Giving Hawk his due

[Partial]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/59384197.html

[bobblehead]

read that. Hawk played a very solid game. The glorified safety got a game ball though.

[SnakeLH2006]

I read that Hawk played decent and did what they wanted him to do. That was one game, though.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I read that Hawk played decent and did what they wanted him to do. That was one game, though.

You make it sound like he hasn't been doing this before now. He's been solid since he got here.

[sheepshead]

I read that Hawk played decent and did what they wanted him to do. That was one game, though.

You make it sound like he hasn't been doing this before now. He's been solid since he got here.
Solid indeed. No one will confuse him with Lawrence Taylor but a solid player from the total crap shoot, the NFLs first round.

[Spaulding]

His takedown late in the game on Hester running down the sidelines was key. Wondering if that would have occurred if Bishop would have been playing in his place - guessing not.

[rbaloha1]

Hawk played well. Still not at the level of Urlacher or Wills and most likely never will.

No need to resign after 2010.

[Fritz]

I saw a play in the second half in which Hawk was running side-by-side with, I think, a tight end. Good coverage, pretty far down the field.

His presence right around the ball was heartening.

[oregonpackfan]

I saw a play in the second half in which Hawk was running side-by-side with, I think, a tight end. Good coverage, pretty far down the field.



I remember that play as well, Fritz. Hawk looked good.

[mraynrand]

Hawk played well. Still not at the level of Urlacher or Wills and most likely never will.

No need to resign after 2010.

That all depends on what they have backing him up and what he's cost to keep. It will be interesting to see if his stock goes up this year. I suspect it will. He was all beat up last year.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hawk played well. Still not at the level of Urlacher or Wills and most likely never will.

No need to resign after 2010.

Silly talk. We have no idea what he would be asking, how much he improves, and what we have behind him.

Willis and Urlacher? LOL! So I guess Hawk has to play at Hall of Fame level for us to resign him. (Yes, I believe Willis may be on his way to a Hall of Fame career, if injuries don't derail him. I think he's that good.)

BTW, Urlacher isn't at the level of Urlacher anymore.

[Little Whiskey]

Hawk played well. Still not at the level of Urlacher or Wills and most likely never will.

No need to resign after 2010.

Silly talk. We have no idea what he would be asking, how much he improves, and what we have behind him.

Willis and Urlacher? LOL! So I guess Hawk has to play at Hall of Fame level for us to resign him. (Yes, I believe Willis may be on his way to a Hall of Fame career, if injuries don't derail him. I think he's that good.)

BTW, Urlacher isn't at the level of Urlacher anymore.

i thought the same thing Harve. if they had someone better they would have benched or traded him already.

[rbaloha1]

Hawk played well. Still not at the level of Urlacher or Wills and most likely never will.

No need to resign after 2010.

Silly talk. We have no idea what he would be asking, how much he improves, and what we have behind him.

Willis and Urlacher? LOL! So I guess Hawk has to play at Hall of Fame level for us to resign him. (Yes, I believe Willis may be on his way to a Hall of Fame career, if injuries don't derail him. I think he's that good.)

BTW, Urlacher isn't at the level of Urlacher anymore.

i thought the same thing Harve. if they had someone better they would have benched or traded him already.

Playing time is being reduced -- takeaway what you want. The point is with Urlacher and Willis is lbs are generally not taken this high -- if you are, these are examples of where you should be. Yes, Urlacher is not the same but is still a force that needs to be accounted for on every snap. An injured Urlacher still outperforms a healthy Hawk.

Cousinneau (sp) and Bruce both went high and were busts.

[Lurker64]

The decision about whether to resign Hawk, how much to play him, and how much to pay him should have nothing to do with where he was drafted at this point. As underwhelming as Hawk has been from time to time he has been a consistently solid contributor and two good ILBs are needed to work in this scheme.

