home page).

Waldo is a good poster, but lets not get carried away. Early on he proclaimed that Reggie white played right defensive end. He has also said that chillar is a glorified safety even though the rams used him primarily on 1st and 2nd down. He also said the rams had no interest in resigning him even though they offered him more money than we did. Good poster in general, but hardly infalliable.

My memory of Reggie is only so so, and one play that really sticks he was on the right. Teams generally play their premier DE on the right.

On the Packers Chillar is and has been a glorified SS. LIS I don't give a crap what the Rams did with him. They were 14-27 in games he started. Their coaches clearly are not the authority on how to win.

[mission]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

Can we get Waldo in as our TC reporter? An article or two from him would blow away anything we get from reporters (and be a hell of a lead for the home page).

Waldo is a good poster, but lets not get carried away. Early on he proclaimed that Reggie white played right defensive end. He has also said that chillar is a glorified safety even though the rams used him primarily on 1st and 2nd down. He also said the rams had no interest in resigning him even though they offered him more money than we did. Good poster in general, but hardly infalliable.

LOL you gotta be kidding me ... what else you got?

Really, though... you're kidding right? At first I thought, yes... then I just realized maybe you have poster penis envy. Use the stalls instead.

[Waldo]

Mind you I'm not bashing Hawk here as much as Bishop, we agree on him. I am merely saying that chillar was clearly the best LB on the team after barnett went down last season.

No he wasn't.

At WLB: Hawk>>Chillar
At MLB: Hawk>>Bishop

The coaches thought that the
Pops-Hawk-Chillar alignment was better than Pops-Bishop-Hawk or Pops-Chillar-Hawk

AJ was clearly MUCH better as a WLB than MLB last year. The question is, why did they not try Chillar at MLB? After all, he's like Barnett lite, a bit of a weenie compared to Barnett, but much more similar to Barnett than Bishop is.

Capers saw the similarities between the players right away, hence the reason Chillar is Barnett's primary backup.

[Cleft Crusty]

Can we get Waldo in as our TC reporter? An article or two from him would blow away anything we get from reporters (and be a hell of a lead for the home page).

A picture of a dead squirrel would be a better lead for the home page right now as long as it linked to the forum instead of claiming the entire site has been down for maintenance for several months.

How about a Cleft Crusty Chat on the home page. Sure to draw in at least 1 or 2 new hits/year.

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/ccpostgamejpg.jpg

[Tarlam!]

Heck of an analysis, Waldo. I have no clue as to how accurate it is, but, after reading that, I'd buy a newspaper knowing you'd written an article in it.

I'm like Fritz - I cheer when we do good, I wanna throw something when we do bad. Having said that, I don't often hear Hawk blew this or that assignment too often. that's usually a good thing, no?

[bobblehead]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

Can we get Waldo in as our TC reporter? An article or two from him would blow away anything we get from reporters (and be a hell of a lead for the home page).

Waldo is a good poster, but lets not get carried away. Early on he proclaimed that Reggie white played right defensive end. He has also said that chillar is a glorified safety even though the rams used him primarily on 1st and 2nd down. He also said the rams had no interest in resigning him even though they offered him more money than we did. Good poster in general, but hardly infalliable.

LOL you gotta be kidding me ... what else you got?

Really, though... you're kidding right? At first I thought, yes... then I just realized maybe you have poster penis envy. Use the stalls instead.

Now I can't disagree with someone and point out there ridiculous posts as evidence without it being poster envy??

Waldo made a big deal in a thread awhile back saying ALL premiere pass rushers played on the right....until some of us pointed out Reggie, LT and other greats who played on the left.

Look, i'm not bashing waldo or discrediting what he does know, but he does make wild assertions that turn out to be dead opposite wrong at times. We all make mistakes, me, you, waldo, every poster on the board. Some have decided that he is the be all end all voice of football reason on the site and i'm merely pointing out he has the same flaws we all do, without being personal about it and declaring poster envy or any of that kind of childish crap.

We are having a discussion about LB's. I disagree with certain assertions he is making and backing it up with evidence.

He is declaring the 6-10 coaching staff to be the voice of reason then poining out the poor rams record as the reason you can't look at what THEY did with chillar....hypocrisy??

