Any Noise about a Potential Hawk Trade?

[rbaloha1]

Creditable?

[Fritz]

I don't see how. He's coming off a very average year so his trade value is probably less than his actual value to the team. The guy most people are proposing to replace him - Bishop - has serious deficiencies in his game, which tend to get overlooked sometimes because he makes big hits.

[Scott Campbell]

Big salary too.

[Fosco33]

According to Ben Maller on rumor section on foxsports.com there are many packers up for trade. Including:

LB AJ Hawk
T/G Tony Moll
LB Brady Poppinga
S Aaron Rouse
QB Brian Brohm
DB Jarrett Bush

[rbaloha1]

According to Ben Maller on rumor section on foxsports.com there are many packers up for trade. Including:

LB AJ Hawk
T/G Tony Moll
LB Brady Poppinga
S Aaron Rouse
QB Brian Brohm
DB Jarrett Bush

Lets trade all of them!

[BallHawk]

According to Ben Maller on rumor section on foxsports.com there are many packers up for trade. Including:

LB AJ Hawk
T/G Tony Moll
LB Brady Poppinga
S Aaron Rouse
QB Brian Brohm
DB Jarrett Bush

I'd be fine with trading any of those except for Hawk. Trading Hawk would be the biggest mistake TT could make. He had a down year last year and now people wanna trade him. He will never be Ray Lewis, but he can be a very good LB with an attitude that this team needs.

I hope TT sees that.

[rbaloha1]

According to Ben Maller on rumor section on foxsports.com there are many packers up for trade. Including:

LB AJ Hawk
T/G Tony Moll
LB Brady Poppinga
S Aaron Rouse
QB Brian Brohm
DB Jarrett Bush

I'd be fine with trading any of those except for Hawk. Trading Hawk would be the biggest mistake TT could make. He had a down year last year and now people wanna trade him. He will never be Ray Lewis, but he can be a very good LB with an attitude that this team needs.

I hope TT sees that.

Have not seen the on-field attitude you mention. Lets hope it surfaces today.

[mission]

Have not seen the on-field attitude you mention. Lets hope it surfaces today.

He didn't mention *on-field* attitude... which I'd argue there was a fair amount of even last year.

He said 'attitude'. The guy comes to work, sets an example for guys around him and has played just about every snap since coming in the league. I realize we all have higher hopes for him, but he's definitely been an asset to the team from day 1.

[rbaloha1]

Have not seen the on-field attitude you mention. Lets hope it surfaces today.

He didn't mention *on-field* attitude... which I'd argue there was a fair amount of even last year.

He said 'attitude'. The guy comes to work, sets an example for guys around him and has played just about every snap since coming in the league. I realize we all have higher hopes for him, but he's definitely been an asset to the team from day 1.

Agreed. Is it possible for Hawk to start making impact plays?

[Partial]

One thing that should be noted as it speaks to the depth of our team that we could afford to cut lose a #5 pick and be fine.

[rbaloha1]

One thing that should be noted as it speaks to the depth of our team that we could afford to cut lose a #5 pick and be fine.

Agreed but maybe this is too much. Hawk certainly has some sort of trade value.

[Waldo]

The JSO started this. Here is an exchange I had with Bedard on twitter:


Waldo56 - People need to stop with this trade AJ nonsense. There is a 7M dead cap hit if he is traded. It ain't happening.


Waldo56 - @Greg_A_Bedard Does McGinn understand the concept of a dead cap hit? TT ain't going to flush 7M down the toilet to trade Hawk.


Greg_A_Bedard - People have been asking about this. By my calculations, it wouldn't cost the Packers much to trade/cut A.J. Hawk, believe it or not.


Greg_A_Bedard - $11.85 mill of his $15 mill guaranteed was paid in an option bonus and it's not amortized. In fact, Hawk won't see the 2011 year of his deal


Waldo56 - @Greg_A_Bedard Option bonuses are amortized Greg. Roster bonuses are not. An option bonus is a signing bonus not paid at signing.


Waldo56 - @Greg_A_Bedard By my calculations Hawk has a hair over 7M in amortized bonus remaing.


Greg_A_Bedard - @Waldo56 I don't think so. It was guaranteed. But I could very well be wrong. I'm waiting for an answer from my smarter colleagues.


Greg_A_Bedard - @Waldo56 was correct @TomSilverstein says it would cost Packers an additional $6.9 mill to cut/trade Hawk this yr. #iAmAnIdiot #packers


Greg_A_Bedard - Don't see that happening. But next year, when there's no cap and he's due a $10 mill base in '11? That's more likely.

Greg Bedard......

http://static.mmoabc.com/my/N/i/k/88/2008/5/8//1210306988523.jpg

I <3 Twitter

[mission]

rbaloha - i have a hunch that capers scheme will allow a lot more of our guys a chance to make some impact plays. just because he's not blowing up the spot in TC doesn't mean he's not more productive on gameday. maybe/hopefully, we'll see some signs of it tonight.

partial - we *think* we'd be fine if we lost hawk. that's just assumed in discussion right now ... a couple injuries and we're singing a different tune as hawk goes on to a pro bowl season with the bears :P

[pbmax]

That list from foxsports is just McGinn/JSO regurgitated. Unless they offer additional details or sources, its just repeating what you read in the paper.

Nice job Waldo. Keep their feet to the fire.

[MOBB DEEP]

rbaloha - i have a hunch that capers scheme will allow a lot more of our guys a chance to make some impact plays.

i thought about that last night when KCs 3-4 was up in favres grill in both series he played...also they stuffed AP nicely on 4th down and LBs were key

we have bettr athletes than KC incld. AJ so he SHOULD make more plays

if not, it may be time to move him despite his character....my hopes may have been to high. its time now

[Fritz]

I think this trade talk stuff is at the least premature. At the least.

And what does anyone really think the Packers would get in exchange? By the accounts of several people here, Hawk did not have a good year last year. And so a GM from another team would give up what?

He has more value to the Packers than could be gotten in return. And really, who thinks Bishop can be a reliable consistent linebacker? Has he really proven that?

[bobblehead]

Have not seen the on-field attitude you mention. Lets hope it surfaces today.

He didn't mention *on-field* attitude... which I'd argue there was a fair amount of even last year.

He said 'attitude'. The guy comes to work, sets an example for guys around him and has played just about every snap since coming in the league. I realize we all have higher hopes for him, but he's definitely been an asset to the team from day 1.

Very true mission, this is a huge part of hawks value in my book. He shows everyone around him what its like to be a pro. I hope he bounces back strong.

[Fosco33]

Very nice, Waldo. It seems you're a private guy that obviously knows more about football operations than the above average guy... what's your background? Did you work in football finance, operations, scouting, coaching??

[Fritz]

Waldo has said elsewhere he is a government employee. This smacks of dark corners, conspiracies, and the like.

He may be involved in a secret project involving the Green Bay Packers.

[red]

Waldo has said elsewhere he is a government employee. This smacks of dark corners, conspiracies, and the like.