Plus, I mean, as much as we want to rag on the guy... he's still one of the 4-5 best players drafted among the top 16 that year in what was a very hyped, and ultimately very underwhelming draft.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hawk played well. Still not at the level of Urlacher or Wills and most likely never will.

No need to resign after 2010.

Silly talk. We have no idea what he would be asking, how much he improves, and what we have behind him.

Willis and Urlacher? LOL! So I guess Hawk has to play at Hall of Fame level for us to resign him. (Yes, I believe Willis may be on his way to a Hall of Fame career, if injuries don't derail him. I think he's that good.)

BTW, Urlacher isn't at the level of Urlacher anymore.

i thought the same thing Harve. if they had someone better they would have benched or traded him already.

Playing time is being reduced -- takeaway what you want. The point is with Urlacher and Willis is lbs are generally not taken this high -- if you are, these are examples of where you should be. Yes, Urlacher is not the same but is still a force that needs to be accounted for on every snap. An injured Urlacher still outperforms a healthy Hawk.

Cousinneau (sp) and Bruce both went high and were busts.

cousineau was hardly a bust. He played in the CFL first for more cash..and was a star and won the Grey Cup's most valuable player.

He signed with the browns and played there for 5 years...was there leading tackler for 3 and was a two time all-nfl player.

He may not have become a HOF, but labeling him a bust is just wrong.

Even Bruce hardly qualifies. Guys that play 11 years in the NFL shouldn't be labeled busts. That is a way harsh term, but Bruce certainly is closer than Cousineau..and Ty can certainly see your point at least on him.

[Guiness]

Hawk played well. Still not at the level of Urlacher or Wills and most likely never will.

No need to resign after 2010.

What sort of (pad) level are we talking about here? :lol:

[rbaloha1]

The decision about whether to resign Hawk, how much to play him, and how much to pay him should have nothing to do with where he was drafted at this point. As underwhelming as Hawk has been from time to time he has been a consistently solid contributor and two good ILBs are needed to work in this scheme.

Plus, I mean, as much as we want to rag on the guy... he's still one of the 4-5 best players drafted among the top 16 that year in what was a very hyped, and ultimately very underwhelming draft.

Does Urlacher and Willis come off the field?

[Lurker64]

Does Urlacher and Willis come off the field?

That's totally irrelevant as to whether or not Hawk should be retained.

[Waldo]

read that. Hawk played a very solid game. The glorified safety got a game ball though.

Nice little jab at me.

He didn't play a single snap of run (base) defense, only playing in pass defense sets. I wonder why?

He's good at the task he is used for, coverage and blitzing.

[mraynrand]

read that. Hawk played a very solid game. The glorified safety got a game ball though.

I thought Urlacher was the glorified safety.

[Sparkey]

2006
Led the Packers' defense with 121 total tackles, 84 of them solo. He also recorded 2 interceptions, 3.5 sacks, 6 passes defended and 1 forced fumble and 2 fumble recoveries. He was third place in voting for the Associated Press Defensive Rookie of the Year.

2007
Second on the team with 105 total tackles, 78 of them solo. He also had 1 interception, 1 sack, 4 passes defended and 1 forced fumble and 1 fumble recovery.

2008
86 Tackles, 67 solo and 3.0 sacks, and 1 pass defended.

If memory serves me correctly, Bates was the D-coordinator in 2006. The next two years, Mr. Boring Sanders ran the D. He fought through injuries in 2008 early on, then had to switch from WOLB to MLB when Barnett went down. (Remember, the Weakside backer in Bates 4-3 man defense is the main play maker and he moved to the middle in 2008)

In my opinion, AJ Hawk has been an outstanding linebacker for the Packers. He is assignment sure and has an incredible mix if skills. The new Capers defense is perfect for him as he can attack more instead of read and react. I feel that it was the Sanders defense that did not put him in siuations that allowed him to use his talents properly.

The Bears game, when Woodson missed the tackle on Hester, and Hawk actually caught up to him and forced him out of bounds... THAT was a great play! Yeah, yeah he had the angle, but lets not forget Hester is one of the faster WR's in the league.

