Chewy

[Harlan Huckleby]

Chmura seems like a nice guy, and his analysis is frequently the best. I caught his Sunday morning radio show with Craig Karmazin today.

One caller did inquire about the crop of high school girls this fall. Next.

Chmura said last summer that Kampman should be traded 'cause he's a fish out of water. A correct and unpopular view.

He also thinks that HAwk is an average player, and Chillar is their best linebacker, with MAthews looking like a future stud.

I think the Sunday morn football show with Chmura is the best football talk to found. Chmura really knows his stuff. The show is moral like natural conversation compared to the grease and schtick from Steve the Homer True or The Big Unit.

[channtheman]

Agree about Kampman and Hawk. Is there any possibility at all that we trade either of these guys?

[3irty1]

Kampman looked like a fish out of water at DE last year so I'm not too whiny about his production this year. I do wish they'd let him pass rush about 40% more. Hawk looks good so far this year. Barnett looks more average to me.

[Deputy Nutz]

Agree about Kampman and Hawk. Is there any possibility at all that we trade either of these guys?

Umm, this would be a very rare situation in the NFL. The trade of Braylon Edwards already happened in the season. That was a suprise because usually teams do not trade during the season, even less rare than a trade in the off-season.

Kampman is going to be free agent and I doubt he will get tagged so any team that wants him will be able to have a shot at him in 2010.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have met Chumra and seen him around town, he is a jag. Typical big fish in a small town. This fall I saw him in a resturant bar. He came in about ten oclock in the evening looking like he came straight off the golf course with his Ping visor, his polo, and his plaid golf shorts, and also his golf spikes. Then the big dufus ordered a red wine in a beer joint.

He acted like he was king shit of the place and did catch the eye of an average looking 50 year old woman.

One of my last adventures with the Skinbasket we ran into a crack whore that claimed Mark Chumra "The American Chewy", fucked her. It was probably true, a couple of years ago before years of crack took it's toll she was a real good looking trampy slut type. She doesn't wear underwear.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as his football takes, he is about as good as anyone elses. Again because he says something you agree with Harlan doesn't mean he is right.

[3irty1]

Why wouldn't he get tagged?

[The Shadow]

Kampman looked like a fish out of water at DE last year so I'm not too whiny about his production this year. I do wish they'd let him pass rush about 40% more. Hawk looks good so far this year. Barnett looks more average to me.

I quite agree!

[Harlan Huckleby]

As far as his football takes, he is about as good as anyone elses. Again because he says something you agree with Harlan doesn't mean he is right.

No, I've listed to him over the years, he is the best WI football guru. His track record is better than other armchair QBs.

[bobblehead]

As far as his football takes, he is about as good as anyone else's. Again because he says something you agree with Harlan doesn't mean he is right.

No, I've listed to him over the years, he is the best WI football guru. His track record is better than other armchair QBs.
I like the analysis, but only because its what I've been spouting all along (except kamp, thought he could adjust).

I like Nutz's analysis of chewy more than chewy's analysis of the Packers though.

[Noodle]

I like the radio show too, but the production values blow. Chewy comes over the air kind of faint, then Craig Karmazin's volume level booms off the charts.

Makes the show sound very amature hour, but the analysis is worth it.

[rbaloha1]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

[swede]

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

With Pick #5 we get Hawk. In another year, with Pick #7, the Vikes get AP. Such is life. There wasn't much going on in Hawk's draft besides Vernon Davis, and I sure didn't want VD then and I'm glad we don't have VD now.

Here is my apology for Hawk: I'm sorry you're an ass.

[rbaloha1]

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

With Pick #5 we get Hawk. In another year, with Pick #7, the Vikes get AP. Such is life. There wasn't much going on in Hawk's draft besides Vernon Davis, and I sure didn't want VD then and I'm glad we don't have VD now.

Here is my apology for Hawk: I'm sorry you're an ass.

Would have loved VD. Finally starting to emerge. Hawk has peaked.

[MJZiggy]

VD cried when we didn't pick him--tears of joy because he didn't want to be here that much.

[Tony Oday]

I still like the Hawk pick. I think he has played well this year.

[Fritz]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

It's still V-Bob's fault. Once you get a good punching bag, you don't just let him go just because he's not with the team any more.

Hell, I blame Kurt Schottenheimer for the new safety's coverage problems against Minnesota.

[bobblehead]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

Vanilla Dom. Accountability on the players be damned.

