Trade Lynch for Hawk?

[rbaloha1]

Would you trade AJ Hawk for Marshawn Lynch? Your thoughts Packer Nation?

[PackerTimer]

Sure. Why not? What's the point in having a 1st round pick sitting on the bench? If you can get something for him, then do it.

I'm an AJ Hawk fan but if the Packers are only willing to play him in base and on first down then you might as well get somebody who can help the team.

[Bossman641]

Personally, if we make a play on Lynch I would rather give up a draft pick.

The circumstances of Sunday's game were unusual in terms of Philly's offensive packages and our being shorthanded on the DL. Capers isn't going to play the entire year in a nickel defense. Since I don't trust Bishop at all, I want Hawk in there on the base D.

[Lurker64]

I'd want Lynch and a draft pick, or Lynch and a backup calibre player for Hawk. We aren't exactly deep at ILB, you know.

[Smidgeon]

Sure. Why not? What's the point in having a 1st round pick sitting on the bench? If you can get something for him, then do it.

I'm an AJ Hawk fan but if the Packers are only willing to play him in base and on first down then you might as well get somebody who can help the team.

How is that not helping the team?

[pbmax]

No.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Only if they think Bishop is more than a preseason star (until this year anyways). I've always felt Lynch was overrated. He's solid all around, but he isn't dynamic. He's a plodder. He's kind of a poor man's Marion Barber.

[pittstang5]

What about Steven Jackson? Weren't there rumors last year about a potential trade with St. Lois for Jackson. I'd trade Hawk and a pick in a heartbeat.

That's saying something, because I'm a huge Hawk fan.

[swede]

What about Steven Jackson? Weren't there rumors last year about a potential trade with St. Lois for Jackson. I'd trade Hawk and a pick in a heartbeat.

That's saying something, because I'm a huge Hawk fan.

When you really appreciate a guy's character you don't mind seeing them go to teams where they can play more.

When you don't like a guy's character you hope he gets sent to the Jets

[sheepshead]

I wouldnt trade Lynch for Hawk but I would trade Hawk for Lynch (considering our circumstances) (I think you meant the later)

[retailguy]

No.

+1

[MadScientist]

Packers are already thin at a LB (kept only 8) and now you want to trade one away for a RB? Lynch may be an upgrade, but the risk for the defense is too great for the amount of gain they will get.

[red]

why didn't capers adjust the D once vick went in the game? vick isn't going to hurt you with his passing, he'll kill you with his running

with that said i would have thought we would see hawk in more then chillar in the second half. chillar is the better coverage guy, but having the better read-react guy, better tackler and better run stuffer in the game might have changed things up a bit when vick started scrambling all over the place on us

just a thought

[Smidgeon]

why didn't capers adjust the D once vick went in the game? vick isn't going to hurt you with his passing, he'll kill you with his running

with that said i would have thought we would see hawk in more then chillar in the second half. chillar is the better coverage guy, but having the better read-react guy, better tackler and better run stuffer in the game might have changed things up a bit when vick started scrambling all over the place on us

just a thought

An interesting thought. But:

1) In Moss's quotes, he implied that it was his call to keep Chiller in the game. I've never played football in an organized manner at any level, but I think the position coaches are responsible for who substitutes for their group when. I realize that Capers could have gone to 3-4 base instead of 2-4 nickel and forced the issue.

2) I also believe that Hawk is the better run defender overall. But Vick isn't a down-your-throat runner. He's a string it out to the sidelines runner who is both quick and fast. That means to me that if Chiller has more range and lives up to his hype, he's a better sideline to sideline defender. Where I am surprised, after thinking about your question, was that Hawk wasn't in on short yardage situations after Vick took over. That would have been perfect for him. Especially the 4th down stop.

[wist43]

Hawk is what a lot of us thought he was coming out - JAG.

He has next to no value, neither does Lynch... so why not.

[packerbacker1234]

Personally, if we make a play on Lynch I would rather give up a draft pick.

The circumstances of Sunday's game were unusual in terms of Philly's offensive packages and our being shorthanded on the DL. Capers isn't going to play the entire year in a nickel defense. Since I don't trust Bishop at all, I want Hawk in there on the base D.

The obvious replacement isn't even Bishop, it's Brandom Chillar, who already plays a lot as it is. He took time away from hawk last year even in teh base defense. The packers obviously believe he is a key LBer for our scheme, so the lineup would most likely be:

Matthews, Barnett, Chillar, Brad Jones - which Jones getting benched in the nickle. Bishop and Zombo become the main guys to rotate in for rest reasons.

[3irty1]

It makes both teams better and makes sense for both players. (Bob Sanders ties for Hawk, Cal ties for Lynch) but the money part of it makes it seem unlikely.

[pbmax]

why didn't capers adjust the D once vick went in the game? vick isn't going to hurt you with his passing, he'll kill you with his running

with that said i would have thought we would see hawk in more then chillar in the second half. chillar is the better coverage guy, but having the better read-react guy, better tackler and better run stuffer in the game might have changed things up a bit when vick started scrambling all over the place on us

just a thought
Like Harv pointed out elsewhere, they were short of lineman and needed the nickel. I would imagine he did not have a 5 LB personnel grouping planned, even though it would have come in handy.

[The Shadow]

Wouldn't trade Hawk, but I would float out a 3rd rounder for Lynch.
The Bills might be more receptive at this point.
Hawk may well play a role in the season - we don't play Philly every week, after all.

[Guiness]

why didn't capers adjust the D once vick went in the game? vick isn't going to hurt you with his passing, he'll kill you with his running

with that said i would have thought we would see hawk in more then chillar in the second half. chillar is the better coverage guy, but having the better read-react guy, better tackler and better run stuffer in the game might have changed things up a bit when vick started scrambling all over the place on us

just a thought

I was wondering just that, and like Smidge above, I wondered if it's because of the style of runner Vick is? I think that's a possible answer, but grasping a bit. If they expected Vick to run more (which he did) and Hawk is a better run stopper, I would've thought they'd have him in there. I know he isn't usually in the nickel, but I have trouble believing he doesn't know it/couldn't play in it.

[Guiness]

It makes both teams better and makes sense for both players. (Bob Sanders ties for Hawk, Cal ties for Lynch) but the money part of it makes it seem unlikely.