[rbaloha1]

Does Urlacher and Willis come off the field?

That's totally irrelevant as to whether or not Hawk should be retained.

That is not the issue. The point is lbs drafted at Hawk's draft slot are SUPPOSED TO BE EVERY DOWN PLAYERS. Hawk is a solid player not playing at the same level as peers drafted at the same position.

Hawk is also not one of the top 5 Packers. Is he better than: Jenkins, Kampman, Harris, Woodson, Collins, Rodgers, Jennings, Driver?

[bobblehead]

read that. Hawk played a very solid game. The glorified safety got a game ball though.

Nice little jab at me.

He didn't play a single snap of run (base) defense, only playing in pass defense sets. I wonder why?

He's good at the task he is used for, coverage and blitzing.

Don't be so full of yourself, I was more tooting my own horn than jabbing at you. In your mind its about you, but in my mind its about me.

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

[bobblehead]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=5655

BY DOWN TOT SOLO AST SACK STF STFY FF BK INT YDS AVG LNG TD PD
1st down 3 3 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd down 3 3 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd down 2 1 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
BY DOWN AND LENGTH TOT SOLO AST SACK STF STFY FF BK INT YDS AVG LNG TD PD
1st & 10 3 3 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & Long 1 0 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & Med. 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
BY DOWN AND DISTANCE TOT SOLO AST SACK STF STFY FF BK INT YDS AVG LNG TD PD
1st & 8-10 3 3 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
1st & 6+ 3 3 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd & 3-7 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd & 8-10 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd & 11+ 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd & <6 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd & 6+ 2 2 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & 3-7 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & 11+ 1 0 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & <6 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & 6+ 1 0 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0


Not bad splits...seems like he played equally on all downs and distances. 3 tackles and a sack on first down. Led the team in tackles.

Your getting like a lot of posters around here who post things that fit their perception without checking the actual nasty little things known as facts.

Just man up now, admit chillar is the best LB on the team and save yourself 15 more weeks of this.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.

[Freak Out]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.

This is what I like about our new D so much....it puts the players we have in a position to be at their best....at least for the DL and LBs. I think Harris and Woodson are experienced/smart enough to read and react to just about any situation...not sure about the safeties.

[Waldo]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.

Chillar played 58 snaps, Hawk and Barnett each played 41 snaps.

Hawk and Barnett were the 3-4 LB's, Chillar and a rotation of Hawk and Barnett were the 2-4-5 LB's. Except for a couple of series that Chillar played 3-4 mack instead of Barnett. Hawk played every snap at 3-4 buck.

Hawk and Barnett are our best linebackers.

The best combination of run stopping, pass rushing, and pass coverage is Barnett, but he is not a physical linebacker. He can diagnose the best of our linebackers. By a mile.

The best combination of run stopping, pass rushing, and pass coverage, while being physical enough to tangle with the OL play after play, is Hawk. By a mile.

The best in coverage is Chillar. He is also the least physical LB on the team.

[Cheesehead Craig]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.

Chillar played 58 snaps, Hawk and Barnett each played 41 snaps.

Where did you find this info?

[Waldo]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.

Chillar played 58 snaps, Hawk and Barnett each played 41 snaps.

Where did you find this info?

GBPG had a complete breakdown of snaps per player, blitzes and coverages, form of defense by snap, and other assorted stats, in 2 different articles, both by Pelissero I believe.

[Pugger]

2006
Led the Packers' defense with 121 total tackles, 84 of them solo. He also recorded 2 interceptions, 3.5 sacks, 6 passes defended and 1 forced fumble and 2 fumble recoveries. He was third place in voting for the Associated Press Defensive Rookie of the Year.

2007
Second on the team with 105 total tackles, 78 of them solo. He also had 1 interception, 1 sack, 4 passes defended and 1 forced fumble and 1 fumble recovery.

2008
86 Tackles, 67 solo and 3.0 sacks, and 1 pass defended.