[ThunderDan]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

[get louder at lambeau]

Hell, I blame Kurt Schottenheimer for the new safety's coverage problems against Minnesota.

Good point. I'd go so far as to blame Marty.

[Partial]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.

[pbmax]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.
And what would be reasonable?

[Partial]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.
And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

[Bossman641]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.
And what would be reasonable?

Partial's opinion ?????

[ThunderDan]

And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

Well that narrows it down considerably. Thanks for the clarification. :oops:

[Partial]

And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

Well that narrows it down considerably. Thanks for the clarification. :oops:

Technically, it broadens your narrow vantage point.

oops :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

[bobblehead]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.
And what would be reasonable?

My opinion...nothing else !!

[channtheman]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.
And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

I agree with Partial. I'm not a football guru and I don't know what other way to grade linebackers other than their tackles but apparently no one else does either. :oops:

To me it seems that even though Hawk is 2nd in tackles, he hasn't really made an impact much at all on our defense, and especially for being a top 5 pick.

[ThunderDan]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.
And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

I agree with Partial. I'm not a football guru and I don't know what other way to grade linebackers other than their tackles but apparently no one else does either. :oops:

To me it seems that even though Hawk is 2nd in tackles, he hasn't really made an impact much at all on our defense, and especially for being a top 5 pick.

I didn't say tackles are the only way to evaluate LBs, but it is the easiest and a 15 second search at NFL.com will get you the information.

But, saying there are other ways to judge LBs and then not mention one is silly.

Hawk is playing fine. Is he playing like we want a top 5 pick to play? No, but that years draft has turned out to be pretty weak.

[ThunderDan]

And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

Well that narrows it down considerably. Thanks for the clarification. :oops:

Technically, it broadens your narrow vantage point.

oops :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

I concede this argument to Partial. Obviously he beat me if he uses 10 Emoticons after his point. If only I had done that first I would have won the argument.

[falco]

lets not let mraynrand anywhere near this thread...

[Guiness]

I didn't say tackles are the only way to evaluate LBs, but it is the easiest and a 15 second search at NFL.com will get you the information.

But, saying there are other ways to judge LBs and then not mention one is silly.

Hawk is playing fine. Is he playing like we want a top 5 pick to play? No, but that years draft has turned out to be pretty weak.

Mmm. And a 15 second analysis gets you...well, that falls into the 'get what you pay for' category.

Who was that LB we picked up as an FA a couple years ago? Played for Cleveland, I think. I honestly can't remember his name - but he led his team in tackles the year before, and the thinking was when he was surrounded with some other good talent, he'd be a great player. Turned out to be JAG, gone after one mediocre year.

[ThunderDan]

I didn't say tackles are the only way to evaluate LBs, but it is the easiest and a 15 second search at NFL.com will get you the information.

But, saying there are other ways to judge LBs and then not mention one is silly.

Hawk is playing fine. Is he playing like we want a top 5 pick to play? No, but that years draft has turned out to be pretty weak.

Mmm. And a 15 second analysis gets you...well, that falls into the 'get what you pay for' category.

Who was that LB we picked up as an FA a couple years ago? Played for Cleveland, I think. I honestly can't remember his name - but he led his team in tackles the year before, and the thinking was when he was surrounded with some other good talent, he'd be a great player. Turned out to be JAG, gone after one mediocre year.

Well considering I'm only comparing the Packers and not comparing a Brown to a Packer there is some validity to the comparision.

[ThunderDan]

I didn't say tackles are the only way to evaluate LBs, but it is the easiest and a 15 second search at NFL.com will get you the information.

But, saying there are other ways to judge LBs and then not mention one is silly.

Hawk is playing fine. Is he playing like we want a top 5 pick to play? No, but that years draft has turned out to be pretty weak.

Mmm. And a 15 second analysis gets you...well, that falls into the 'get what you pay for' category.

Who was that LB we picked up as an FA a couple years ago? Played for Cleveland, I think. I honestly can't remember his name - but he led his team in tackles the year before, and the thinking was when he was surrounded with some other good talent, he'd be a great player. Turned out to be JAG, gone after one mediocre year.

At least it takes 15 seconds to look up Hawk's tackles verses 3 seconds to say he is underperforming this year.\

Same as saying Al Harris sucks or ARod or put in any Packer player other than Barbre.

[Deputy Nutz]

I didn't say tackles are the only way to evaluate LBs, but it is the easiest and a 15 second search at NFL.com will get you the information.

But, saying there are other ways to judge LBs and then not mention one is silly.