He may be involved in a secret project involving the Green Bay Packers.

you wanna know what i think?

i think waldo is some kind of deviated prevert commie spy who's trying to not only flouridate the water at lambeau field, but also the beer and brats. all in an attempt to destroy our precious bodily fluids.

thats how your hardcore commie works

[pittstang5]

Trading Hawk because of Bishop reminds me of the Hodge/Barnett controversy from a couple years ago.

IMO...Hawk ain't going nowhere.

[BallHawk]

Hodge=Bishop.

[Harlan Huckleby]

According to Ben Maller on rumor section on foxsports.com there are many packers up for trade. Including:

LB AJ Hawk
T/G Tony Moll
LB Brady Poppinga
S Aaron Rouse
QB Brian Brohm
DB Jarrett Bush

Hawk obviously has trade value. Rouse will draw a low draft pick because he is cheap and has some experience. I think teams would expect to get the other guys on wavers, even Poppinga.

[Waldo]

There comes a point when you teach yourself as much as you can about football, study as much as you can about the game, that you realize that the reporters that create the knowledge base for the common fan, the guys that shape fan perceptions almost exclusively, don't really know all that much about the game.

It seems like their job as beat reporters should be to know every in an out of the game. Sadly this isn't the case. And I do think that Bedard is one of the better ones.

The GBPG came off as surprised that Capers was talking up Jarius Wynn this week. I had to tweet them that it was pretty sad that they didn't notice it too, after all, if you can recognize good and bad line play, he should have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Yet these guys are at every practice and are supposed to be the ones telling us who is playing well and who isn't.

Somehow I don't think that anybody has clued them in to the differences between a mack linebacker and a buck linebacker. They never did figure out the differences between a sam and a will (and what good play at each position looked like), and they had 15 years to try to figure it out.

It all started about 6-7 years ago when I figured out that Favre wasn't that great. And I was apparently the only one in on this little secret.

Don't worry. AJ isn't playing bad. In fact he looked quite good at buck. Lansanah too. I don't know if Bishop is cut out to play buck, I don't think that he has spent any time there at camp, even though that is his current position on the depth chart. When the mack is getting glory and making big plays, the buck is playing good.

[red]

hawk isn't going anywhere. it's not like he's sucked. he's been solid and dependable, and rarely makes mistakes.

he's not flashy, but he does his job

[Fritz]

There comes a point when you teach yourself as much as you can about football, study as much as you can about the game, that you realize that the reporters that create the knowledge base for the common fan, the guys that shape fan perceptions almost exclusively, don't really know all that much about the game.

It seems like their job as beat reporters should be to know every in an out of the game. Sadly this isn't the case. And I do think that Bedard is one of the better ones.

The GBPG came off as surprised that Capers was talking up Jarius Wynn this week. I had to tweet them that it was pretty sad that they didn't notice it too, after all, if you can recognize good and bad line play, he should have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Yet these guys are at every practice and are supposed to be the ones telling us who is playing well and who isn't.

Somehow I don't think that anybody has clued them in to the differences between a mack linebacker and a buck linebacker. They never did figure out the differences between a sam and a will (and what good play at each position looked like), and they had 15 years to try to figure it out.

It all started about 6-7 years ago when I figured out that Favre wasn't that great. And I was apparently the only one in on this little secret.

Don't worry. AJ isn't playing bad. In fact he looked quite good at buck. Lansanah too. I don't know if Bishop is cut out to play buck, I don't think that he has spent any time there at camp, even though that is his current position on the depth chart. When the mack is getting glory and making big plays, the buck is playing good.

Well, Waldo, I definitely agree. PBMax and I, and maybe some others I can't recall (Patler?) have had an ongoing interest in the knowledge/lack of knowledge many reporters seem to have and how that shapes fan perception. One possibility that I and some others believe is that digging and study has been replaced by "impressions" and speculation.

I'm okay with speculation and impressions on fan sites - we're fans, so lack of knowledge and blowing with the prevailing winds are more expected though aggravating sometimes. Reporters, however, sometimes seem to fall into the trap of forming an opinion and then pretzelling facts or ignoring facts to support the opinion. The article on Thompson's shortcomings as a first round draftsm,an is a good example. It was filler, and more insightful discussions of Thompson's abilities have been posted by people on this board and others in the past.

I'd also like some sense of the reporters having perhaps some inside sources upon which to draw, but I don't get much of that. Maybe that's a good thing if it means the ship is tight on Lombardi Avenue, but it does leave reporters grasping at straws and speculating.

But your point is a good one, I think - there should be no excuse for not understanding the game thoroughly if you're going to report on it. But knowledge is not as entertaining as "narratives" which is what the reporters are in the business of constructing.

[MJZiggy]

Fritz, also don't discount that when they blast the organization, they are being sensational as they know the article will generate a lot of clicks and generate reader comments.

[cheesner]

Waldo has said elsewhere he is a government employee. This smacks of dark corners, conspiracies, and the like.

He may be involved in a secret project involving the Green Bay Packers.

you wanna know what i think?

i think waldo is some kind of deviated prevert commie spy who's trying to not only flouridate the water at lambeau field, but also the beer and brats. all in an attempt to destroy our precious bodily fluids.

thats how your hardcore commie works
I heard that he made a fortune in the 90's with a series of childrens books. He now relaxes by the pool in Tahiti, surfing the web and reading about the Packers.

[Brando19]

I love how Waldo posts from different posts about how he's smarter than someone else. :roll:


Hopefully Hawk wont go anywhere.

[The Shadow]

Personally, if Bishop and Chillar's play forced the Packers to move someone, I'd prefer to keep Hawk and move Barnett.

[MadtownPacker]

Personally, if Bishop and Chillar's play forced the Packers to move someone, I'd prefer to keep Hawk and move Barnett.I agree with the only thing Grandfather Shadow can remember since yesterday. Barnett should go instead of Hawk. He really has only has one great season. He has talked a much better game than he has played. I kinda see him as the replacement to darren sharper in the aspect.

[The Shadow]

Personally, if Bishop and Chillar's play forced the Packers to move someone, I'd prefer to keep Hawk and move Barnett.I agree with the only thing Grandfather Shadow can remember since yesterday. Barnett should go instead of Hawk. He really has only has one great season. He has talked a much better game than he has played. I kinda see him as the replacement to darren sharper in the aspect.

You agree with me????
I'd better go back and review what I wrote....oops...now I can't quite seem to remember. Was it today or last week?

[Scott Campbell]

I love how Waldo posts from different posts about how he's smarter than someone else. :roll:

He's one of the best posters on this forum.

[Lurker64]

Personally, if Bishop and Chillar's play forced the Packers to move someone, I'd prefer to keep Hawk and move Barnett.

Really, having 4 good ILBs in a 3-4 defense isn't a serious problem, particularly if they're good at different things. You rotate in different guys in different packages to keep everybody fresh and to play to each player's strength. Pittsburgh has been doing it for years. The only issue is "paying to keep your >2 good ILBs", which is not one we'll face yet.

Having 5 good ILBs is probably too much though.

[pbmax]

Fritz, also don't discount that when they blast the organization, they are being sensational as they know the article will generate a lot of clicks and generate reader comments.
There is something to be said for taking a shot at someone or something that is big enough to shove back, and the NFL and its teams qualify in that regard. Any dolt can write a convincing article ripping the little guy, piling on with emotion and denunciations.