Look, I've defended hawk at times, I've defended Poppinga MANY times, but what I saw last year with my own lying eyes is Chillar manning the LB spot better than anyone else.

Waldo is the one who jumped on me in the other thread with "where do you get this stuff from, chillar is a glorified SS" to which i responded that he was considered a base run stopping LB for his 2 seasons starting with the rams. Waldo countered with the rams didn't even want him, why is that if he is so great. I said he took less money to play with the packers and provided a link.

Waldo said he doesn't care what the rams did with him (he did until he was wrong) since they have a lousy record, its what the ingenious packer staff he was paying attention to (never mind the 6-10 record).

Now you chime in with my poster envy when all i'm doing is stating a position and backing it up with facts. Crazy of me I know. Chillar doesn't have "it" therefore the debate is over.

[bobblehead]

Heck of an analysis, Waldo. I have no clue as to how accurate it is, but, after reading that, I'd buy a newspaper knowing you'd written an article in it.

I'm like Fritz - I cheer when we do good, I wanna throw something when we do bad. Having said that, I don't often hear Hawk blew this or that assignment too often. that's usually a good thing, no?

Which is where waldo seems to be getting all his street cred.

THE EMPOROR ISN'T WEARING CLOTHES!!

There I said it, have at me.

[Tarlam!]

I didn't think Bobble had poster envy. I see him as legitimately challenging the position and, to me, this has brought out an even better discussion.

[Patler]

My memory of Reggie is only so so, and one play that really sticks he was on the right. Teams generally play their premier DE on the right.


They often play their premier pass rushing DE on the right, but if they are fortunate enough to have a truly premier DE, he often plays on the left.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I've been a critic of the Packers LB'ers for years... historically, the have never really scouted or drafted the position well - but, of course, they haven't scouted or drafted well on the defensive side of the ball in general. We won the SB in '96 b/c Wolf went out and bought himself an entire DL.

As far as I can recall, you've been a critic of almost everything for years.

(I really missed arguing with you Wisty!)

And as far as this situation goes,... .... you're... umm... completely right (DAMMIT)

The linebacking has been the weakest link as long as I can remember, settling for mediocrity. Signing or re-signing aging players. Hardy Nickerson, anyone?

The improvement under Thompson as opposed to Sherman is that Thompson has players with upsides, Sherman never got those players. Sherman settled with players who plateaued, who had been in the league for 5-7 or more years and weren't going to get any better. At least with Thompson, the kids are young and theoretically can improve with practice and coaching.

[Fritz]

Except for Nick Barnett. That was Shermy's pick and may have been his best pick bar Kampman.

[DonHutson]

At the risk of steering this thread away from who has the bigger penis, I'd just like to point out that it's a relief that our problem seems to be finding enough downs for all our LB's when all off-season people wondered if we had enough LB's to play all the downs.

[bobblehead]

At the risk of steering this thread away from who has the bigger penis, I'd just like to point out that it's a relief that our problem seems to be finding enough downs for all our LB's when all off-season people wondered if we had enough LB's to play all the downs.

Unfortunately MY point was that are LB's are pretty overrated and not exceptional in the least. I wish it were otherwise.

[SkinBasket]

Can we get Waldo in as our TC reporter? An article or two from him would blow away anything we get from reporters (and be a hell of a lead for the home page).

A picture of a dead squirrel would be a better lead for the home page right now as long as it linked to the forum instead of claiming the entire site has been down for maintenance for several months.

How about a Cleft Crusty Chat on the home page. Sure to draw in at least 1 or 2 new hits/year.

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/ccpostgamejpg.jpg

The Cleft Crusty post game chat has always been a fan favorite. It's certainly much much more entertaining than 99% of the comedy bits out there people get paid to write (Norm Chad's image leaps at me like vomit from a sick retarded kid's mouth).

[ND72]

I just get a kick out of all the posts, blogs, and chats. Repeatedly in all the Packer practice write ups have been written that Bishop is making big hits, it doesn't say anywhere that he's actually making tackles, but it does point out that he can't cover at all, which tells me he is NOT a MLB in a 3-4.