If memory serves me correctly, Bates was the D-coordinator in 2006. The next two years, Mr. Boring Sanders ran the D. He fought through injuries in 2008 early on, then had to switch from WOLB to MLB when Barnett went down. (Remember, the Weakside backer in Bates 4-3 man defense is the main play maker and he moved to the middle in 2008)

In my opinion, AJ Hawk has been an outstanding linebacker for the Packers. He is assignment sure and has an incredible mix if skills. The new Capers defense is perfect for him as he can attack more instead of read and react. I feel that it was the Sanders defense that did not put him in siuations that allowed him to use his talents properly.

The Bears game, when Woodson missed the tackle on Hester, and Hawk actually caught up to him and forced him out of bounds... THAT was a great play! Yeah, yeah he had the angle, but lets not forget Hester is one of the faster WR's in the league.

This one play stood out for me too. Didn't that save a TD? He showed a nice burst of speed there. Hawk has been solid. That wasn't the most talent laden draft class in the history of the NFL. Instead of bashing Hawk cuz he don't play every stinkin snap why don't we celebrate the luxury we have = a great stable of LBers each possessing individual skills that Capers can utilize during our games?

[RashanGary]

Right, and when Raji comes back, he won't start but he'll play just as much as Jolly. What's more important - being on the field for the 1st snap or being on the field for more snaps?

I'd say the number and quality of snaps is more important than being on the 1st snap.

Chillar is above Hawk, Barnett, Matthews and Poppinga right now. He's our 2nd best LB after Kampman so says our DC who plays him as such. If you want to know what a coach thinks about a player, see how much he plays. Ask Manu Ginoboli.

[Waldo]

Right, and when Raji comes back, he won't start but he'll play just as much as Jolly. What's more important - being on the field for the 1st snap or being on the field for more snaps?

I'd say the number and quality of snaps is more important than being on the 1st snap.

Chillar is above Hawk, Barnett, Matthews and Poppinga right now. He's our 2nd best LB after Kampman so says our DC who plays him as such. If you want to know what a coach thinks about a player, see how much he plays. Just ask Manu Ginoboli.

But there is the fundamental thing that he is still partly playing as a backup in addition to playing his normal nickel role. Barnett is still not 100%, he is being eased into his full workload. Barnett is not going to eat into Hawk's snaps, he is going to eat into Chillar's. When Barnett is 100%, Chillar will not see any time during 3-4 sets, unless he passes Barnett on the depth chart, in which case I will share your enthusiasm. Till then he is a nickel DB that plays LB.

[RashanGary]

Right, and when Raji comes back, he won't start but he'll play just as much as Jolly. What's more important - being on the field for the 1st snap or being on the field for more snaps?

I'd say the number and quality of snaps is more important than being on the 1st snap.

Chillar is above Hawk, Barnett, Matthews and Poppinga right now. He's our 2nd best LB after Kampman so says our DC who plays him as such. If you want to know what a coach thinks about a player, see how much he plays. Just ask Manu Ginoboli.

But there is the fundamental thing that he is still partly playing as a backup in addition to playing his normal nickel role. Barnett is still not 100%, he is being eased into his full workload. Barnett is not going to eat into Hawk's snaps, he is going to eat into Chillar's. When Barnett is 100%, Chillar will not see any time during 3-4 sets, unless he passes Barnett on the depth chart, in which case I will share your enthusiasm. Till then he is a nickel DB that plays LB.

Nope. Chillar is a LB, our 2nd most played LB. We have a separate 5th DB for nickle.

[rbaloha1]

Right, and when Raji comes back, he won't start but he'll play just as much as Jolly. What's more important - being on the field for the 1st snap or being on the field for more snaps?

I'd say the number and quality of snaps is more important than being on the 1st snap.

Chillar is above Hawk, Barnett, Matthews and Poppinga right now. He's our 2nd best LB after Kampman so says our DC who plays him as such. If you want to know what a coach thinks about a player, see how much he plays. Just ask Manu Ginoboli.

