Desmond Bishop Extended!

[denverYooper]

4 year, $19 mil, per Adam Schefter. I'll post a link when available.

[vince]

Congratulations to him for getting paid and for proving me and many others wrong about his every-down dependability.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Goodbye Hawk.

[MadScientist]

Goodbye Hawk.

Given the way the played together, I think Hawk stays and Barnett goes.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Given the way the played together, I think Hawk stays and Barnett goes.

I also think there's a good chance that Bishop, Hawk, and Chillar stay with Barnett going. However, it depends on what Hawk and his agent think he's worth. They hold the cards. If they are looking at a reasonable number, I think the Pack gets rid of Barnett. If they demand too much, I think they let Hawk go and keep Barnett. Kind of the same with Cullen Jenkins. It all depends on what the are asking for.

I hope they find a way to keep Hawk. I think he's steadier than Barnett, and the defense has played better since he became the defensive signal caller.

[sheepshead]

I also think there's a good chance that Bishop, Hawk, and Chillar stay with Barnett going. However, it depends on what Hawk and his agent think he's worth. They hold the cards. If they are looking at a reasonable number, I think the Pack gets rid of Barnett. If they demand too much, I think they let Hawk go and keep Barnett. Kind of the same with Cullen Jenkins. It all depends on what the are asking for.

I hope they find a way to keep Hawk. I think he's steadier than Barnett, and the defense has played better since he became the defensive signal caller.

are you stoned?

[Willard]

Another Cal Bear to solidify the Pack's bright future. The only good bear is a Cal Bear (except DeSean Jackson this Sunday, of course!).

[Ballboy]

Isn't Hawk due a $10 Milliion bonus and Barnett only $6 Million......if I was a betting man, I'd go with Hawk being gone.

[Spaulding]

I'd tend to think that Barnett and Bishop in the middle has led to better results than Barnett and Hawk. Hawk as a defensive play caller seems to in at least some way (however small) helped gel the defense as well. As much bad press as Hawk gets, Barnett often seems to make his tackles down field and being dragged. If salary is anywhere close I'd hope they keep Hawk over Barnett. Youth, injury history, etc. almost dictates that.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Isn't Hawk due a $10 Milliion bonus and Barnett only $6 Million......if I was a betting man, I'd go with Hawk being gone.

Depends on what Hawk is willing to restructure his salary for.

[Willard]

How about $19M for 4 years? Will he demand more than Bishop?

[Cheesehead Craig]

I also think there's a good chance that Bishop, Hawk, and Chillar stay with Barnett going. However, it depends on what Hawk and his agent think he's worth. They hold the cards. If they are looking at a reasonable number, I think the Pack gets rid of Barnett. If they demand too much, I think they let Hawk go and keep Barnett. Kind of the same with Cullen Jenkins. It all depends on what the are asking for.

I hope they find a way to keep Hawk. I think he's steadier than Barnett, and the defense has played better since he became the defensive signal caller.
Agree. Hawk has shown is value this season as the better signal caller and has a better feel for the defense. Barnett keeps getting hurt and missing games. Hawk doesn't. It will come down to what Hawk does with his contract.

[Lurker64]

Another Cal Bear to solidify the Pack's bright future. The only good bear is a Cal Bear (except DeSean Jackson this Sunday, of course!).

You have something against Baylor?

[mmmdk]

Given the way the played together, I think Hawk stays and Barnett goes.

No doubt! Bye, bye Barnett. Hawk is a leader; I'm happy he's back to '06 & '07 form.

[mmmdk]

I also think there's a good chance that Bishop, Hawk, and Chillar stay with Barnett going. However, it depends on what Hawk and his agent think he's worth. They hold the cards. If they are looking at a reasonable number, I think the Pack gets rid of Barnett. If they demand too much, I think they let Hawk go and keep Barnett. Kind of the same with Cullen Jenkins. It all depends on what the are asking for.

I hope they find a way to keep Hawk. I think he's steadier than Barnett, and the defense has played better since he became the defensive signal caller.

I agree!