It then says Chillar is all over the field knocking down passes, making tackles down field....but can't plug a hole, pass rush, or stop the run.

I know I like Hawk, and I've never made excuses about him....but I have yet to read anything negative from any media people about Hawk. He has made tackles, plugged holes, knocked down passes.

Now I'm sure he's gotten burned here and there, but so has Aaron Kampman...where are his critics? I don't care if he's playing a new position, fair is fair. He's gotten beat for 7, 20+ yard passes to TE's, that scares me...but nobody has cared to mention him getting pulled...weird.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think our LBs are bad. They look good when the DL plays well. They don't look good when the DL plays poorly. Pretty much like most teams. Are any of them elite? No. However, we have several solid starting caliber LBs. Personally, I think LBs are a lot like RBs on offense. A lot of their success depends on players around them. I'd rather have a good DL or secondary before having a good LB group. I'd rather have a good QB, OL, or receivers before having a good RB.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Now I'm sure he's gotten burned here and there, but so has Aaron Kampman...where are his critics? I don't care if he's playing a new position, fair is fair. He's gotten beat for 7, 20+ yard passes to TE's, that scares me...but nobody has cared to mention him getting pulled...weird.

No plenty of people have written him off also. Of course, he's "reportedly" been wreaking havoc in run defense and on blitzes. We'll see. I like our LBs, and we may have even enough depth to compensate if Barnett doesn't come back healthy.

[ThunderDan]

I don't think our LBs are bad. They look good when the DL plays well. They don't look good when the DL plays poorly. Pretty much like most teams. Are any of them elite? No. However, we have several solid starting caliber LBs. Personally, I think LBs are a lot like RBs on offense. A lot of their success depends on players around them. I'd rather have a good DL or secondary before having a good LB group. I'd rather have a good QB, OL, or receivers before having a good RB.

Here, here .... good post.

It's amazing how good a LBing core becomes when you put a good/great DL in front of them.

When it takes 5 OL to push the front 3 DL in a 3-4 out the LB are going to have huge numbers.

[bobblehead]

I just get a kick out of all the posts, blogs, and chats. Repeatedly in all the Packer practice write ups have been written that Bishop is making big hits, it doesn't say anywhere that he's actually making tackles, but it does point out that he can't cover at all, which tells me he is NOT a MLB in a 3-4.

It then says Chillar is all over the field knocking down passes, making tackles down field....but can't plug a hole, pass rush, or stop the run.

I know I like Hawk, and I've never made excuses about him....but I have yet to read anything negative from any media people about Hawk. He has made tackles, plugged holes, knocked down passes.

Now I'm sure he's gotten burned here and there, but so has Aaron Kampman...where are his critics? I don't care if he's playing a new position, fair is fair. He's gotten beat for 7, 20+ yard passes to TE's, that scares me...but nobody has cared to mention him getting pulled...weird.

Actually wist has been on the "kamp can't play LB" bandwagon since the switch to the 3-4 has begun.

[pbmax]

One point on Chillar and the Rams. The defense while Chillar was there was horrible. So he might have been the best choice of terrible run defense options. In his four years there the defense ranked (Pts/Yds)

04: 25 / 17
05: 31 / 30
06: 28 / 23
07: 31 / 21

For rushing defense in particular:

Attempts / Yards / TDs / Yds/Att
04: 23 / 29 / 17 / 25
05: 20 / 28 / 30 / 32
06: 24 / 31 / 32 / 30
07: 16 / 20 / 27 / 19

That's not so good.

[pbmax]

The Cleft Crusty post game chat has always been a fan favorite. It's certainly much much more entertaining than 99% of the comedy bits out there people get paid to write (Norm Chad's image leaps at me like vomit from a sick retarded kid's mouth).
Cleft is in a class by himself. There is no better post game chat around. But lets not slag Norman Chad while praising Cleft. I find Norm quite enjoyable.

[Patler]

When they start telling us that Bishop is cutting down on the overpursuit and is looking good in coverage, or that Chillar isn't letting any backs through anywhere on the field, and is being physical in the hole, I'll start listening to this nonsense.


