Lynch-for-Hawk rumors intensify in Buffalo

[Brandon494]

http://blogs.nfl.com/2010/09/21/lynch-for-hawk-rumors-intensify-in-buffalo/

[Tony Oday]

Keep Hawk get rid of a 3rd rounder :)

[red]

i really think it would be a bad move to get rid of hawk

[packerbacker1234]

Honestly, I see nothing in hawks run stopping game that chillar couldn't do just as well, and chillar is clearly viewed as the better pass coverage option.

So... no reason, overall, for hawk to even be a fulltime guy when chillar behind him can pretty much do it all anyways.

[wist43]

Hawk is just too limited... we have a need, go ahead and fill it.

Overall, I don't think we have defense enough to win a SB, but Hawk sure isn't going to be the difference maker in that equation.

Bring Lynch in and at least shore up that position.

[mission]

BTW - how does a guy like Lynch get accepted to Berkeley? :shock:

[swede]

BTW - how does a guy like Lynch get accepted to Berkeley? :shock:

I didn't know he was Jewish.

[mission]

BTW - how does a guy like Lynch get accepted to Berkeley? :shock:

I didn't know he was Jewish.

(i dont get it)

[Lurker64]

We have 8 LBs on the roster. We have 0 LBs on the practice squad.

If we go trading away a linebacker, I'd want a linebacker in return.

[swede]

BTW - how does a guy like Lynch get accepted to Berkeley? :shock:

I didn't know he was Jewish.

(i dont get it)

I didn't get yours before you didn't get mine.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This is another report based on the same article posted by the Buffalo News based almost entirely on speculation. Please make it stop.

[3irty1]

This doesn't seem like news.

[ND72]

Honestly, I see nothing in hawks run stopping game that chillar couldn't do just as well, and chillar is clearly viewed as the better pass coverage option.

So... no reason, overall, for hawk to even be a fulltime guy when chillar behind him can pretty much do it all anyways.

Completely wrong. I know Hawk has some big limitations, but as far as run stuffing, he is miles ahead of Chillar. At least 3 times I saw Chillar being not only pancaked, but also being tossed yards downfield. Hawk doesn't always take the right pursuit, but he rarely gets driven downfield the way I've repeatedly seen Chillar against the run. Getting rid of Hawk in support of Chillar as a full time starter would be disasterous for us on defense, Chillar is not a full tme starter, especially against the run.

[KYPack]

Honestly, I see nothing in hawks run stopping game that chillar couldn't do just as well, and chillar is clearly viewed as the better pass coverage option.

So... no reason, overall, for hawk to even be a fulltime guy when chillar behind him can pretty much do it all anyways.

Completely wrong. I know Hawk has some big limitations, but as far as run stuffing, he is miles ahead of Chillar. At least 3 times I saw Chillar being not only pancaked, but also being tossed yards downfield. Hawk doesn't always take the right pursuit, but he rarely gets driven downfield the way I've repeatedly seen Chillar against the run. Getting rid of Hawk in support of Chillar as a full time starter would be disasterous for us on defense, Chillar is not a full tme starter, especially against the run.

One guy can't fill, the other can't cover.

We are in no position to make a trade, IMHO.

[The Shadow]

I would be much more in favor of keeping Hawk and simply offering a draft choice(s).
I thin perhaps a 3 and 6 would get it done.
Sometimes when you are close, and the team is already solid - giving up 2 picks is not nec. a poor decision.

[The Leaper]

Sometimes when you are close, and the team is already solid - giving up 2 picks is not nec. a poor decision.

I completely agree.

Look at how many good players we had to cut this year at the end of preseason. We don't NEED 7-8 more rookies coming in every year...because 7-8 of them will likely just get cut anyway. OK...I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.

Go ahead and spend a 2nd/3rd if you must to shore up areas of need...because it is harder to fill needs in the draft than it is to trade picks for needs.

[ND72]

Sometimes when you are close, and the team is already solid - giving up 2 picks is not nec. a poor decision.

I completely agree.

Look at how many good players we had to cut this year at the end of preseason. We don't NEED 7-8 more rookies coming in every year...because 7-8 of them will likely just get cut anyway. OK...I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.

Go ahead and spend a 2nd/3rd if you must to shore up areas of need...because it is harder to fill needs in the draft than it is to trade picks for needs.

sometimes a solid vetran for other young players can be just as huge...Eugene Robinson?!?

[vince]

Makes sense, although I have to believe Ted's going to give Nance a shot at it before he spends anything. I can't say as I blame him. This offense isn't exactly designed around the running back position. We need solid play there, but this team can still win without more than that.

[gbgary]

Those wanting to keep hawk need to remember he wants to go too.

[Gunakor]

Those wanting to keep hawk need to remember he wants to go too.

He never said he wants to go. The closest thing he said to that is that he'd be open to a trade. Being open to a trade isn't exactly the same as wanting to be traded. IIRC, he did specifically state that he'd like to remain a Packer.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I have hopes that we'll contend for a Super Bowl this year, and I think trading our best run defending ILB would be detrimental to that goal. Unless it's a superstar RB (Johnson, Peterson), I think LBs are more valuable than RBs. Then again, I do have concerns about our running game. I'm not adverse to trading for Lynch at the right cost, but I doubt it happens--mainly because Buffalo is probably asking too much for Lynch.

[run pMc]

I'm in the camp that thinks trading Hawk would be a mistake. We don't have a lot of starter-quality LBs on the roster, and I don't think TT wants to give up a R2 or R3 pick for Lynch.

Moreover, Ralph Wilson is cheap, Lynch's salary is very friendly, and he can still be productive for the Bills.

I think M3 will roll with who he has and hope either Nance or Starks can provide a spark if Jackson and Kuhn get stuck in reverse.

If (heaven forbid) another injury hits the RB's then I could see a deal.

I think I read that WAS released Larry Johnson...

[rbaloha1]

Unfortunately this will not happen. The current rb grouping is sufficient.

[mmmdk]

What to expect from Starks? He's missed so much time in college & now in Green Bay. I don't think Starks will contribute much this season but do tell me otherwise if you know something on Starks!?

We need a Samkon Gado year from Nance - Sam did ok for Packers. Yeah, it's the diamond in rough but TT will not pull trigger on saggy vets or send draft picks for scrubs. I have no problem with that as I'm in the "keep Hawk" camp.

BJ gotta step up & play ball - not think it - as he hesitates a wee bit much.

Packers won SB with Bennett, Hendo & Levens. YOU GOTTA WORK HARD LIKE THESE PROS.

[The Leaper]

Packers won SB with Bennett, Hendo & Levens. YOU GOTTA WORK HARD LIKE THESE PROS.

I'd take that backfield over ours in a heartbeat right now. I'd probably take that backfield over ours with a HEALTHY Grant. Those guys could do ALL components of being a RB/FB.

That's the problem with TT's backs...they are always alarmingly deficient in at least one category. I'd rather have a guy like Bennett or Levens who might not be great at any one thing, but is fully capable in everything.

I'm sorry...but this team is going to struggle to win a title with our current backfield. It is pathetic.