[mission]

Good for Bishop. This is real good news for the Pack too.

[mmmdk]

Good for Bishop. This is real good news for the Pack too.

From Bishop to King? LOL

Bishop is a beast.

[red]

good for bishop

and nice signing by TT

this team was a completely different monster after barnett went out and bishop came in

i hope hawk is willing to restructure, but even at 10 million, its not like we're hurting for cap space

hawk and bishop make a great team in the middle

[Fritz]

This also all depends on what kind of CBA they agree to...personally, I'd prefer Hawk to Barnett (youth, injury history). But yes, this one likely comes down to the money.

[Bossman641]

Congrats to Bishop. I was worried about him being a liability in pass coverage but he proved me wrong. I too think they will keep Hawk over Barnett due to Hawk being younger and more versatile but I will be sad to see either player go. Hawk has always shown up and got the job done and Barnett has empraced GB since being drafted.

[Patler]

this team was a completely different monster after barnett went out and bishop came in

i hope hawk is willing to restructure, but even at 10 million, its not like we're hurting for cap space

hawk and bishop make a great team in the middle

Did it seem to anyone other than me that Hawk became more physical playing next to Bishop? When paired with Barnett, Hawk tackled a lot like Barnett, hanging on and dragging down ball carriers. He seems to be becoming more and more physical in pursuit, tackling and even blitzing the last few weeks.

[Fritz]

Good question. I don't really know, but it sure seems like he gets used on blitzes to pick up a blocker so someone else can go in free.

Maybe he's emulating what he's seeing Bishop do.

[red]

maybe hawk doesn't have to play as cautious with bishop as he did with barnett. bishop can tackle and take care of his own guys. without bishop in there hawk would have to worry about his guys and the guys barnett was suppose to be taking care of

[VermontPackFan]

Did it seem to anyone other than me that Hawk became more physical playing next to Bishop? When paired with Barnett, Hawk tackled a lot like Barnett, hanging on and dragging down ball carriers. He seems to be becoming more and more physical in pursuit, tackling and even blitzing the last few weeks.

It does seem that way doesnt it? Some of Bishops aggressiveness rubbing off on Hawk...
Bishop has been a pleasant surprise (to us anyway, he KNEW he could do it if given the chance) I am just glad he was given the opportunity while he was still in Green Bay. If Barnett doesnt get hurt, Im sure he would have been playing for another team next year.

[Patler]

I wonder what kind of "promises" were made to Bishop, if any. He has complained in the past about lack of playing time, lack of opportunities even. He knows Chiller, Barnett and Hawk are all under contract for next year, so the Packers could have all of them back by doing nothing other than meeting the contract obligations.

I had expected Bishop to wait and see what happened with Hawk's bonus before re-signing with GB. Chiller seems locked into the specialty role; leaving Hawk, Barnett and Bishop for the two starting spots. Will Bishop be satisfied in a reserve role if they are all back?

Then again, with the CBA up in the air, Bishop may have seen this as opportunity to get a signing bonus in hand before a possible lockout at the start of the next league year.

[Tony Oday]

Hawk will be a Packer. He is a defensive leader and the coaches love him...really you want to mess with that mojo?

[Bretsky]

I also think there's a good chance that Bishop, Hawk, and Chillar stay with Barnett going. However, it depends on what Hawk and his agent think he's worth. They hold the cards. If they are looking at a reasonable number, I think the Pack gets rid of Barnett. If they demand too much, I think they let Hawk go and keep Barnett. Kind of the same with Cullen Jenkins. It all depends on what the are asking for.

I hope they find a way to keep Hawk. I think he's steadier than Barnett, and the defense has played better since he became the defensive signal caller.


This would get a five clap post if I knew how to use the emoticons....or if they work......I'm not sure

Stellar points

[Smidgeon]

It's interesting how quickly public opinion changes. A couple months ago, Barnett was considered the best overall LB on the team. Now people want him gone? Did one injury do all that?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think the play of Hawk and Barnett did that. :) I'm not sure Barnett was considered better than Matthews, but I get your point. I always felt like Hawk and Barnett were pretty close. Barnett more of a playmaker and solid, but took some bad angles. Hawk steady and solid, but had coverage liabilities. I thought Barnett was pretty similar, but not as consistent as Hawk. I'd say they are pretty close, but Barnett is getting olded and injury prone.