I haven't seen anything about ML's contract - they're both first rounders, so it's not like ML's making the minimum or something. Since there's no cap this year, how much does it really matter? Unless the $10 million Hawk is due next year is scaring the Bill's off, because they expect the cap to be back.

[3irty1]

It makes both teams better and makes sense for both players. (Bob Sanders ties for Hawk, Cal ties for Lynch) but the money part of it makes it seem unlikely.

I haven't seen anything about ML's contract - they're both first rounders, so it's not like ML's making the minimum or something. Since there's no cap this year, how much does it really matter? Unless the $10 million Hawk is due next year is scaring the Bill's off, because they expect the cap to be back.

From Rotoworld:

six-year, $18.935 million contract. The deal contains $10.285 million guaranteed, including a $3 million signing bonus. 2010: $885,000, 2011: $1.14 million, 2012: $1.14 million (Voidable Year)

He's a deal for the next two years.

[woodbuck27]

It makes both teams better and makes sense for both players. (Bob Sanders ties for Hawk, Cal ties for Lynch) but the money part of it makes it seem unlikely.

I haven't seen anything about ML's contract - they're both first rounders, so it's not like ML's making the minimum or something. Since there's no cap this year, how much does it really matter? Unless the $10 million Hawk is due next year is scaring the Bill's off, because they expect the cap to be back.

From Rotoworld:

six-year, $18.935 million contract. The deal contains $10.285 million guaranteed, including a $3 million signing bonus. 2010: $885,000, 2011: $1.14 million, 2012: $1.14 million (Voidable Year)

He's a deal for the next two years.

Wow! Marshawn Lynch is a deal as AJ Hawk and his contract looking ahead to 2011 isn't.

Maybe? he'll want TT to negotiate that contract soon after we get him and if TT does 'in fact' acquire this RB for our team.

Note: I was 'called out' by a member here, on a remark I made RE: TT and did so in this post. A comment that isn't pertinant to the issue of this topic. I edited out a comment that isn't fair in terms of many members opinion of TT. As a GM they deeply respect. woodbuck27

TT is imaculate and he works that very well as ' the Turtle '. Who coined that nickname for TT? Was it Bretzky? or Tank?

Where is Bretzky? I miss that Packer fan.

GO ! PACK GO !!

[mraynrand]

We know that TT won't make a move unless he's absolutely sure his reputation cannot be touched.

:roll:

This is trite and stale.

[woodbuck27]

In my final analysis of this RUMOR: AJ Hawk to the Buffalo Bills:

Green Bay Packers Depth Chart ' Offense':

http://www.packers.com/team/depth-chart.html

At issue here with some the loss or not of LB A J Hawk:

AJ Hawk:

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/A.J.-Hawk/f8705460-ceca-444d-974d-50c1125b52cc

Green Bay Packers Depth Chart 'defense':

http://www.packers.com/team/depth-chart.html

I'm not seeing it as 'a reality'. Too many what if's! The Bills have need at positions besides LBer. Their GM covets Donald or Pat Lee and Brad Jones for either RB Marshawn Lynch or Fred Jackson.

LB Brad Jones:

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Brad-Jones/f36a54e1-7045-4ce9-a9ad-ad4ba468acf0

Bills RB Marshawn Lynch:

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/roster/Marshawn-Lynch/85ff28be-651a-40ed-be0d-b6595fff1df6

Bills RB Fred Jackson:

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/roster/Fred-Jackson/9197889b-672f-42fb-ba04-3b75b8afb81a

Of course TT isn't going to want to trade Brad Jones as he wants to deal AJ Hawk for obvious reasons. I don't see TE Donald Lee going to the Bills as they have more need in their secondary.

Packers TE Donald Lee:

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Donald-Lee/5f3a2104-970b-4e50-93c3-3ab21a203659

Buffaklo Bills Depth Chart 'offense':

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/depth-chart.html

Buffalo Bill Depth Chart 'defense':

http://www.buffalobills.com/team/depth-chart.html

So what will get it done realistically, and I mean considering TT's ways? He'll have to 'give in' in terms of sacrificing a higher draft pick. We know just how pleased he'll be to go there. hahaa.

or Will it be? AJ Hawk and Pat Lee >>> Bills for Marshawn Lynch with TT's concerns RE: his character issues a question mark; but a very affordable for OUR immediate future fit with upside. or Option 'B' another Bills RB in terms of Fred Jackson ( solid RB with one drawback, his age of 29 years but we only need him to last 2-3 more yrars as we push for thew Super Bowl).

How much do y'all ' just really love CB Pat Lee?

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Pat-Lee/a70ea275-6396-4d92-9a50-7f874d003342

For him to be included obviously the Bills GM Buddy Nix will also want an exchange of draft picks and again that gives TT issues.

Who's Bills GM Buddy Nix:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4785461

http://www.buffalobills.com/media-lounge/videos/Buddy-Nix-Speaks-at-the-Monday-QB-Club/5f953c02-1d5d-4fdc-8e03-37365682b3c5

Bottom line Packer fans is that this is a rumor and 'no less' one of interest or moreso greater interest to some here.

Again I'll take you to a Buffalo Bills forum and this stories talk there. Specifically page 7 of that topic of the Packers > Bills trade rumor:

http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?t=288237&page=7

also... Please read page 8 and this topic is into page 9 at last look.

GO PACK GO! :D

[woodbuck27]

We know that TT won't make a move unless he's absolutely sure his reputation cannot be touched.

:roll:

This is trite and stale.

I retract that mraynrand, as it's prejudiced by my personal observations and analysis since Ted Thompson became our teams GM.

Too many here at Packerrats 'just love' TT. TT has 'in fact' in his own way and style, that excuse this observation ; does frustrate some Packer fans. Regardless, TT has placed our team in a position to be considered as a serious contender for a Super Bowl appearance.

I wish him well as he works to make that a reality. :D

GO PACK GO!

[mission]

Woodbuck tl;dr...

[pbmax]

The Bills have rejected multiple previous offers, including a reported 3rd round pick and a player for Lynch. This despite the fact that they drafted his replacement.

Lynch is cheap for a starting caliber player, though not so cheap as a backup. Very manageable.

Lynch was in the doghouse with previous coaches (Jauron and Fewell) but has a new coach and relatively new GM (though that GM has been with the Buffalo org for Lynch's entire stay).