But there is the fundamental thing that he is still partly playing as a backup in addition to playing his normal nickel role. Barnett is still not 100%, he is being eased into his full workload. Barnett is not going to eat into Hawk's snaps, he is going to eat into Chillar's. When Barnett is 100%, Chillar will not see any time during 3-4 sets, unless he passes Barnett on the depth chart, in which case I will share your enthusiasm. Till then he is a nickel DB that plays LB.

Nope. Chillar is a LB, our 2nd most played LB. We have a separate 5th DB for nickle.

Agreed. Chilly looks like a lb, plays like a lb and in this scheme the Packers best lb.

[Waldo]

Right, and when Raji comes back, he won't start but he'll play just as much as Jolly. What's more important - being on the field for the 1st snap or being on the field for more snaps?

I'd say the number and quality of snaps is more important than being on the 1st snap.

Chillar is above Hawk, Barnett, Matthews and Poppinga right now. He's our 2nd best LB after Kampman so says our DC who plays him as such. If you want to know what a coach thinks about a player, see how much he plays. Just ask Manu Ginoboli.

But there is the fundamental thing that he is still partly playing as a backup in addition to playing his normal nickel role. Barnett is still not 100%, he is being eased into his full workload. Barnett is not going to eat into Hawk's snaps, he is going to eat into Chillar's. When Barnett is 100%, Chillar will not see any time during 3-4 sets, unless he passes Barnett on the depth chart, in which case I will share your enthusiasm. Till then he is a nickel DB that plays LB.

Nope. Chillar is a LB, our 2nd most played LB. We have a separate 5th DB for nickle.

And a 6th that replaces our banger (Hawk), or tackler (Barnett), giving them a breather during some pass D, giving a different look to the O.

I am done with this topic. I trust my ability to evaluate players on tape, and will not partake in the Chillar dick suck fest until I actually see him play like a good LB. Chillar has a very, very low football IQ IMO, and it shows on tape constantly. He is our most athletic ILB, I'll give you that, he thrives when he can use his athletic ability (coverage/blitzing), and sucks when he has to rely on his football IQ. There will be no better illustration of this then when we play Mn, with a fast shifty RB in an unpredictable ZBS scheme.

Ask yourself, why have you almost never seen Chillar knock a play out of bounds or shut down the corner? It isn't a Hodge-like issue where he simply can't run that fast. He speed and quickness should make him always around the ball when it swings out wide. Yet he definitely spends less time around the ball by the sidelines than Hawk or Barnett. He has the physical ability to be an elite player. Why isn't he? Football IQ.

[rbaloha1]

Who cares at iq -- its about making plays with minimal mistakes. Chillar is executing the scheme better than any lb currently. Why does he get the most snaps?

[ThunderDan]

Who cares at iq -- its about making plays with minimal mistakes. Chillar is executing the scheme better than any lb currently. Why does he get the most snaps?

Because we played the 2-4-5 for almost 2/3 of the snaps if what I read is correct.

[Lurker64]

Who cares at iq -- its about making plays with minimal mistakes. Chillar is executing the scheme better than any lb currently. Why does he get the most snaps?

In the last game he got the most snaps because:
1) Barnett is still being brought along slowly in his return from a major knee injury, Chillar is Barnett's backup.
2) We took more defensive snaps in nickel than in any other defensive set, which is where Chillar plays because it plays to his strengths (coverage and blitzing). Capers played most of the game in nickel because he wanted to devote an extra DB to Olsen.

Let's see how this plays out in more than the first game before we anoint Chillar as awesome. Definitely in "run defense", I saw a hell of a lot more out of Hawk than I did out of Chillar.

[bobblehead]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.
I have admitted that all along...I'm not the one who called one of them a glorified safety. For my money Chillar is the best all around LB on this team, unless Kampman proves to be as good at LB as he was at DE. Just my opinion and I'll defend it vigorously.