But having said that, it would help to be right much more often than they are. Most reporters would be better off sticking to reporting nothing but facts, but the 24 new cycle, internet and demand for immediate analysis make this difficult, unless you have McGinn's stature and can negotiate a contract that doesn't call on you to blog or write the notes column every day, or even cover the team for much of the offseason. Silverstein has the job I wouldn't want.

But the coverage of Favre was not simply the fault of the media. Even good posters on this board could not bring themselves to apportion his share of blame when he erred. It was too easy to point to other positions and say the game was lost there. Fans, the consumers of the sports coverage, did not want Favre raked over the coals while it was still an open question how good the team around him was. It was far easier to rip Thompson, the defense, the RBs or O Line. Both the JS and Wisconsin State Journal were ripped for being pro-Packer org when their readers wanted them to be pro Favre. McGinn and Wilde took a lot of heat for giving equal weight to the Packers side of the story.

The consumers of this coverage are human, and to one degree or another, we all loved what Favre did for 16 years. And no one was eager to acknowledge his shortcomings and were even more reluctant to argue that we should pay more attention to them.

[pbmax]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

[Waldo]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

Havner has played it too.

But yeah, I think that chances are high that one of Chillar or Bishop either gets the axe or is traded.

[Partial]

I love how Waldo posts from different posts about how he's smarter than someone else. :roll:

He's one of the best posters on this forum.

If you like hearing how smart he thinks he is.

[Partial]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

Havner has played it too.

But yeah, I think that chances are high that one of Chillar or Bishop either gets the axe or is traded.

100 bucks? You're crazy bro. No way.

[Lurker64]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

Havner has played it too.

But yeah, I think that chances are high that one of Chillar or Bishop either gets the axe or is traded.

100 bucks? You're crazy bro. No way.

Gets cut? Probably not, but if you have three guys playing one position and they're all good, wouldn't you want to see what you could get from somebody else in a trade?

[rbaloha1]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

Havner has played it too.

But yeah, I think that chances are high that one of Chillar or Bishop either gets the axe or is traded.

Chillar or Bishop can not be cut. Hawk has much higher trade value but as you mentioned Hawk's salary cap number is high.

Hawk plays in the base and is replaced in nickel and dime packages. Chillar and Bishop have demonstrated better blitzing ability than Hawk.

[rbaloha1]

Personally, if Bishop and Chillar's play forced the Packers to move someone, I'd prefer to keep Hawk and move Barnett.

Really, having 4 good ILBs in a 3-4 defense isn't a serious problem, particularly if they're good at different things. You rotate in different guys in different packages to keep everybody fresh and to play to each player's strength. Pittsburgh has been doing it for years. The only issue is "paying to keep your >2 good ILBs", which is not one we'll face yet.

Having 5 good ILBs is probably too much though.

Never too many due to special teams. IMO some of the Packer ilbs may be also capable of playing olb.

[Lurker64]

Chillar or Bishop can not be cut. Hawk has much higher trade value but as you mentioned Hawk's salary cap number is high.

Hawk plays in the base and is replaced in nickel and dime packages. Chillar and Bishop have demonstrated better blitzing ability than Hawk.

Hawk plays the ILB position whose responsibility is to allow the other ILB (e.g. Bishop, Chillar, Barnett) to get home on blitzes and shoot gaps with impunity. The ILB positions are not interchangeable.

Hawk is the only player playing his position in base at a high level. We have two people (Chillar and Bishop) playing the other base ILB position at a high level, but neither of them have played Hawk's position in the base.

We have three players who seem pretty good at Mack (Barnett, Bishop, Chillar). We have one player who seems pretty good at Buck (Hawk). If we're going to release or trade somebody, we're going to get rid of one of our three good Macks. We're not going to get rid of our one good Buck.

[Waldo]

I dunno. I've been impressed with Lansanah. Granted I need to see tomorrow's broadcast to speak about his performance tonight, but the kid is like a fullback that plays defense. As far as ILB's go, he's gigantic.

Two teams to keep in mind as trading partners for any of our defensive players - KC and Denver.

Denver doesn't exactly have the best ILB situation.

[rbaloha1]

I dunno. I've been impressed with Lansanah. Granted I need to see tomorrow's broadcast to speak about his performance tonight, but the kid is like a fullback that plays defense. As far as ILB's go, he's gigantic.

Two teams to keep in mind as trading partners for any of our defensive players - KC and Denver.

Denver doesn't exactly have the best ILB situation.

Maybe a starting caliber free safety.

[Waldo]

I dunno. I've been impressed with Lansanah. Granted I need to see tomorrow's broadcast to speak about his performance tonight, but the kid is like a fullback that plays defense. As far as ILB's go, he's gigantic.

Two teams to keep in mind as trading partners for any of our defensive players - KC and Denver.

Denver doesn't exactly have the best ILB situation.

Maybe a starting caliber free safety.

Wouldn't mind a 6th round pick.

TT seems to be quite good in that round for some reason. Of rds 3-7, the 6th seems to be consistently good for him. Craig Bragg is the only player not on an NFL roster currently that TT took in the 6th here; Culver is the only other one not on our roster, he's a primary backup in Miami.

[Tarlam!]

i think waldo is some kind of deviated prevert commie spy... thats how your hardcore commie works

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

[Tarlam!]

I love how Waldo posts from different posts about how he's smarter than someone else. :roll:

He's one of the best posters on this forum.

If you like hearing how smart he thinks he is.

I'm with Scott on this. Waldo delivers good points for discussion at a higher level. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong maybe), but he's entertaining almost always. That puts him in the best poster's category for me.

@ Brando: Interesting accusation, can you back it up?
@ Partial: You feel Waldo gets the love you deserve, mate? Perhaps more distance from your posting past is all that's required. But you won't get too much love from me bashing Waldo (or any poster) personally. Attack his opinions/facts and back your own thoughts up with proof. That might get you the respect you so crave.

Way to go Waldo!!

[Partial]

Just busting his balls, but it is somewhat humerous that he does love to bring up every time he proves someone wrong :lol:

[Tarlam!]

Just busting his balls, but it is somewhat humerous that he does love to bring up every time he proves someone wrong :lol:

IMHO, it's great to have a poster that takes on beat writers to the point that he gets their attention and dogs them so long as to have them concede, publicly. And the best part is, he shares it here so I can read it!

And, if he claims a victory over a fellow poster, it's very mild and never personal. Waldo's MO is to let facts, stats etc. speak for themselves.

See a pattern here?

[Brando19]

I love how Waldo posts from different posts about how he's smarter than someone else. :roll:

He's one of the best posters on this forum.

If you like hearing how smart he thinks he is.

I'm with Scott on this. Waldo delivers good points for discussion at a higher level. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong maybe), but he's entertaining almost always. That puts him in the best poster's category for me.

@ Brando: Interesting accusation, can you back it up?
@ Partial: You feel Waldo gets the love you deserve, mate? Perhaps more distance from your posting past is all that's required. But you won't get too much love from me bashing Waldo (or any poster) personally. Attack his opinions/facts and back your own thoughts up with proof. That might get you the respect you so crave.

Way to go Waldo!!