Lynch is 3rd on the RB depth chart for a bad team. Forget the Pro Bowl, he cannot find a way to start for a losing team that cannot run the ball.

The linebacker opening for the Bills will be open for 2-3 weeks. Does anyone think Thompson would trade for a RB if Grant was due back in 4 weeks?

Hawk is still the starter in the base defense. Think about the logic of trading a starter for a 3rd stringer. And that's a 3rd stringer is on a bad team.

Hawk is due $4 million this year and $10 million next year. What team will rent a player for 3 starts at that price? And what incentive does Hawk have to renegotiate either year? He would not be going to Buffalo to become a full-time starter, much less a 3 down player.

No other player mentioned is even the player that Hawk is. Donald Lee is expensive for a marginal starter. Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

Even if Thompson and McCarthy felt Lynch would fit the offense and be a clear upgrade, the Bills have no reason to want Hawk and he has no reason to make it easier to go to Buffalo.

The Bills either want Lynch at his relatively cheap price for insurance or they want a King's ransom for him. He is not the same back he was when he went to the Pro Bowl and his numbers weren't fantastic then either. The Packers should not pay a ransom for a marginal upgrade.

[Tony Oday]

The Bills have rejected multiple previous offers, including a reported 3rd round pick and a player for Lynch. This despite the fact that they drafted his replacement.

Lynch is cheap for a starting caliber player, though not so cheap as a backup. Very manageable.

Lynch was in the doghouse with previous coaches (Jauron and Fewell) but has a new coach and relatively new GM (though that GM has been with the Buffalo org for Lynch's entire stay).

Lynch is 3rd on the RB depth chart for a bad team. Forget the Pro Bowl, he cannot find a way to start for a losing team that cannot run the ball.

The linebacker opening for the Bills will be open for 2-3 weeks. Does anyone think Thompson would trade for a RB if Grant was due back in 4 weeks?

Hawk is still the starter in the base defense. Think about the logic of trading a starter for a 3rd stringer. And that's a 3rd stringer is on a bad team.

Hawk is due $4 million this year and $10 million next year. What team will rent a player for 3 starts at that price? And what incentive does Hawk have to renegotiate either year? He would not be going to Buffalo to become a full-time starter, much less a 3 down player.

No other player mentioned is even the player that Hawk is. Donald Lee is expensive for a marginal starter. Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

Even if Thompson and McCarthy felt Lynch would fit the offense and be a clear upgrade, the Bills have no reason to want Hawk and he has no reason to make it easier to go to Buffalo.

The Bills either want Lynch at his relatively cheap price for insurance or they want a King's ransom for him. He is not the same back he was when he went to the Pro Bowl and his numbers weren't fantastic then either. The Packers should not pay a ransom for a marginal upgrade.

Why not just give them a second? I mean you want a starter with teh second pick. ML would be a starter.

[pbmax]

The Bills have rejected multiple previous offers, including a reported 3rd round pick and a player for Lynch. This despite the fact that they drafted his replacement.

Lynch is cheap for a starting caliber player, though not so cheap as a backup. Very manageable.

Lynch was in the doghouse with previous coaches (Jauron and Fewell) but has a new coach and relatively new GM (though that GM has been with the Buffalo org for Lynch's entire stay).

Lynch is 3rd on the RB depth chart for a bad team. Forget the Pro Bowl, he cannot find a way to start for a losing team that cannot run the ball.

The linebacker opening for the Bills will be open for 2-3 weeks. Does anyone think Thompson would trade for a RB if Grant was due back in 4 weeks?

Hawk is still the starter in the base defense. Think about the logic of trading a starter for a 3rd stringer. And that's a 3rd stringer is on a bad team.

Hawk is due $4 million this year and $10 million next year. What team will rent a player for 3 starts at that price? And what incentive does Hawk have to renegotiate either year? He would not be going to Buffalo to become a full-time starter, much less a 3 down player.

No other player mentioned is even the player that Hawk is. Donald Lee is expensive for a marginal starter. Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

Even if Thompson and McCarthy felt Lynch would fit the offense and be a clear upgrade, the Bills have no reason to want Hawk and he has no reason to make it easier to go to Buffalo.

The Bills either want Lynch at his relatively cheap price for insurance or they want a King's ransom for him. He is not the same back he was when he went to the Pro Bowl and his numbers weren't fantastic then either. The Packers should not pay a ransom for a marginal upgrade.

Why not just give them a second? I mean you want a starter with teh second pick. ML would be a starter.
A marginal starter for a 2nd round pick with 2 years left is a steep price. He is also on the bench next year.

So he must be worth a second round pick this year, that is, be that much on improvement over Jackson to justify the price. And the Bills have to agree to a second rounder. We have no reason to believe they will.

[Fritz]

I've heard criticisms of TT leaving the team with too many players at one position (TE)and too few at others (LB).

Why would you trade a second or third for a guy who isn't the clear top guy on his own team and does not seem to have the talent to be that guy (unlike Al Harris, who did)? And then create a logjam next year? And thin out your thin linebacking corps?

Makes no sense. If you're hot to trade AJ Hawk because you feel he won't want to be with the team next year, don't trade him for Lynch. Trade him for another linebacker or something.

[Bossman641]

The Bills have rejected multiple previous offers, including a reported 3rd round pick and a player for Lynch. This despite the fact that they drafted his replacement.

Lynch is cheap for a starting caliber player, though not so cheap as a backup. Very manageable.

Lynch was in the doghouse with previous coaches (Jauron and Fewell) but has a new coach and relatively new GM (though that GM has been with the Buffalo org for Lynch's entire stay).

Lynch is 3rd on the RB depth chart for a bad team. Forget the Pro Bowl, he cannot find a way to start for a losing team that cannot run the ball.

The linebacker opening for the Bills will be open for 2-3 weeks. Does anyone think Thompson would trade for a RB if Grant was due back in 4 weeks?

Hawk is still the starter in the base defense. Think about the logic of trading a starter for a 3rd stringer. And that's a 3rd stringer is on a bad team.

Hawk is due $4 million this year and $10 million next year. What team will rent a player for 3 starts at that price? And what incentive does Hawk have to renegotiate either year? He would not be going to Buffalo to become a full-time starter, much less a 3 down player.