Hawk is playing fine. Is he playing like we want a top 5 pick to play? No, but that years draft has turned out to be pretty weak.

Mmm. And a 15 second analysis gets you...well, that falls into the 'get what you pay for' category.

Who was that LB we picked up as an FA a couple years ago? Played for Cleveland, I think. I honestly can't remember his name - but he led his team in tackles the year before, and the thinking was when he was surrounded with some other good talent, he'd be a great player. Turned out to be JAG, gone after one mediocre year.
His name was Ben Taylor and I can't believe he led the Browns in tackles.

[ThunderDan]

I didn't say tackles are the only way to evaluate LBs, but it is the easiest and a 15 second search at NFL.com will get you the information.

But, saying there are other ways to judge LBs and then not mention one is silly.

Hawk is playing fine. Is he playing like we want a top 5 pick to play? No, but that years draft has turned out to be pretty weak.

Mmm. And a 15 second analysis gets you...well, that falls into the 'get what you pay for' category.

Who was that LB we picked up as an FA a couple years ago? Played for Cleveland, I think. I honestly can't remember his name - but he led his team in tackles the year before, and the thinking was when he was surrounded with some other good talent, he'd be a great player. Turned out to be JAG, gone after one mediocre year.
His name was Ben Taylor and I can't believe he led the Browns in tackles.

Andra Davis led the Browns in tackles that year with 149 tackles and 2 sacks. Ben Taylor 113 tackles and 0 sacks.

[Deputy Nutz]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.
And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

I agree with Partial. I'm not a football guru and I don't know what other way to grade linebackers other than their tackles but apparently no one else does either. :oops:

To me it seems that even though Hawk is 2nd in tackles, he hasn't really made an impact much at all on our defense, and especially for being a top 5 pick.

Well I think tackles is an important statistic to levy a players production. I am not saying it is the only statistic, and if you wanted to really get complicated you could watch every game this year and break down a players tackle in comparison to the line of scrimmage.

Pass Coverage, zone responsibility.

A couple of things that I watch on the defense is the linebackers and in all the front seven. I love dvr it lets me watch a play several times in a row and I can see why a certain play was made, or why the play failed. I can tell you this nobody in the linebacking core has a leg to stand on in terms of playing solid football, making minimal mistakes both physically and mentally. It is not a very strong unit at this point. I will also mention that the defensive line is not eating up blocks and not making it difficult for offensive linemen getting to the second level and getting their hands on the linebackers, outside and inside.

[bobblehead]

And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

Well that narrows it down considerably. Thanks for the clarification. :oops:

Technically, it broadens your narrow vantage point.

oops :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

I concede this argument to Partial. Obviously he beat me if he uses 10 Emoticons after his point. If only I had done that first I would have won the argument.

No, cux ty would have responded with "game, set, match"

[rbaloha1]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.
And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

[pack4to84]

http://i34.tinypic.com/2qnw8qt.jpg

took picture of my shirt and uploaded it.

[MJZiggy]

Did it need to be life size? :wink:

[ThunderDan]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

Can you give us statistics for the Packers to see how the team ranks in impact plays please??

[sharpe1027]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

I am struggling to name a scheme isn't designed for lbs to make tackles...prevent defense maybe? :wink:

[rbaloha1]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

Can you give us statistics for the Packers to see how the team ranks in impact plays please??

No stats. My guess would be the packers would be ranked low.

[sharpe1027]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

Can you give us statistics for the Packers to see how the team ranks in impact plays please??

With less games than many teams:

Sacks = 30th
Interceptions = 3rd
Fumbles = 20th
3rd down percentage = 28th
4th down percentage = 6th
Yards/game = 18th
pts/game = 21

[ThunderDan]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

Can you give us statistics for the Packers to see how the team ranks in impact plays please??

No stats. My guess would be the packers would be ranked low.

So you are basing your opinion that Hawk is not playing well on a "guess". At least with tackles, that's what LBs do, we have some sort of quantitative way of measuring performance. An easy measure to look up, that paints a very broad stroke of what is happening and misses some of the finer detail.

I am not saying that you are wrong. But it sure would be nice to get a list of impact plays for the Packers and see where everyone ranks.

[ThunderDan]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

Can you give us statistics for the Packers to see how the team ranks in impact plays please??

With less games than many teams:

Sacks = 30th
Interceptions = 3rd
Fumbles = 20th
3rd down percentage = 28th
4th down percentage = 6th
Yards/game = 18th
pts/game = 21

Thanks Sharpe, at least that gets to a starting point.