I don't think it needs to be "backed up" if you read his post in this very thread. I have nothing against Waldo. He knows his football...he's a smart guy when it comes to the facts. But I agree with Partial...don't post a conversation you had with someone on Twitter to prove you know more than they do...and then brag about it some more. He may not do it often...but he's a poster you don't expect it from at all. I never see Patler doing it.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm with Scott on this. Waldo delivers good points for discussion at a higher level. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong maybe), but he's entertaining almost always.



I disagree on the entertaining part. We have plenty of goofball characters here for entertainment value. He's one of the few guys that could credibly break down film. I gotta believe he played. His analysis goes well beyond what you'd expect from our typical membership here. And were a cut above the ordinary fan. He's exactly the kind of guy we need to be recruiting.

I'm disappointed that a couple people felt the need to single him out. He's always been respectful of other posters, and never initiated anything like this. It was unprovoked, and disappointing.

[BallHawk]

i think waldo is some kind of deviated prevert commie spy... thats how your hardcore commie works

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

Nope.

[Fosco33]

I think it's cool to see a poster take on the media (ESPN/JSO) and show it here. We need a twitter/tweat thread as there are some interesting/funny comments from players that could be copied here.

It's much more interesting than, "Favre is a dick; Favre is a demigod" shit.

It'd be funny if Waldo were a 16yr old girl who's dad is a coach or something... just schooling people left/right. :lol:

[red]

i think waldo is some kind of deviated prevert commie spy... thats how your hardcore commie works

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

lol, it took me a few minutes to figure that one out

[MJZiggy]

i think waldo is some kind of deviated prevert commie spy... thats how your hardcore commie works

Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

lol, it took me a few minutes to figure that one out

But it was funny.

[pbmax]

If McGinn is right and the Packers keep 9 linebackers, then it all comes down to which position gets 5 backers.

If the OLBs get 5, then you have: Kampman, Matthews, Thompson, Poppinga and (Obiozor or Jones).

With 4 ILBs you get: Hawk, Barnett, Chillar and (Bishop or Lasagna).

On the other hand
To reverse it, with 5 ILBs you get to keep em all and have a designated backup for Hawk's Buck position (Lasagna).

For OLBs when there are 4: Kampman, Matthews, Thompson and (Poppinga, Jones or Obiozor).

Poppinga is interesting because as far as I can tell he is one of the few to play significant time at two positions (backup for Kampman and starter for ROLB with Matthews and Thompson hurt). If he is good enough to stick, he provides some rare flexibility.

Who else, beside Kampman and Poppinga have played LOLB?

And another question: If Bishop is distrusted in pass coverage, why is he playing Mack? Why isn't Mr. Aggressive taking on blockers at Buck behind Hawk? Unless this is simply a matter of covering for the unknown Barnett situation, the coaches might not agree with our conclusions. Might it be that he is worse taking on blocks than coverage?

[red]

does bishop have any trade value after the massive camp and start to preseason that he's had?

[Waldo]

If McGinn is right and the Packers keep 9 linebackers, then it all comes down to which position gets 5 backers.

If the OLBs get 5, then you have: Kampman, Matthews, Thompson, Poppinga and (Obiozor or Jones).

With 4 ILBs you get: Hawk, Barnett, Chillar and (Bishop or Lasagna).

On the other hand
To reverse it, with 5 ILBs you get to keep em all and have a designated backup for Hawk's Buck position (Lasagna).

For OLBs when there are 4: Kampman, Matthews, Thompson and (Poppinga, Jones or Obiozor).

Poppinga is interesting because as far as I can tell he is one of the few to play significant time at two positions (backup for Kampman and starter for ROLB with Matthews and Thompson hurt). If he is good enough to stick, he provides some rare flexibility.

Who else, beside Kampman and Poppinga have played LOLB?

And another question: If Bishop is distrusted in pass coverage, why is he playing Mack? Why isn't Mr. Aggressive taking on blockers at Buck behind Hawk? Unless this is simply a matter of covering for the unknown Barnett situation, the coaches might not agree with our conclusions. Might it be that he is worse taking on blocks than coverage?

Havner.

Havner is the man you are missing, who IMO has the #9 LB spot locked up already.

Obiozor has as well, he is PS eligible.

[Partial]

These guys are locks imo.

OLB Aaron Kampman, ILB Brandon Chillar, ILB A.J. Hawk, ILB Desmond Bishop, ILB Nick Barnett, OLB Clay Matthews.

[Zool]

humerous that he does love to bring up every time he proves someone wrong

i⋅ro⋅ny
1  /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/ Pronunciation [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]

[Brando19]

These guys are locks imo.

OLB Aaron Kampman, ILB Brandon Chillar, ILB A.J. Hawk, ILB Desmond Bishop, ILB Nick Barnett, OLB Clay Matthews.

After last night's preseason game...I think Poops earned himself another season.

[Fritz]

If McGinn is right and the Packers keep 9 linebackers, then it all comes down to which position gets 5 backers.

If the OLBs get 5, then you have: Kampman, Matthews, Thompson, Poppinga and (Obiozor or Jones).

With 4 ILBs you get: Hawk, Barnett, Chillar and (Bishop or Lasagna).

On the other hand
To reverse it, with 5 ILBs you get to keep em all and have a designated backup for Hawk's Buck position (Lasagna).

For OLBs when there are 4: Kampman, Matthews, Thompson and (Poppinga, Jones or Obiozor).

Poppinga is interesting because as far as I can tell he is one of the few to play significant time at two positions (backup for Kampman and starter for ROLB with Matthews and Thompson hurt). If he is good enough to stick, he provides some rare flexibility.

Who else, beside Kampman and Poppinga have played LOLB?

And another question: If Bishop is distrusted in pass coverage, why is he playing Mack? Why isn't Mr. Aggressive taking on blockers at Buck behind Hawk? Unless this is simply a matter of covering for the unknown Barnett situation, the coaches might not agree with our conclusions. Might it be that he is worse taking on blocks than coverage?

Havner.

Havner is the man you are missing, who IMO has the #9 LB spot locked up already.

Obiozor has as well, he is PS eligible.

But the word is that Obiozor won't clear waivers. So...do you keep a raw talent at the expense of the more flexible Poppinga?

Can Brad Jones be stashed on the practice squad, or will some team with no playoff hopes this year snatch him up and keep him on the roster?

Somehow, someway, the Pack is going to lose a decent linebacker.

Unless Thompson or Mathews somehow inexplicably gets put on IR.

[pbmax]

If McGinn is right and the Packers keep 9 linebackers, then it all comes down to which position gets 5 backers.

If the OLBs get 5, then you have: Kampman, Matthews, Thompson, Poppinga and (Obiozor or Jones).

With 4 ILBs you get: Hawk, Barnett, Chillar and (Bishop or Lasagna).

On the other hand
To reverse it, with 5 ILBs you get to keep em all and have a designated backup for Hawk's Buck position (Lasagna).

For OLBs when there are 4: Kampman, Matthews, Thompson and (Poppinga, Jones or Obiozor).

Poppinga is interesting because as far as I can tell he is one of the few to play significant time at two positions (backup for Kampman and starter for ROLB with Matthews and Thompson hurt). If he is good enough to stick, he provides some rare flexibility.