No other player mentioned is even the player that Hawk is. Donald Lee is expensive for a marginal starter. Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

Even if Thompson and McCarthy felt Lynch would fit the offense and be a clear upgrade, the Bills have no reason to want Hawk and he has no reason to make it easier to go to Buffalo.

The Bills either want Lynch at his relatively cheap price for insurance or they want a King's ransom for him. He is not the same back he was when he went to the Pro Bowl and his numbers weren't fantastic then either. The Packers should not pay a ransom for a marginal upgrade.

Why not just give them a second? I mean you want a starter with teh second pick. ML would be a starter.
A marginal starter for a 2nd round pick with 2 years left is a steep price. He is also on the bench next year.

So he must be worth a second round pick this year, that is, be that much on improvement over Jackson to justify the price. And the Bills have to agree to a second rounder. We have no reason to believe they will.

While I agree with you PB, is it even a given that Grant will be back next year? I haven't seen this point mentioned on this forum yet, but doesn't his salary jump considerably next year? I know his contract was structured around incentives, but I don't know how exactly they were spelled out.

[mraynrand]

The Bills have rejected multiple previous offers, including a reported 3rd round pick and a player for Lynch. This despite the fact that they drafted his replacement.

Lynch is cheap for a starting caliber player, though not so cheap as a backup. Very manageable.

Lynch was in the doghouse with previous coaches (Jauron and Fewell) but has a new coach and relatively new GM (though that GM has been with the Buffalo org for Lynch's entire stay).

Lynch is 3rd on the RB depth chart for a bad team. Forget the Pro Bowl, he cannot find a way to start for a losing team that cannot run the ball.

The linebacker opening for the Bills will be open for 2-3 weeks. Does anyone think Thompson would trade for a RB if Grant was due back in 4 weeks?

Hawk is still the starter in the base defense. Think about the logic of trading a starter for a 3rd stringer. And that's a 3rd stringer is on a bad team.

Hawk is due $4 million this year and $10 million next year. What team will rent a player for 3 starts at that price? And what incentive does Hawk have to renegotiate either year? He would not be going to Buffalo to become a full-time starter, much less a 3 down player.

No other player mentioned is even the player that Hawk is. Donald Lee is expensive for a marginal starter. Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

Even if Thompson and McCarthy felt Lynch would fit the offense and be a clear upgrade, the Bills have no reason to want Hawk and he has no reason to make it easier to go to Buffalo.

The Bills either want Lynch at his relatively cheap price for insurance or they want a King's ransom for him. He is not the same back he was when he went to the Pro Bowl and his numbers weren't fantastic then either. The Packers should not pay a ransom for a marginal upgrade.

Logical. Flawlessly logical.

[3irty1]

Hawk is due $4 million this year and $10 million next year. What team will rent a player for 3 starts at that price? And what incentive does Hawk have to renegotiate either year? He would not be going to Buffalo to become a full-time starter, much less a 3 down player.

Are you suggesting Hawk wouldn't be a three down player for Buffalo? He should easily win that job and start wherever he wants. He might win the starting QB position on that team. Hawk might actually want to go there. As I said before, Bob Sanders is there, and maybe he's looking to reconnect with the coach that gave him virtually all of his success as a pro.


No other player mentioned is even the player that Hawk is. Donald Lee is expensive for a marginal starter. Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

Look at the TE's on their roster. Donald Lee is a nice step up and only looks like a borderline starter next to Finley. Pat Lee was drafted by Sanders who left before he could play with his new toy. Pat Lee was a system fit and then we changed the system. Buffalo might be asking for him just to sweeten the pot.


Even if Thompson and McCarthy felt Lynch would fit the offense and be a clear upgrade, the Bills have no reason to want Hawk and he has no reason to make it easier to go to Buffalo.

The Bills either want Lynch at his relatively cheap price for insurance or they want a King's ransom for him. He is not the same back he was when he went to the Pro Bowl and his numbers weren't fantastic then either. The Packers should not pay a ransom for a marginal upgrade.

I don't buy that it would take a ransom. Personally I suspect that the Bills are declining offers for Lynch because he's already been traded but the transaction can't take place until after we play the Bills this week. We'll see in the news on Tuesday.

[retailguy]

Why not just give them a second? I mean you want a starter with teh second pick. ML would be a starter.

Lynch the college player would've started in GB. Lynch the NFL player? I don't agree he'd start, and I will personally drive to GB and run Ted Thompson over with my car if he gives up a 2nd round pick.

[Guiness]

I agree with 3irty1 here. I'm not saying the trade will happen, but don't agree with the reasons you give for that.




Lynch was in the doghouse with previous coaches (Jauron and Fewell) but has a new coach and relatively new GM (though that GM has been with the Buffalo org for Lynch's entire stay).
He can't exactly be in the current administrations good books, given that the rookie had more carries than him week 1, despite seemingly being less effective than ML (7att for 6yds vs 3 att for 13yds).
I know that stat line is out of context, but still interesting.




Lynch is 3rd on the RB depth chart for a bad team. Forget the Pro Bowl, he cannot find a way to start for a losing team that cannot run the ball.
This is a bit of not seeing the forest for the trees. Sure, he's 3rd string on a terrible team that can't run the ball, but from what I've seen OL is the problem. Sunday the RB corps had 5 runs for losses - in 14 rushing attempts!

If ML isn't the back he was his first two years in the league, fine, but I don't think the fact he's 3rd string for the Bills proves that.


The linebacker opening for the Bills will be open for 2-3 weeks. Does anyone think Thompson would trade for a RB if Grant was due back in 4 weeks?
Quite valid - in a year a team has a chance, a trade like this makes sense. For the Bills, looking at a top 5 pick, it doesn't.


Hawk is still the starter in the base defense. Think about the logic of trading a starter for a 3rd stringer. And that's a 3rd stringer is on a bad team.
Again, this feels like the forest for the trees. Calling Hawk a starter is a reach. ML is a first round pick, who has shown first round talent, and the RB's are the best unit on that Bills team.


Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.
That UFA is Tramon, the darling of these boards, and a very good player! That's like saying Joe Johnson sucked because he couldn't beat out Kabeer. No, he sucked because he sucked. Pat Lee may or may not, but playing behind Tramon has no bearing on that.

[Fritz]

Why not just give them a second? I mean you want a starter with teh second pick. ML would be a starter.