In the morning session, linebackers Jeremy Thompson and Desmond Bishop almost had interceptions. Thompson jumped up at the line of scrimmage and got two hands on a Brian Brohm pass, but couldn't bring it in. Bishop was downfield in coverage and cut nicely in front of the receiver on an underthrown ball, but he couldn't secure the knee-high pass.

Well, its something at least! :lol: :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Brian Brohm was throwing it. I wonder who the receiver was.

[Patler]

Brian Brohm was throwing it. I wonder who the receiver was.

Brohm threw Thompson's "almost" INT; not clear who threw Bishop's.

[gbgary]

How about a Cleft Crusty Chat on the home page. Sure to draw in at least 1 or 2 new hits/year.

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/ccpostgamejpg.jpg


brilliant!

[SkinBasket]

The Cleft Crusty post game chat has always been a fan favorite. It's certainly much much more entertaining than 99% of the comedy bits out there people get paid to write (Norm Chad's image leaps at me like vomit from a sick retarded kid's mouth).
Cleft is in a class by himself. There is no better post game chat around. But lets not slag Norman Chad while praising Cleft. I find Norm quite enjoyable.

I've just never been a Chad fan. Even for me, he feels far too contrived. But humor is a highly subjective thing. I think what Crusty brings to this forum could be sold for good money to media outlets. It's about as clever and witty as humor gets in my opinion.

[Bretsky]

And only Bretsky and Skin note we haven't played a down of real football yet.

Hell, we haven't played a down of fake football yet.

I'm a little confused as to how Hawk has somehow become a punching bag over the off season. I don't remember anywhere near this level of criticism at the end of the season. You know, the season where he played injured the entire year and was filling a position he was unfamiliar with for a third of it? The same season we lost our starting DE in front of him and had a revolving door at safety behind him.

But whatever. Bishop must be a superior player because he hits people hard in preseason and TC, then generally looks like his brain's been addled when called upon in the regular season. And Chillar has proven what a reliable player he is every time he steps on the field and makes it look like he's taken coverage lessons from Bigby and plays like he walks at 150 pounds.



Gosh I wonder if the same guys drooling about Bishop were drooling about Jeremy Thompson before the pads came on. Now Thompson doesn't seem to be standing out anymore with pads.

Bishop is good at a couple things but IMO he's not a guy you can count on beaude he's not a complete player and it'd be easy to expose his weaknesses. Remember how teams exposed Brady Poppinga in coverage ? Scary what they'd game plan for Bishop.

Overally I'm luck warm and Bishop and like Chillar as a player more.

If we had three strong LB's Chillar would probably be alright; but I still don't buy the notion that he's better than Hawk.

[BEARMAN]

Just cut Hawk now. He obviously blows. Maybe we can sign Vick to take his spot and run the wildcat defense.
and You call Me a "TROLL" ? :roll:

[bobblehead]

And only Bretsky and Skin note we haven't played a down of real football yet.

Hell, we haven't played a down of fake football yet.

I'm a little confused as to how Hawk has somehow become a punching bag over the off season. I don't remember anywhere near this level of criticism at the end of the season. You know, the season where he played injured the entire year and was filling a position he was unfamiliar with for a third of it? The same season we lost our starting DE in front of him and had a revolving door at safety behind him.

But whatever. Bishop must be a superior player because he hits people hard in preseason and TC, then generally looks like his brain's been addled when called upon in the regular season. And Chillar has proven what a reliable player he is every time he steps on the field and makes it look like he's taken coverage lessons from Bigby and plays like he walks at 150 pounds.



Gosh I wonder if the same guys drooling about Bishop were drooling about Jeremy Thompson before the pads came on. Now Thompson doesn't seem to be standing out anymore with pads.

Bishop is good at a couple things but IMO he's not a guy you can count on beaude he's not a complete player and it'd be easy to expose his weaknesses. Remember how teams exposed Brady Poppinga in coverage ? Scary what they'd game plan for Bishop.

Overally I'm luck warm and Bishop and like Chillar as a player more.

If we had three strong LB's Chillar would probably be alright; but I still don't buy the notion that he's better than Hawk.