Who else, beside Kampman and Poppinga have played LOLB?

And another question: If Bishop is distrusted in pass coverage, why is he playing Mack? Why isn't Mr. Aggressive taking on blockers at Buck behind Hawk? Unless this is simply a matter of covering for the unknown Barnett situation, the coaches might not agree with our conclusions. Might it be that he is worse taking on blocks than coverage?

Havner.

Havner is the man you are missing, who IMO has the #9 LB spot locked up already.

Obiozor has as well, he is PS eligible.

In terms of counting, Havner would seem to have a spot as the 3rd TE, maybe 4th. I am not sure you need to count him as one of nine at LB if that is the case. But if Havner can backup Hawk, then Lansanah might need to give way.

Also, I found the answer to my own question about the first person in to backup Kampman. It was Brad Jones according to JSO.

[DonHutson]

Hawk, Barnett, Bishop, and Chillar all bring unique skills to the table. Capers seems more than capable of finding ways to maximize each of their talents. It seems like a mistake to get rid of any of them.

Also consider that Barnett just got cleared and still is not up to full speed. I think it's way premature to talk about trading Hawk before we know for sure that Barnett is the same player. If you trade Hawk and Barnett is a shell of his former self, all of a sudden you have no depth.

Too many good linebackers? One thing we need to make the 3-4 work, and to improve the special teams, is a bunch of talented LB's. Let's not get clever and over-solve a "problem" we don't really have.

[Fritz]

Ah, but PB, what if McCarthy wants to "count" Havner as a linebacker so he can say he has two tight ends because he wants to keep an extra fullback or halfback? Then you'd be sacrificing one of the other linebackers (but who?) in order to keep an extra back.

It wouldn't be fun to be the coach. What if you really like Brett Swain but you can hardly bear to part with Ruvell Martin? Do you keep them both and slice a linebacker?

Do you keep only Johnson as the fullback and hope Wynn/Lumpkin/Sutton could block? I dunno.

It'd be tough to make those calls. Every position coach will be clamoring for his guys.

McCarthy can have that job. I like to make sweeping authoratative statements without being responsible for the real results!

[Partial]

OLB: Kampman, Mathews, Thompson, Obiozor

ILB: Hawk, Barnett, Chillar, Bishop

TE: Havner

Poppinga is going to get traded for a late round pick.

No way do they keep 3 fullbacks. They will keep 3 RBs instead of 4, which is unfortuante because they would keep Sutton as a COP back if Brohm wans't a #2 pick. :( . I liked Brohm but Sutton seems to have more potential as an NFL player.

They're not going to carry Harrell. I foresee them putting him on IR. They can't afford to risk having two of their 6 being injury prone guys.

QB:
1. Rodgers
2. Flynn
3. Brohm

RB:
4. Grant
5. Jackson
6. Wynn

FB:
7. Hall
8. Quinn

TE:
9. Lee
10. Finley
11. Havner

OL:
12. Clifton
13. Colledge
14. Spitz
15. Sitton
16. Barbre
17. Giacomini
18. Lang
19. Dietrich-Smith
20. Wells
21. Meredith

WR:
22. Driver
23. Jennings
24. Jones
25. Nelson
26. Martin

DL:
27. Jenkins
28. Jolly
29. Pickett
30. Raji
31. Montgomery
32. Wynn

LB:
33. Kampman
34. Mathews
35. Thompson
36. Obiozor
37. Hawk
38. Barnett
39. Chillar
40. Bishop

S:
41. Collins
42. Bigby
43. Rouse
44. Smith

CB:
45. Woodson
46. Harris
47. Williams
48. Blacmon
49. Lee
50. Bush

Specialists:
51. Crosby
52. Punter
53. Brett Goode

[Lurker64]

I think that there's no way they carry Wells and Dietrich-Smith. You don't need two Center-Only guys.

I also think that 8 LBs and 6 DL leaves us too shallow, 9-10 LBs and/or 7 DL isn't unheard of. I could see Wells/Dietrich-Smith's roster spot going to Brad Jones, Anthony Toribio, or Alfred Malone. I could see Brohm's roster spot going to one of those guys too.

[Partial]

I think that there's no way they carry Wells and Dietrich-Smith. You don't need two Center-Only guys.

I also think that 8 LBs and 6 DL leaves us too shallow, 9-10 LBs and/or 7 DL isn't unheard of. I could see Wells/Dietrich-Smith's roster spot going to Brad Jones, Anthony Toribio, or Alfred Malone. I could see Brohm's roster spot going to one of those guys too.

Wells and DS have both played guard in the past.

Brohm is not going to get cut. He was a #2. Do you think they're going to cut Pat Lee who has shown equally little and been unavailable via injury? No. No way.

If they did opt to keep another fat boy, I think they would substitute fatty with a thinny in Montgomery. He's undersized and basically worthless.

[pbmax]

Ah, but PB, what if McCarthy wants to "count" Havner as a linebacker so he can say he has two tight ends because he wants to keep an extra fullback or halfback? Then you'd be sacrificing one of the other linebackers (but who?) in order to keep an extra back.
:D I think they should list Havner as a position coach and then sneak him onto the field using someone else's jersey number for Special Teams. If someone gets hurt, boom, sign his butt to a contract and give him a different number. It'll be like real life "Where's Waldo".


McCarthy can have that job. I like to make sweeping authoratative statements without being responsible for the real results!
Hear, Hear. Fritz for Vice-President. :lol:

[pbmax]

Lurk, the McGinn scout saw him as Center only, but the Packers have been giving him reps at Guard as well. That is slightly different than the Center only work Wells got his first three McCarthy years.

This year, I think DS and Wells are having essentially the same test. The only difference is that if Wells passes, he might start at Center. DS would be a backup straight away.

[Lurker64]

Lurk, the McGinn scout saw him as Center only, but the Packers have been giving him reps at Guard as well. That is slightly different than the Center only work Wells got his first three McCarthy years.

This year, I think DS and Wells are having essentially the same test. The only difference is that if Wells passes, he might start at Center. DS would be a backup straight away.

Assuming Spitz wins the center job (which is far from a given), I think that they will try to trade one of Wells and Dietrich-Smith and keeping whichever player draws the least interest and giving him the backup C job.

If Wells wins the center job, I don't think that Dietrich-Smith will make the roster, but we might be able to shop him for a conditional late round pick. We'd be pretty solid 2 deep at C (Wells, Spitz), and pretty solid 2 deep at G (Colledge, Sitton, Spitz, Lang). The excess OL roster spots will probably go to the tackle spots, as we're not very well set there (we need to groom a successor for Clifton, and the RT situation is hazy).

[Partial]

Risky move. Remember Chris White looked good in PS too.

[Partial]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

Havner has played it too.

But yeah, I think that chances are high that one of Chillar or Bishop either gets the axe or is traded.

So are we on for the 100 bucks? M3 has all but confirmed in that past they both will be on the team by saying "Chillar is the best linebacker in camp" and "Bishop will be used heavily in blitz/sub packages"

[Lurker64]

Risky move. Remember Chris White looked good in PS too.

Wait, how is it a "risky move" to carry 2 instead of 3 centers? How many NFL teams carry three centers?