[vince]

I'm pretty sure Hawk dropped weight this year and has been faster and better in coverage than the last couple years.

[VermontPackFan]

I wonder what kind of "promises" were made to Bishop, if any. He has complained in the past about lack of playing time, lack of opportunities even. He knows Chiller, Barnett and Hawk are all under contract for next year, so the Packers could have all of them back by doing nothing other than meeting the contract obligations.

I had expected Bishop to wait and see what happened with Hawk's bonus before re-signing with GB. Chiller seems locked into the specialty role; leaving Hawk, Barnett and Bishop for the two starting spots. Will Bishop be satisfied in a reserve role if they are all back?

Then again, with the CBA up in the air, Bishop may have seen this as opportunity to get a signing bonus in hand before a possible lockout at the start of the next league year.

I would be suprised if he was promised anything, possibly an open competition for a starting position in training camp? The way he has played since Barnett went down, I dont see him playing a reserve role next year. I wonder if Barnett (or Hawk) would be satisfied in a reserve role?

[RashanGary]

My impression before this year was that Bishop was our toughest inside LB and tied with Chillar as our best blitzer. I wondered why he wasn't on the field.

I thought Chillar was our best coverage linebacker and tied with Bishop as our best blitzer.


When it comes to athletes making plays, it seemed to me Chillar and Bishop were are best LB's. I had a guy at work mock the hell out of me for saying I liked the way Bishop played over Barnett.



After seeing the way Hawk played this year though, I like him better than Barnett and better in base than Chillar. In base, I'd go Hawk/Bishop because both play the run well and both can cover well enough. In nickle I'd go with Bishop and Chillar because they're our two best blitzers, Bishop can cover well enough and Chillar is excellent at it.

At the end of the day I think Hawk's days are numbered. You can't pay a part time player more than you do Bishop, the full time player.

[Patler]

I would be suprised if he was promised anything, possibly an open competition for a starting position in training camp? The way he has played since Barnett went down, I dont see him playing a reserve role next year. I wonder if Barnett (or Hawk) would be satisfied in a reserve role?

Individually, I would still rate him 3rd best of the three. The interesting question is, what combination is best?

[Smidgeon]

I think the play of Hawk and Barnett did that. :) I'm not sure Barnett was considered better than Matthews, but I get your point. I always felt like Hawk and Barnett were pretty close. Barnett more of a playmaker and solid, but took some bad angles. Hawk steady and solid, but had coverage liabilities. I thought Barnett was pretty similar, but not as consistent as Hawk. I'd say they are pretty close, but Barnett is getting olded and injury prone.

Whoops. Forgot about Matthews. I was mostly thinking about ILBs...

[ND72]

Goodbye Hawk.
Why does everyone say goodbye hawk? I don't see that at all. Hawk and bishop play so much better together. I read other places say hawk is gone cause of the $10mil price tag....like players have never renegotiated their contracts or something. Barnett likely gone, but who knows.

[Joemailman]

I also think there's a good chance that Bishop, Hawk, and Chillar stay with Barnett going. However, it depends on what Hawk and his agent think he's worth. They hold the cards. If they are looking at a reasonable number, I think the Pack gets rid of Barnett. If they demand too much, I think they let Hawk go and keep Barnett. Kind of the same with Cullen Jenkins. It all depends on what the are asking for.

I hope they find a way to keep Hawk. I think he's steadier than Barnett, and the defense has played better since he became the defensive signal caller.



This would get a five clap post if I knew how to use the emoticons....or if they work......I'm not sure

Stellar points

:bclap::bclap::bclap::bclap:

The site only allows 4 images per post.

[RashanGary]

Put me down for liking Bishop and Chillar as our two best ILB's.