I'm not convinced he is better than hawk either, but I was convinced that he was playing better than hawk last year. Like TT said, the team might have the talent to be better than 6-10, but they weren't better than 6-10 or they would have had a better record than 6-10. Almost yogi like.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm not convinced he is better than hawk either, but I was convinced that he was playing better than hawk last year. Like TT said, the team might have the talent to be better than 6-10, but they weren't better than 6-10 or they would have had a better record than 6-10. Almost yogi like.

1) I agree.
2) He wasn't better than Hawk was in 2006-2007.
3) Hawk had two significant injuries that he dealt with last year, and he didn't look like the same player.
4) He looks healthy this year. With that, I predict he'll be a solid starter in 2009.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/52727432.html


Depending on how healthy Barnett proves to be after ACL surgery, the Packers could use Hawk (Buck) and Barnett (Mack) on the first two downs, and then replace them with Bishop and Chillar in passing situations or some similar combination.


On their run to a Super Bowl title last season, the Pittsburgh Steelers played veteran run-stuffer Larry Foote on the first two downs and then replaced him with athletic playmaker Lawrence Timmons in subpackages.

Capers brought the multiple 3-4 scheme to Pittsburgh in 1992. And it's no secret the Packers are using the current version of the Steelers' defense as a model.


But Moss said Hawk could be considered an every-down linebacker now that he is over the nagging injuries that derailed him last year.

"He's back healthy again and you can see where we worked on and emphasized his pad level and his hands inside," Moss said. "He's attacked that full-speed and improved on that.

"We're going to get him to pull the trigger and fire and take shots. Hawk wants to be right (in his assignment) all the time. We're going to get him focused on being a little bit more reckless like he did that rookie year when he was extremely productive. We're going to go back to him just going in there and making some things happen."

[SnakeLH2006]

Pete Dougherty has Chillar pushing AJ Hawk (http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090806/PKR01/90806150/1058&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL) for a starting gig and in line to take reps from him in nickel and other sub packages.

What is Pete Dougherty smoking?

[SkinBasket]

Just cut Hawk now. He obviously blows. Maybe we can sign Vick to take his spot and run the wildcat defense.
and You call Me a "TROLL" ? :roll:

I've never called you a troll, just a coward. I don't mind the discussion you bring, but you run away every time your team takes a dive. So we don't see you much.

[woodbuck27]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

Nice post. Packerrats is more than just informative.

I just read another 'in depth' almost live analysis of LBer plays by Waldo and I could actually see that play. I'm intrigued as to how Waldo re-calls the details of a certain play in terms of his seeing it as a coach would and re-call to say inform or teach.

Reporters are more into the intrigue or direction of matters. They become political.

[Scott Campbell]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

Nice post. Packerrats is more than just informative.

I just read another 'in depth' almost live analysis of LBer plays by Waldo and I could actually see that play. I'm intrigued as to how Waldo re-calls the details of a certain play in terms of his seeing it as a coach would and re-call to say inform or teach.

Reporters are more into the intrigue or direction of matters. They become political.


Contrived controversy can keep people interested, even if they're just pissed off.

[woodbuck27]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

Nice post. Packerrats is more than just informative.

I just read another 'in depth' almost live analysis of LBer plays by Waldo and I could actually see that play. I'm intrigued as to how Waldo re-calls the details of a certain play in terms of his seeing it as a coach would and re-call to say inform or teach.

Reporters are more into the intrigue or direction of matters. They become political.


Contrived controversy can keep people interested, even if they're just pissed off.

You'd have to elaborate more on the meaning of that post Scott. It's a tad deep.

[pbmax]

Just cut Hawk now. He obviously blows. Maybe we can sign Vick to take his spot and run the wildcat defense.
and You call Me a "TROLL" ? :roll:
No BEARMAN, we are not giving you another Hunter Hillenmeyer. Go find you own players! :lol:

[pbmax]

I'm not convinced he is better than hawk either, but I was convinced that he was playing better than hawk last year. Like TT said, the team might have the talent to be better than 6-10, but they weren't better than 6-10 or they would have had a better record than 6-10. Almost yogi like.