[Partial]

Risky move. Remember Chris White looked good in PS too.

Wait, how is it a "risky move" to carry 2 instead of 3 centers? How many NFL teams carry three centers?

I was implying banking on the unproven rook exclusively.

[Lurker64]

Risky move. Remember Chris White looked good in PS too.

Wait, how is it a "risky move" to carry 2 instead of 3 centers? How many NFL teams carry three centers?

I was implying banking on the unproven rook exclusively.

Nobody has him starting, either Wells or Spitz will start. Counting on an unproven backup at a position where backups don't usually play? Not that risky.

[Partial]

Risky move. Remember Chris White looked good in PS too.

Wait, how is it a "risky move" to carry 2 instead of 3 centers? How many NFL teams carry three centers?

I was implying banking on the unproven rook exclusively.

Nobody has him starting, either Wells or Spitz will start. Counting on an unproven backup at a position where backups don't usually play? Not that risky.

Don't usually play if someone doesn't get hurt, sure. No reason to get rid of Wells for a what, 6th round pick at best? That's just silly.

[Lurker64]

Don't usually play if someone doesn't get hurt, sure. No reason to get rid of Wells for a what, 6th round pick at best? That's just silly.

I'd give up Wells for a 6th round pick in a heartbeat. That's one round higher than we got him in, and we've gotten some good players in the sixth round under Thompson (Michael Montgomery, Johnny Jolly, Korey Hall, Desmond Bishop, and Mason Crosby were sixth round picks by Thompson that are still on our roster; Tyrone Culver is still on the roster in Miami; Craig Bragg sucks.)

[Partial]

Don't usually play if someone doesn't get hurt, sure. No reason to get rid of Wells for a what, 6th round pick at best? That's just silly.

I'd give up Wells for a 6th round pick in a heartbeat. That's one round higher than we got him in, and we've gotten some good players in the sixth round under Thompson (Michael Montgomery, Johnny Jolly, Korey Hall, Desmond Bishop, and Mason Crosby were sixth round picks by Thompson that are still on our roster; Tyrone Culver is still on the roster in Miami; Craig Bragg sucks.)

Who cares when we got him? He could be a solid starter and first rate backup at two different positions. This team is in win now mode. Get rid of Wells and an injury to the guard spot or center spot could derail the season.

I think it's debateable that some of those are good players. Glad to see you back pedaling on Bishop, the guy you've basically thought was horrible for a long time now. Dude is going to be solid in this D.

[Lurker64]

Glad to see you back pedaling on Bishop, the guy you've basically thought was horrible for a long time now. Dude is going to be solid in this D.

I never said he was horrible. I simply said that his limitations meant that he shouldn't be considered an every down linebacker, nor should he start. Is he a valuable member of the team? Absolutely. Should he be on the field in some packages? Absolutely. My opinion on Bishop hasn't changed.

[Patler]

The JSO started this. Here is an exchange I had with Bedard on twitter:

Waldo56 - People need to stop with this trade AJ nonsense. There is a 7M dead cap hit if he is traded. It ain't happening.

Waldo56 - @Greg_A_Bedard Does McGinn understand the concept of a dead cap hit? TT ain't going to flush 7M down the toilet to trade Hawk.

Greg_A_Bedard - People have been asking about this. By my calculations, it wouldn't cost the Packers much to trade/cut A.J. Hawk, believe it or not.

Greg_A_Bedard - $11.85 mill of his $15 mill guaranteed was paid in an option bonus and it's not amortized. In fact, Hawk won't see the 2011 year of his deal

Waldo56 - @Greg_A_Bedard Option bonuses are amortized Greg. Roster bonuses are not. An option bonus is a signing bonus not paid at signing.

Waldo56 - @Greg_A_Bedard By my calculations Hawk has a hair over 7M in amortized bonus remaing.

Greg_A_Bedard - @Waldo56 I don't think so. It was guaranteed. But I could very well be wrong. I'm waiting for an answer from my smarter colleagues.

Greg_A_Bedard - @Waldo56 was correct @TomSilverstein says it would cost Packers an additional $6.9 mill to cut/trade Hawk this yr. #iAmAnIdiot #packers

Greg_A_Bedard - Don't see that happening. But next year, when there's no cap and he's due a $10 mill base in '11? That's more likely.

Waldo;

I agree with your facts, but disagree with your opinion about how those facts will impact TT. That doesn't mean that I think he will trade or release Hawk, I doubt that will happen. But, the salary cap impact alone would not prevent TT from doing it, if he thought it was a good deal to do so.

TT has shown little tendency to make decisions based on cap impact since the cap situation with the Packers has improved. Hunt and KGB had significant "dead money" impacts. Dead money on a current cap is not necessarily a bad thing, it means additional cap space in a future year or years. It's not as if it is an additional charge against the cap, its just a change of when the charge occurs.

It's difficult right now to assess how the CBA situation affects a GM's thinking, since there is the possibility of "resetting" all caps if agreement is reached on a new salary cap. An intervening uncapped year can change things, too. If there is no cap going forward, dead money this year means nothing. If there is a resetting of all teams cap situations, it might be a very good thing to clear Hawk from the books before then, it would give more salary cap space in those future years.

If TT thinks he has players that will give him what Hawk does this year, and if he expects not to have Hawk on his roster in a couple years anyway; if someone were to offer the Packers a needed player and/or a relatively hick draft pick; TT could very well look at it as getting something for nothing.

That said, I will be mildly surprised, but not shocked if Hawk is traded. I expect he will open the season as a starter in GB.

[Dabaddestbear]

As much as I like to make fun of AJ Pigeon, he is by far you guys most solid all around LB. He will never be a superstar LB, or even an exciting player to watch. But he always seems to be in the right place to make the tackle. He doesnt get washed up in the wrong hole as much as Barnett, and doesn't overrun plays as much as Poppinga(spelling?). needless to say, if you guys do get rid of him, as a Bears fan I will be happy, knowing it will only take away a solid asset on your team. :twisted:

[Patler]

As much as I like to make fun of AJ Pigeon, he is by far you guys most solid all around LB. He will never be a superstar LB, or even an exciting player to watch. But he always seems to be in the right place to make the tackle. He doesnt get washed up in the wrong hole as much as Barnett, and doesn't overrun plays as much as Poppinga(spelling?). needless to say, if you guys do get rid of him, as a Bears fan I will be happy, knowing it will only take away a solid asset on your team. :twisted:

I agree, but at some point his salary may exceed his value by more than can be tolerated. Hawk has not been the impact player hoped for, nor has he been the player he seemed on his way to becoming as a rookie. I'm not sure what happened. He had a quickness or suddenness to his game that was gone last year, perhaps due to the injuries. But I haven't seen any indication of it returning this year, although there isn't much of a sample to review yet in '09.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I concentrated on the LBs when rewatching the first half of the game yesterday, and Hawk was very stout against the run. He had a bad play in coverage, but so did Chillar. Hawk isn't going to be traded. I haven't even seen much to him becoming a situational player. Chillar and Bishop will get some playing time, but early in the season it may be at the expense of Barnett. People make it sound like he's going to suddenly be playing 1/3 of the snaps. He rarely came out of the last game. He's going to play a lot more than a few on here are predicting.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I'm disappointed that a couple people felt the need to single him out. He's always been respectful of other posters, and never initiated anything like this. It was unprovoked, and disappointing.