Lynch the college player would've started in GB. Lynch the NFL player? I don't agree he'd start, and I will personally drive to GB and run Ted Thompson over with my car if he gives up a 2nd round pick.

And I will put your car in reverse when you're done so you can finish him off! I agree with you!

[ThunderDan]

Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.
That UFA is Tramon, the darling of these boards, and a very good player! That's like saying Joe Johnson sucked because he couldn't beat out Kabeer. No, he sucked because he sucked. Pat Lee may or may not, but playing behind Tramon has no bearing on that.

I think he means Sam Shields our current nickleback until Al gets back. Then he wouldn't have beat out our dime backer.

Oh and how dare you use the "forest for the trees" statement after what happened last time. :lol:

[Tony Oday]

Why not just give them a second? I mean you want a starter with teh second pick. ML would be a starter.

Lynch the college player would've started in GB. Lynch the NFL player? I don't agree he'd start, and I will personally drive to GB and run Ted Thompson over with my car if he gives up a 2nd round pick.


SEASON TEAM G GS ATT YDS AVG LNG TD REC YDS AVG TD FUM LOST
2007 Bills 13 13 280 1115 4.0 56 7 18 184 10.2 0 2 1
2008 Bills 15 15 250 1036 4.1 50 8 47 300 6.4 1 2 1
2009 Bills 13 6 120 450 3.8 47 2 28 179 6.4 0 3 1
Career 41 34 650 2601 4.0 56 17 93 663 7.1 1 7 3

Not terrible numbers

[Guiness]

Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.
That UFA is Tramon, the darling of these boards, and a very good player! That's like saying Joe Johnson sucked because he couldn't beat out Kabeer. No, he sucked because he sucked. Pat Lee may or may not, but playing behind Tramon has no bearing on that.

I think he means Sam Shields our current nickleback until Al gets back. Then he wouldn't have beat out our dime backer.

Oh and how dare you use the "forest for the trees" statement after what happened last time. :lol:

Burning down the house, eh?

You're right, Shields beating out P.Lee looks bad for Lee - he's had 2 years to spend learning, and if nothing else should've gotten the spot based on knowing the system better.

One more argument in favour of getting a back like ML - we're certainly a rarity in the league having a single feature back. MM hasn't seemed willing to let Jackson share carries with Grant, despite letting Green have some of them at the end of last year. ML might be more capable of being part of a split backfield on running downs.

[3irty1]

Lee probably has more value to the Bills, he was a system fit with our old D. Now Sanders is a coach with the Bills. He probably covets Lee.

That said I don't think its going to be Lee unless he's just a throw-in.

[Patler]

In some ways, Hawk is a starter in name only. Don't forget, last Sunday wasn't the first time that he wouldn't have been missed if he had stayed at home. Last year he played something like 5 snaps in one game, and they ran an article similar to the one this week about it being "unusual". However, it has now happened twice in 18 games under Capers, and I suspect there will be a few more this year when he plays very few snaps.

Several articles have mentioned that the Packers use their nickel sub-packages 65% of the time. Apparently Hawk is in none of those sub-packages right now. So Hawk is a starter who will play only 20-25 plays per game, 5 or 6 plays per quarter. Unless there is a huge drop off between Hawk and the guy who will play those 20-25 plays (probably Bishop), trading Hawk would not be that much of a loss.

Bishop can come up with big hits and has caused more fumbles in his very limited playing time than Hawk has even though for a couple seasons Hawk was on the field most of the time. Bishop's problems on defense have been most noticeable in pass coverage, but if he plays only the snaps that Hawk plays now it shouldn't be as big of a problem. For those 20-25 plays in base defense, Bishop may make a mistake that Hawk might not have, but also could make a dynamic play or force a turnover that Hawk wouldn't.

It can be argued that for 20-25 plays a game, Bishop would not be a noticeable downgrade overall. Obviously, he wouldn't have been a downgrade at all last Sunday!

[ThunderDan]

In some ways, Hawk is a starter in name only. Don't forget, last Sunday wasn't the first time that he wouldn't have been missed if he had stayed at home. Last year he played something like 5 snaps in one game, and they ran an article similar to the one this week about it being "unusual". However, it has now happened twice in 18 games under Capers, and I suspect there will be a few more this year when he plays very few snaps.

Several articles have mentioned that the Packers use their nickel sub-packages 65% of the time. Apparently Hawk is in none of those sub-packages right now. So Hawk is a starter who will play only 20-25 plays per game, 5 or 6 plays per quarter. Unless there is a huge drop off between Hawk and the guy who will play those 20-25 plays (probably Bishop), trading Hawk would not be that much of a loss.

Bishop can come up with big hits and has caused more fumbles in his very limited playing time than Hawk has even though for a couple seasons Hawk was on the field most of the time. Bishop's problems on defense have been most noticeable in pass coverage, but if he plays only the snaps that Hawk plays now it shouldn't be as big of a problem. For those 20-25 plays in base defense, Bishop may make a mistake that Hawk might not have, but also could make a dynamic play or force a turnover that Hawk wouldn't.

It can be argued that for 20-25 plays a game, Bishop would not be a noticeable downgrade overall. Obviously, he wouldn't have been a downgrade at all last Sunday!

Patler-

You did watch Bishop in the preseason, right?? The time of the year that Bishop usually shines in 2010 he looked like poop. I think there is a tremendous drop off between Hawk and Bishop even for 5 snaps a game.

I just don't see a 3-4 team with 8 LBs on the roster, who just cut a LB off of the practice squad, trading away any of their LBs.

[Patler]

In some ways, Hawk is a starter in name only. Don't forget, last Sunday wasn't the first time that he wouldn't have been missed if he had stayed at home. Last year he played something like 5 snaps in one game, and they ran an article similar to the one this week about it being "unusual". However, it has now happened twice in 18 games under Capers, and I suspect there will be a few more this year when he plays very few snaps.

Several articles have mentioned that the Packers use their nickel sub-packages 65% of the time. Apparently Hawk is in none of those sub-packages right now. So Hawk is a starter who will play only 20-25 plays per game, 5 or 6 plays per quarter. Unless there is a huge drop off between Hawk and the guy who will play those 20-25 plays (probably Bishop), trading Hawk would not be that much of a loss.