1) I agree.
2) He wasn't better than Hawk was in 2006-2007.
3) Hawk had two significant injuries that he dealt with last year, and he didn't look like the same player.
4) He looks healthy this year. With that, I predict he'll be a solid starter in 2009.
We also can't be sure that he wasn't miscast as a MLB in a 4-3. There was an assumption that Hawk should replace Barnett at MLB due to his better size, but that might not be his natural position.

And after all the talk about a 3-4 transition, would it surprise anyone that it takes a year for a heady player to feel comfortable in the scheme?

The comments from Moss above at least confirm that some of what people have seen at practice is being discussed by the people that matter. But even if Bishop continues to excel, that will only help the worst part of the team last year: Run defense (unless it was second worst to punting).

[MichiganPackerFan]

Brian Brohm was throwing it. I wonder who the receiver was.

Curious: if Brohm hit the receiver, does that mean the receiver ran the wrong route? :D Do they both get their asses chewed?

[bobblehead]

I'm not convinced he is better than hawk either, but I was convinced that he was playing better than hawk last year. Like TT said, the team might have the talent to be better than 6-10, but they weren't better than 6-10 or they would have had a better record than 6-10. Almost yogi like.

1) I agree.
2) He wasn't better than Hawk was in 2006-2007.
3) Hawk had two significant injuries that he dealt with last year, and he didn't look like the same player.
4) He looks healthy this year. With that, I predict he'll be a solid starter in 2009.

2) Never said he was....this all started cuz I criticized MM for not sticking to his guns and playing the best player. When Hawk was hurt Chillar was far outperforming him on the field yet chilar was on the bench until barnett went down for the season....and they still tried Bishop first. This addresses 3 and 4 as well. You have to go back to the Leroy Butler said thread to see how this all started.

[Patler]

I'm not convinced he is better than hawk either, but I was convinced that he was playing better than hawk last year. Like TT said, the team might have the talent to be better than 6-10, but they weren't better than 6-10 or they would have had a better record than 6-10. Almost yogi like.

1) I agree.
2) He wasn't better than Hawk was in 2006-2007.
3) Hawk had two significant injuries that he dealt with last year, and he didn't look like the same player.
4) He looks healthy this year. With that, I predict he'll be a solid starter in 2009.

2) Never said he was....this all started cuz I criticized MM for not sticking to his guns and playing the best player. When Hawk was hurt Chillar was far outperforming him on the field yet chilar was on the bench until barnett went down for the season....and they still tried Bishop first. This addresses 3 and 4 as well. You have to go back to the Leroy Butler said thread to see how this all started.

You are forgetting that Chiller, too, was hurt for a while. He was nursing some injuries that they did not widely discuss until they finally kept him out a week, and again a few weeks later. Essentially they were trying to protect him a little and use him only when he could be most effective.

[Waldo]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

Nice post. Packerrats is more than just informative.

I just read another 'in depth' almost live analysis of LBer plays by Waldo and I could actually see that play. I'm intrigued as to how Waldo re-calls the details of a certain play in terms of his seeing it as a coach would and re-call to say inform or teach.

Reporters are more into the intrigue or direction of matters. They become political.

Tivo, and its smooth slow mo. After watching lots and lots of stuff at slow mo, it started to translate to seeing things at full speed that I never would have seen before, I started to know what to look for when assigning blame or praising good play.

[Fritz]

But the point is that you take the time to watch stuff over and over in super slo-mo. Me, I just see it once live, and start screaming.

[woodbuck27]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

Nice post. Packerrats is more than just informative.

I just read another 'in depth' almost live analysis of LBer plays by Waldo and I could actually see that play. I'm intrigued as to how Waldo re-calls the details of a certain play in terms of his seeing it as a coach would and re-call to say inform or teach.

Reporters are more into the intrigue or direction of matters. They become political.

Tivo, and its smooth slow mo. After watching lots and lots of stuff at slow mo, it started to translate to seeing things at full speed that I never would have seen before, I started to know what to look for when assigning blame or praising good play.

O.K. Tivo and it's solid man. Thanks.

Up until 5 years ago Waldo I used to tape every Packer game available. I'd watch the game then see the game. Go over and over the film on key plays on both sides of the ball. There's such a big difference in understanding the play.