Scott Campbell, you suck.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I concentrated on the LBs when rewatching the first half of the game yesterday, and Hawk was very stout against the run. He had a bad play in coverage, but so did Chillar. Hawk isn't going to be traded. I haven't even seen much to him becoming a situational player. Chillar and Bishop will get some playing time, but early in the season it may be at the expense of Barnett. People make it sound like he's going to suddenly be playing 1/3 of the snaps. He rarely came out of the last game. He's going to play a lot more than a few on here are predicting.
+1 Harv.

I don't see Hawk being traded at all. He's been a stalwart of the defense since he came here and has proven that he's a very good player. I find it amusing that people will rip him for not making plays when he was part of a defensive scheme that didn't put him in the position to make said plays and they rip the hell out of that coordinator for the scheme.

[Scott Campbell]

I'm disappointed that a couple people felt the need to single him out. He's always been respectful of other posters, and never initiated anything like this. It was unprovoked, and disappointing.

Scott Campbell, you suck.



This was entirely appropriate, provoked and well deserved. I'd like to encourage everyone to behave more like this.

[Scott Campbell]

Waldo;

I agree with your facts, but disagree with your opinion about how those facts will impact TT. That doesn't mean that I think he will trade or release Hawk, I doubt that will happen. But, the salary cap impact alone would not prevent TT from doing it, if he thought it was a good deal to do so.


I thought that was part of the point in staying so far under the cap. It allows you to shed players without having to wait until you can push the cap hit out into future years.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I'm disappointed that a couple people felt the need to single him out. He's always been respectful of other posters, and never initiated anything like this. It was unprovoked, and disappointing.

Scott Campbell, you suck.



This was entirely appropriate, provoked and well deserved. I'd like to encourage everyone to behave more like this.

THought you'd get a good chuckle out of that :D

[Patler]

Waldo;

I agree with your facts, but disagree with your opinion about how those facts will impact TT. That doesn't mean that I think he will trade or release Hawk, I doubt that will happen. But, the salary cap impact alone would not prevent TT from doing it, if he thought it was a good deal to do so.


I thought that was part of the point in staying so far under the cap. It allows you to shed players without having to wait until you can push the cap hit out into future years.

That is one of the advantages. It allows you to make more current decisions based on football impact.

[rbaloha1]

Agree -- Hawk probably will not get traded. At least the Hawk apologists have toned it down and reluctantly give backhanded props to the "backups."

[HarveyWallbangers]

Agree -- Hawk probably will not get traded. At least the Hawk apologists have toned it down and reluctantly give backhanded props to the "backups."

This is just silly. Go back to threads at the end of last season. I said that Chillar was our best LB last year. Hawk wasn't good. However, Hawk was better the previous two years than Chillar was last year. Hawk detractors act like he wasn't solid his first two years.

[Patler]

This is just silly. Go back to threads at the end of last season. I said that Chillar was our best LB last year. Hawk wasn't good. However, Hawk was better the previous two years than Chillar was last year. Hawk detractors act like he wasn't solid his first two years.

Injuries aside, the change in Hawk is something I don't fully understand. At the start of year 2, there was legitimate talk of Hawk becoming a real impact player. However, his performance tailed of in that regard even the second half of '07, and I am not aware of any injuries of significance then. He became "steady" and "dependable." These are not bad things, but it doesn't make him special, and there seemed to be a chance for him to be at least moderately special.

[Dabaddestbear]

As much as I like to make fun of AJ Pigeon, he is by far you guys most solid all around LB. He will never be a superstar LB, or even an exciting player to watch. But he always seems to be in the right place to make the tackle. He doesnt get washed up in the wrong hole as much as Barnett, and doesn't overrun plays as much as Poppinga(spelling?). needless to say, if you guys do get rid of him, as a Bears fan I will be happy, knowing it will only take away a solid asset on your team. :twisted:

I agree, but at some point his salary may exceed his value by more than can be tolerated. Hawk has not been the impact player hoped for, nor has he been the player he seemed on his way to becoming as a rookie. I'm not sure what happened. He had a quickness or suddenness to his game that was gone last year, perhaps due to the injuries. But I haven't seen any indication of it returning this year, although there isn't much of a sample to review yet in '09.
How many years do he have left from his Rookie contract? And does that value exceed what the average starting (overall best) LB on each team makes at his position?

[SkinBasket]

Agree -- Hawk probably will not get traded. At least the Hawk apologists have toned it down and reluctantly give backhanded props to the "backups."

What is there to tone down? Hawk played adequately despite 2 injuries, playing 1/3 of the games at a different position, and surround by a ramshackle defense. The back-up players at the other inside LB position have played well in the preseason. Whoopie. I think you're fighting 95% of this battle in your head.

[Pugger]

I don't understand all the hate Hawk gets on some of these Packer forums. I suppose because he was the #5 overall pick folks think he is a bust because he isn't the second coming of Lawrence Taylor. :roll: He's been solid and doesn't mess up too often even when he had to play with that sorry defense last yr. I'm hoping he thrives in Capers' scheme this season.

[Lurker64]

I think a lot of people who are being critical of Hawk in the preseason (including Gred Bedard) don't really understand the role of the position Hawk is playing in this defense.

IIRC the two ILBs in the Capers system are named the "Mack" (WILB) and "Buck" (SILB). So far, the Mack position has been manned by Chillar and Bishop with Barnett Pencilled in, and Hawk has been playing the Buck for the #1s.

The theory of offense is to always have blockers in every gap equal to the number of defenders in that gap. If the blockers execute their jobs succesfully, that means that either the ballcarrier gets to the second level or the there is no pressure applied to the passer through that gap. Correspondingly, the defense wants a player in every gap, plus one guy who makes the tackle.

On running plays, usually, the offense usually try to send an extra blocker (the lead blocker), to take out the LB in the gap being attacked, so there's nobody around in order to make the tackle. In the Capers defense, the Buck's job is to prevent this from happening. The Buck engages any blockers who look like they're going to try to put a hat on the Mack, so that the Mack can make the tackle in the inside running game.

Correspondingly, in the passing game, Blitzes often get home by overloading a particular gap. If there are more defensive players in a given gap than there are blockers, someone usually breaks free. In the Capers defense, it's the Buck's job to engage a blocker who would otherwise engage the blitzer whose job it is to get home.

So when people watch games and practices this year, they see Hawk failing to get off blocks, and not getting sacks or pressures and they see Bishop and Chillar making play after play, and they think that Hawk is not doing his job. In fact, the reason Bishop and Chillar are making so many plays, is because Hawk is doing his job. Hawk's not playing the playmaking ILB spot, he's playing the banger ILB spot, and you can tell whether or not the banger is doing a good job by whether or not the playmaker is making plays... and so far so good.

[mission]

Nice post, Lurk. I wasn't sure about the roles of the ILBs... makes plenty sense.

[swede]

Excellent work, Lurker!

Check your fourth paragraph where you said tackler when I think you meant blocker.