Bishop can come up with big hits and has caused more fumbles in his very limited playing time than Hawk has even though for a couple seasons Hawk was on the field most of the time. Bishop's problems on defense have been most noticeable in pass coverage, but if he plays only the snaps that Hawk plays now it shouldn't be as big of a problem. For those 20-25 plays in base defense, Bishop may make a mistake that Hawk might not have, but also could make a dynamic play or force a turnover that Hawk wouldn't.

It can be argued that for 20-25 plays a game, Bishop would not be a noticeable downgrade overall. Obviously, he wouldn't have been a downgrade at all last Sunday!

Patler-

You did watch Bishop in the preseason, right?? The time of the year that Bishop usually shines in 2010 he looked like poop. I think there is a tremendous drop off between Hawk and Bishop even for 5 snaps a game.

I just don't see a 3-4 team with 8 LBs on the roster, who just cut a LB off of the practice squad, trading away any of their LBs.

Maybe Bishop is a big drop off, I don't know. I did say:

Unless there is a huge drop off between Hawk and the guy who will play those 20-25 plays (probably Bishop), trading Hawk would not be that much of a loss.

So, obviously, if you are correct and there is a big dropoff, then trading Hawk is a loss. However, the question is not about overall performance as a linebacker, it would be performance in only those limited situations in which Hawk is currently asked to perform. Which was none last week and even in a typical game is very limited. Would Bishop be that much worse in those limited situations?

I find it impossible to "grade" any player based on what I see on the television screen. Even when a player seems to be wrong, the view shown is seldom wide enough to evaluate the play, so I don't. However, it is clear from past performances that Bishop offers what Hawk does not, and what the coaches have been pleading with Hawk for, creating turnovers.

I said in another post I would be very surprised if they traded Hawk because depth would be a huge problem since they kept only 8 linebackers. This post was not about the depth issue. That is a separate question. This post was intended to discuss the issue of a "starter". Would Hawk be missed as a starter?

If Bishop is dog-crap compared to Hawk, then yes he would be missed. But if he is only somewhat worse, for 20-25 plays per game I think it can be argued the difference is not significant, especially if Bishop will end up forcing some fumbles that Hawk never does.

I'm not a Bishop supporter at all. However, in the current scheme of things, when Hawk will have games where he hardly even plays, I think some are over estimating Hawk's value to the team on a whole.

Side note: I was surprised that they cut Francois earlier this week because of their numbers at LB. It was especially surprising since they didn't replace him, and are carrying an opening on PS. Kind of unusual, all things considered. Almost seems like Francois must have irked someone!

[ThunderDan]

Patler-

Thanks for the insight.

I guess I will take a guy who averages 100 tackles a year and 1 turnover verses a guy who makes 6 take-aways but gives up 40 big runs because of missed assignments per year.

Bishop to me is a total liability. You can't trust him to be where he is supposed to be. He seems to have the physical tools but can't get the mental side of the game right.

[3irty1]

Why this trade is going to happen

I'm sold on this trade.

There is the complication of Hawks contract. Hawk will make around 4 million this year which is reasonable but next year his contract will be on the order of 10 million which means he'll have to restructure or whatever team owns him will be forced to cut him. This essentially means that any team that were to trade for Hawk could merely be renting him for 14 games. For this reason its critical that Hawk must actually want to play for the Bills. But why would anyone want to play for the Bills? For one Hawk has made it clear through his agent that he'd welcome a trade to a team that would give him the chance at being a 3 down linebacker. After all, this is essentially a contract year for Hawk and if he continues to play in Green Bay his stock won't be too high by the end of the season. Remember how Hawk looked playing on a bad defense? He has the chance to be a star again in Buffalo. He'd no doubt like to go there this year but he might even want to stay there. This trade is good for Hawk

Lynch is about as frustrated as one can get. A former first round pick who, despite good play, has fallen to the depths of the Bills roster. His problems are off the field. He was in the dog house with the teams previous front office and is barely contributing under the current regime. Aaron Rodgers and Desmond Bishop played with him at Cal so there are some friendly ties to our team. Most importantly, Lynch is in a similar position to Hawk. He's a total bargain for the next two years, is a former probowler, and is only 24. In other words his trade value will never be higher. His value, value however has never been lower. Lynch is unhappy with everything in Buffalo and has skipped offseason activities presumingly out of protest. He needs to find a way to get on a football field so he can earn himself a new contract. For these reasons this trade is good for Lynch.

The Packers are in running back trouble after losing Grant and have playoff aspirations. Lynch would be a major upgrade in the running game and if not all they'd lose is a player they'd have to cut next year anyways. Thompson was reportedly high on Lynch in the draft and he'd probably already be in Green Bay had the Bills not snatched him up. Thompson might have a chance to go back in time and erase the Harrell pick by getting Lynch now. Even once Grant returns Lynch could either stay the starter or back up Grant. Seems like having two solid running backs has been a league trend for a few years now. I'm not sure Lynch will cost a kings ransom in trade if ones is to believe the Maroney-to-Denver trade has set the market value. This trade is good for the Pack. Its also worth noting that the Packers just released Robert Francois (who plays Hawks position) from the PS. This was slightly strange because by all reports the Packers really liked Francois. Perhaps he was cut only to be signed in a few days to the 53 man roster in Hawk's place.

The Bills just lost their star ILB Poz, but he'll be back shortly. Their defense is similar to ours so Hawk could potentially contribute before Poz gets back but even once Poz has returned, Hawk would likely start next to him. The Bills like to get pressure with the middle linebackers even more than Capers. They even converted rookie Arthur Moats from DE to ILB this year. Hawk could help open up their scheme. Former Packers defensive coordinator Bob Sanders is currently on the Bills coaching staff as an outside linebackers coach. Hawk had the two best seasons of his career with Sanders and so this connection could also be oiling the trigger for a trade. The money isn't a huge issue if Hawk is happy in Buffalo and they didn't give away their RB to rent Hawk, although Lynch may have fully held out next year anyways. Why wouldn't the Bills just ask for draft picks? After all player for a player trades are rare. Well the answer to that is because its only week two and selling is a bad PR move for a team that's likely to have trouble making money. Trading a player for a player, maybe also with conditional picks sprinkled in, doesn't scream: "We give up on the shitty 2010 Bills!" AJ Hawk is a fairly well known player in the league and fans would likely applaud the move. Especially when they play the Jets and Phins this year. This trade is good for the Bills.