I see your point clearly, but as a practical matter I can't imagine how one player can, in effect, take himself out of the play as a tackler solely in order to engage a blocker. From AJ's point of view is he keying on the lead blocker on running plays and filling that gap? In that case one would think he'd be in on a fair amount of tackles near the LOS.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hawk was in on at least 3 tackles that netted 3 yards or less in the last game...whether he was credited or not. Rewatch the game, and tell me if you think Hawk did a good job or not. I'm not sure how anybody could be dissatisfied with anything they've seen out of the first team offense or defense in this last game. (I only saw the final 3 quarters of the Cleveland game, so I can't judge that.)

[swede]

Hawk was in on at least 3 tackles that netted 3 yards or less in the last game...whether he was credited or not. Rewatch the game, and tell me if you think Hawk did a good job or not. I'm not sure how anybody could be dissatisfied with anything they've seen out of the first team offense or defense in this last game. (I only saw the final 3 quarters of the Cleveland game, so I can't judge that.)

And I thought Hawk--for the first time in forever--was kind of fired up and playing with a lot of outward emotion. He was pissed that he didn't get the TD off his strip of the QB! When I saw him all worked up I asked myself if I had EVER seen him geeked up in a game! I liked it, and I think that he should learn to play like a crazy man. Desmond Bishop is, and there are only so many minutes of playing time to go around.

[]{ilr]3]

Hawk was in on at least 3 tackles that netted 3 yards or less in the last game...whether he was credited or not. Rewatch the game, and tell me if you think Hawk did a good job or not. I'm not sure how anybody could be dissatisfied with anything they've seen out of the first team offense or defense in this last game. (I only saw the final 3 quarters of the Cleveland game, so I can't judge that.)

And I thought Hawk--for the first time in forever--was kind of fired up and playing with a lot of outward emotion. He was pissed that he didn't get the TD off his strip of the QB! When I saw him all worked up I asked myself if I had EVER seen him geeked up in a game! I liked it, and I think that he should learn to play like a crazy man. Desmond Bishop is, and there are only so many minutes of playing time to go around.

I think it was a few plays after that Hawk seriously over pursued the RB and wiffed a tackle. The runner ran for 1st down after that. Granted a 1 on 1 RB/LB is what the offense was trying to get, but still, he had the chance and blew it.

I am a Hawk fan, though.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Yep, he did do that. He was in coverage on the play and slipped by the ballcarrier. I noted that earlier. He was damn stout against the run though. I also noted that Chillar gave up a catch in coverage.

[Lurker64]

I see your point clearly, but as a practical matter I can't imagine how one player can, in effect, take himself out of the play as a tackler solely in order to engage a blocker. From AJ's point of view is he keying on the lead blocker on running plays and filling that gap? In that case one would think he'd be in on a fair amount of tackles near the LOS.

Well, this is really the schematic advantage the 3-4 has against the run that the 4-3 does not.

In the 4-3 defense, the lead blocker on the running play engages a linebacker and that linebacker has to beat the block in order to make the tackle or one of the other two linebackers needs to pursue and make the tackle.

In the 3-4 on a running play, you have two linebackers specifically keying on the running back. Having a lead blocker in that case does not help, because there will be one of two ILBs unblocked and he will make the tackle. Schematically, the Capers defense doesn't wait for the lead blocker to come to you and block the player of his choice, it just has one linebacker whose responsibility is always "hit the first guy who comes through the hole". Sometimes that guy is going to be the running back, and the Buck makes the tackle, but more often than not it's going to be a lead blocker and even though the Buck doesn't "make the play" in this case, he's doing something valuable as the Mack is now allowed to go one on one with the ballcarrier.

So Hawk's responsibility is pretty much "hit the first guy you see in your appointed gap and keep him from blocking anybody else downfield if he's not the ballcarrier", since on running plays ideally once the play has gotten to the second level, blockers peel off whoever they're blocking and go hit someone else downfield, as most running backs can easily outrun most defensive linemen in a footrace.

[Waldo]

There is an art to timing being the block eater.

Worst thing that could happen, the LB gets flattened, the blocker keeps going.
A not much better case is to run around a block or shed it too soon, and miss a tackle.
A little better, but still poor play, is for the LB to get blocked and pushed out of the hole, however holding up the blocker to take him out of the play.
Better still is for the LB to get blocked, hold strong and plug up the gap, but be unable to shed it.
Best case is to get blocked, hold the gap, shed the block the instant the back gets to/by the blocking and make the tackle.

Our buck should mostly be doing the last two items, and not do the first two items at all.

[Fritz]

I dunno. It all sounds pretty bucked up to me.
:rs:

[mission]

There is an art to timing being the block eater.

Worst thing that could happen, the LB gets flattened, the blocker keeps going.
A not much better case is to run around a block or shed it too soon, and miss a tackle.
A little better, but still poor play, is for the LB to get blocked and pushed out of the hole, however holding up the blocker to take him out of the play.
Better still is for the LB to get blocked, hold strong and plug up the gap, but be unable to shed it.
Best case is to get blocked, hold the gap, shed the block the instant the back gets to/by the blocking and make the tackle.

Our buck should mostly be doing the last two items, and not do the first two items at all.

Makes sense. And nice latest post on your blog, Waldo. Look forward to more!

[Fred's Slacks]

There is an art to timing being the block eater.

Worst thing that could happen, the LB gets flattened, the blocker keeps going.
A not much better case is to run around a block or shed it too soon, and miss a tackle.
A little better, but still poor play, is for the LB to get blocked and pushed out of the hole, however holding up the blocker to take him out of the play.
Better still is for the LB to get blocked, hold strong and plug up the gap, but be unable to shed it.
Best case is to get blocked, hold the gap, shed the block the instant the back gets to/by the blocking and make the tackle.

Our buck should mostly be doing the last two items, and not do the first two items at all.

Makes sense. And nice latest post on your blog, Waldo. Look forward to more!

seconded on the blog post. anyone needing (or wanting) to learn more about how a 3-4 works fundamentally, give it a read. great stuff.

[Lurker64]

Interestingly, Bishop could, potentially, be very good at Hawk's position *IF* he develops better instincts (which is possible, with experience). His problem has always been that he guesses the proper gap to attack, which is very good if he guesses right and very bad if he guesses wrong.

Failing to hit the right gap is the biggest sin that a Buck LB can commit, as suddenly the Mack is blocked and he's out of position to make the tackle and you've given up a big running play right there. So I don't know if Bishop is quite ready to play in the Buck spot, even though he's pencilled in there behind Hawk IIRC. He's done well in the Mack spot where his gap responsibilities are limited to "attack an assigned gap" (on a blitz) or "follow the Buck and make the tackle" (on a running play). Lansanah has looked pretty good at Buck in the preseason and may have won himself a roster spot for that reason alone. I haven't seen Bishop play it much, but he could play it well with some seasoning. He definitely has the personality and the physicality to be a banger, which is what the Buck is there for.

[MOBB DEEP]

And I thought Hawk--for the first time in forever--was kind of fired up and playing with a lot of outward emotion. He was pissed that he didn't get the TD off his strip of the QB! When I saw him all worked up I asked myself if I had EVER seen him geeked up in a game! I liked it

qft