[Guiness]

Side note: I was surprised that they cut Francois earlier this week because of their numbers at LB. It was especially surprising since they didn't replace him, and are carrying an opening on PS. Kind of unusual, all things considered. Almost seems like Francois must have irked someone!

I heard he punched a coach.

:lol: :lol:

[Patler]

Patler-

Thanks for the insight.

I guess I will take a guy who averages 100 tackles a year and 1 turnover verses a guy who makes 6 take-aways but gives up 40 big runs because of missed assignments per year.

Bishop to me is a total liability. You can't trust him to be where he is supposed to be. He seems to have the physical tools but can't get the mental side of the game right.

I'm not sure what you meant by "Thanks for the insight."??? Were you being sarcastic? From the tone of the remainder of your response, I suspect it was intended facetiously. If so, am I not allowed to have and express an opinion that is different from yours?

Is Hawk going to make 100 tackles playing as little as he is in line to play this year? When did Bishop give up 40 big runs and will he do that playing only 20-25 snaps per game?

Maybe Bishop is a total liability, I don't know. However, in the current scheme of things, the Packers seem to be using Hawk less and less each year. As a rookie they talked about using him and sitting Barnett on passing downs. Barnett was pissed, and expressed it. For a time, they seemed to alternate some. When Chiller came, Hawk's snaps went down. Now Hawk plays in no sub-packages at all, at least for some games.

Hawk has become a bit of a mystery to me. I liked the pick a lot when he was drafted. The first year, everyone raved about his speed and quickness as a rookie. In a couple games that first year, Larry MaCarren talked about the quickness he showed on some plays, beyond what other Packer LBs had. I remember one goal line play when he adjusted quickly and barely deflected a pass. McCarren said no one else on the Packers could have made that play, it would have been a sure TD. He called Hawk "special". As a rookie they talked about the Packers finally having someone who could stay with TEs and/or blitz effectively. Now it seems the Packers think that potential is gone, to the point where they don't want Hawk on the field in passing situations. I don't understand it at all.

Either Hawk isn't the player they thought he was, or they are misusing him horribly. Either way, his overall value to the team seems to have diminished significantly, rightly or wrongly.

I can't imagine a scenario under which he will be with the Packers next year, although he and his agent have said they are open to discussions about a salary reduction to stay in GB. I now suspect that won't be in the cards, and that he will want to go somewhere that he can play in more situations. Maybe it needs to be a 4-3 and not a 3-4. I can't see much that will keep him in GB.

[Patler]

Side note: I was surprised that they cut Francois earlier this week because of their numbers at LB. It was especially surprising since they didn't replace him, and are carrying an opening on PS. Kind of unusual, all things considered. Almost seems like Francois must have irked someone!

I heard he punched a coach.

:lol: :lol:

OH NO...Not that again!!! :lol:

By the way, the Packers DID sign another PS player. I missed it earlier in the week. A cornerback - Josh Gordy.

[Smidgeon]

In some ways, Hawk is a starter in name only. Don't forget, last Sunday wasn't the first time that he wouldn't have been missed if he had stayed at home. Last year he played something like 5 snaps in one game, and they ran an article similar to the one this week about it being "unusual". However, it has now happened twice in 18 games under Capers, and I suspect there will be a few more this year when he plays very few snaps.

Several articles have mentioned that the Packers use their nickel sub-packages 65% of the time. Apparently Hawk is in none of those sub-packages right now. So Hawk is a starter who will play only 20-25 plays per game, 5 or 6 plays per quarter. Unless there is a huge drop off between Hawk and the guy who will play those 20-25 plays (probably Bishop), trading Hawk would not be that much of a loss.

Bishop can come up with big hits and has caused more fumbles in his very limited playing time than Hawk has even though for a couple seasons Hawk was on the field most of the time. Bishop's problems on defense have been most noticeable in pass coverage, but if he plays only the snaps that Hawk plays now it shouldn't be as big of a problem. For those 20-25 plays in base defense, Bishop may make a mistake that Hawk might not have, but also could make a dynamic play or force a turnover that Hawk wouldn't.

It can be argued that for 20-25 plays a game, Bishop would not be a noticeable downgrade overall. Obviously, he wouldn't have been a downgrade at all last Sunday!

Patler-

You did watch Bishop in the preseason, right?? The time of the year that Bishop usually shines in 2010 he looked like poop. I think there is a tremendous drop off between Hawk and Bishop even for 5 snaps a game.

I just don't see a 3-4 team with 8 LBs on the roster, who just cut a LB off of the practice squad, trading away any of their LBs.

Maybe Bishop is a big drop off, I don't know. I did say:

Unless there is a huge drop off between Hawk and the guy who will play those 20-25 plays (probably Bishop), trading Hawk would not be that much of a loss.

So, obviously, if you are correct and there is a big dropoff, then trading Hawk is a loss. However, the question is not about overall performance as a linebacker, it would be performance in only those limited situations in which Hawk is currently asked to perform. Which was none last week and even in a typical game is very limited. Would Bishop be that much worse in those limited situations?

I find it impossible to "grade" any player based on what I see on the television screen. Even when a player seems to be wrong, the view shown is seldom wide enough to evaluate the play, so I don't. However, it is clear from past performances that Bishop offers what Hawk does not, and what the coaches have been pleading with Hawk for, creating turnovers.

I said in another post I would be very surprised if they traded Hawk because depth would be a huge problem since they kept only 8 linebackers. This post was not about the depth issue. That is a separate question. This post was intended to discuss the issue of a "starter". Would Hawk be missed as a starter?

If Bishop is dog-crap compared to Hawk, then yes he would be missed. But if he is only somewhat worse, for 20-25 plays per game I think it can be argued the difference is not significant, especially if Bishop will end up forcing some fumbles that Hawk never does.

I'm not a Bishop supporter at all. However, in the current scheme of things, when Hawk will have games where he hardly even plays, I think some are over estimating Hawk's value to the team on a whole.

Side note: I was surprised that they cut Francois earlier this week because of their numbers at LB. It was especially surprising since they didn't replace him, and are carrying an opening on PS. Kind of unusual, all things considered. Almost seems like Francois must have irked someone!

I guess my question would be (out of honest ignorance): how important is it for Hawk's position in the 3-4 to be a playmaking one instead of a reliable one? If he's the player who's the first through the hole, taking on the center or a guard, aren't the playmakers the other ILB and both OLBs? I think in this defense, Hawk's position is the one that can most afford to be a non-playmaker as long as he is reliable and assignment sure. Am I wrong?

[ThunderDan]

[quote="Patler"]
I'm not sure what you meant by "Thanks for the insight."??? Were you being sarcastic? From the tone of the remainder of your response, I suspect it was intended facetiously. If so, am I not allowed to have and express an opinion that is different from yours?
[\quote]

Just what I said it means. I appreciate your thoughts on the position.

Let's look at Hawk's 2009 production. He was also pulled out of the nickle packages and only played base after the Detroit game.

In the last 11 games of the season playing base only he average 6 tackles a game and some how had 2 interceptions. In 20-25, plays game he was make about 20% of the tackles on the downs he was in. I remember reading somewhere that he made the tackle on 18% of the plays he was in in 2009. I think that is a very acceptible rate considering he is taking on the FB or free OL on most plays.

Now what the hell is happening in 2010, I have no idea. I guess we will see this week against Buffalo.

[Smidgeon]

Addendum: I'm neutral on Hawk. Starting to doubt, but still neutral. But I'm specifically a Biship un-fan. So to me, Hawk is a better option than Bishop. Now, if TT finds a gem in the next draft in the late rounds, then we're talking...

[Patler]

I guess my question would be (out of honest ignorance): how important is it for Hawk's position in the 3-4 to be a playmaking one instead of a reliable one? If he's the player who's the first through the hole, taking on the center or a guard, aren't the playmakers the other ILB and both OLBs? I think in this defense, Hawk's position is the one that can most afford to be a non-playmaker as long as he is reliable and assignment sure. Am I wrong?

I sure don't know, and I don't pretend to. All I do know is that the coaches keep commenting in articles about wanting Hawk to be "more impactful" by trusting his instincts in making big plays and causing turnovers.

How important that really is to the Packers staff only they can answer. I guess we will see how important it is over the off season, and whether they bring Hawk back next year or not.

[Patler]

Addendum: I'm neutral on Hawk. Starting to doubt, but still neutral. But I'm specifically a Biship un-fan. So to me, Hawk is a better option than Bishop. Now, if TT finds a gem in the next draft in the late rounds, then we're talking...

Ya, I'm not a Bishop fan by any means either. My only question is, if they are going to use Hawk so little, does it really matter if Bishop plays instead? Some obviously think it does matter, a lot. Perhaps they are correct I really don't know, just wanted to offer another line of thought to discuss.

[Lurker64]

Addendum: I'm neutral on Hawk. Starting to doubt, but still neutral. But I'm specifically a Biship un-fan. So to me, Hawk is a better option than Bishop. Now, if TT finds a gem in the next draft in the late rounds, then we're talking...

Ya, I'm not a Bishop fan by any means either. My only question is, if they are going to use Hawk so little, does it really matter if Bishop plays instead? Some obviously think it does matter, a lot. Perhaps they are correct I really don't know, just wanted to offer another line of thought to discuss.

Well, it's not every week that we'll play against a team with as lopsided a pass-run ratio as an Andy Reid team. Playing in the nickel all the time against the Eagles is far from unwise, since Reid throws the ball a lot (and runs mostly as an afterthought). Other teams are going to command other defensive strategies.

[Patler]

Now what the hell is happening in 2010, I have no idea. I guess we will see this week against Buffalo.

The most confusing part to me is that almost to a man the involved coaches commented positively about Hawks TC performance this year.

Do you recall the game last year when Hawk hardly played? They wrote the same articles then, and the coaches said the same things, about Hawk not being in the sub-packages they wanted to run. I vaguely recall Moss saying it would make him want to do more to show the coaches he deserved to play in more situations. I wondered then if it had been a motivational type thing, because they often talk about Hawk being reliable to a fault and sometimes not taking the opportunity to "make a play" when it is there to be made.

Hawk said all of the right "team first" stuff, just as he did now. I would never question his commitment to the team, but he has to be wondering in the back of his mind whether GB is the place for him now or not. To be virtually written out of two game plans in just over a year would make anyone question whether to stay or push for an alternative.

[ThunderDan]

Now what the hell is happening in 2010, I have no idea. I guess we will see this week against Buffalo.

The most confusing part to me is that almost to a man the involved coaches commented positively about Hawks TC performance this year.

Do you recall the game last year when Hawk hardly played? They wrote the same articles then, and the coaches said the same things, about Hawk not being in the sub-packages they wanted to run. I vaguely recall Moss saying it would make him want to do more to show the coaches he deserved to play in more situations. I wondered then if it had been a motivational type thing, because they often talk about Hawk being reliable to a fault and sometimes not taking the opportunity to "make a play" when it is there to be made.

Hawk said all of the right "team first" stuff, just as he did now. I would never question his commitment to the team, but he has to be wondering in the back of his mind whether GB is the place for him now or not. To be virtually written out of two game plans in just over a year would make anyone question whether to stay or push for an alternative.

Yes, that was the first Detroit game last year. I just don't see Hawk staying with the Packers in 2011 unless something changes. The Packers can't pay him $10,000,000 or whatever he will make and I can't see Hawk saying he will renegotiate knowing he is going to be on the bench a lot. For a player who had excelled at every level before the pro level, sitting on the bench much less not starting is probably hard to take. I think it says a lot about Hawk's character that he is keeping the issue internal instead of pulling a Randy Moss or Logan Mankins.

[Patler]

I just don't see Hawk staying with the Packers in 2011 unless something changes. The Packers can't pay him $10,000,000 or whatever he will make and I can't see Hawk saying he will renegotiate knowing he is going to be on the bench a lot. For a player who had excelled at every level before the pro level, sitting on the bench much less not starting is probably hard to take. I think it says a lot about Hawk's character that he is keeping the issue internal instead of pulling a Randy Moss or Logan Mankins.

That's why I wouldn't mind a trade now, unless the defense would fall off a cliff with Bishop or Chiller taking Hawk's snaps. Maybe it would, I guess the question is "How high is the cliff?" :lol:

What happened to Hawk? The very things that he was seen to be good at as a rookie are the things for which they yank him off the field now. It's not like he is being replaced by an all-pro.

[gbgary]

Well...if neither player gets in the game, when the opportunity is there, then i bet it's done deal.