[Lurker64]

Put me down for liking Bishop and Chillar as our two best ILB's.

The problem with that pairing is that neither of those guys has demonstrated their ability to be the defensive signal caller, so it would be dangerous to just go with a Bishop/Chillar base. Hawk and Barnett have shown that they can call the signals for Dom's defense, so you pretty much have to keep one of them on the field until somebody else shows you they can do it.

[vince]

Chillar has had a couple great blitzes, but for a coverage specialist, he seems to make too many mistakes and get beat regularly. Without looking at any stats, he seems to get beat more than Hawk, who's actually been very good in coverage this year. I'll take all four, but if forced to take two, it's Bishop and Hawk.

I think Hawk'll renegotiate and be back. He doesn't want to go anywhere. For the sake of continuity, it's time for Thompson to draft a new guy inside. I'm with those who think Barnett should be moved if Ted hits on a winner inside and is able to renegotiate Hawk's deal.

[Bossman641]

I'm pretty sure Hawk dropped weight this year and has been faster and better in coverage than the last couple years.

Hawk has definitely dropped some weight, and to me it looks like it was in the upper body. He will never be confused for being fluid but he looks much better this year while last year he looked like a miniature defensive lineman running around out there.

[Bretsky]

I'm pretty sure Hawk dropped weight this year and has been faster and better in coverage than the last couple years.

Interesting you'd say that. Bill Michaels from Packer Radio had a theory on Hawk early last year that he was pretty effective as a rookie, but then the Packers coaches stressed that he needed to get stronger stronger stronger....he put on a bit of weight....and lost his speed identity of the player he is.

[imscott72]

The Packers got a great deal here with this extension. I wonder if this means Hawk/Barnett are on their way out.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I love Hawk and Bishop in the middle. Trade Barnett......

[vince]

Interesting you'd say that. Bill Michaels from Packer Radio had a theory on Hawk early last year that he was pretty effective as a rookie, but then the Packers coaches stressed that he needed to get stronger stronger stronger....he put on a bit of weight....and lost his speed identity of the player he is.Yeah that makes sense to me too. I don't know if the coaches pushed for it or what, but Hawk definitely slowed down since his rookie year. He's still not the most agile ILB in the league, but he's quicker this year and is a good complement to Bishop.

I think/hope Hawk and TT can agree on a restructure. All in all, I'd prefer Hawk over Bishop, as Bishop still has his limitations in space. The Bishop deal strengthens the Packers position with Hawk though, so they aren't desperate by any means, but I think they'll give him a fair deal in line with what Barnett's making ($6 mil/yr) and hopefully he'll agree.

[rbaloha1]

Nice signing. DB backed up word with play. Agree with assessment Hawk's improved play is partly attributable to Bishop's play. Raji also helped as well imo.

Hawk is also resigned at a reasonable price.

[pbmax]

I also think there's a good chance that Bishop, Hawk, and Chillar stay with Barnett going. However, it depends on what Hawk and his agent think he's worth. They hold the cards. If they are looking at a reasonable number, I think the Pack gets rid of Barnett. If they demand too much, I think they let Hawk go and keep Barnett. Kind of the same with Cullen Jenkins. It all depends on what the are asking for.

I hope they find a way to keep Hawk. I think he's steadier than Barnett, and the defense has played better since he became the defensive signal caller.

This. Bishop has spent no time at Hawk's position. Its the other need at LB beyond pass rusher not named Clay Matthews.

Did anyone know that Kevin Matthews, son of Bruce Matthews, cousin of Clay the III is the center for the Titans? I had missed this.

[pbmax]

Given the way the played together, I think Hawk stays and Barnett goes.

Or this. Sorry to not give MS his first props.

[The Shadow]

Given the way the played together, I think Hawk stays and Barnett goes.

I agree. I would most certainly want to keep Hawk over Barnett.
I wonder if Barnett would agree to play OLB - if Capers could convince him he could be very good (in part by having mathews on the opposite side).

[pbmax]

The problem with that pairing is that neither of those guys has demonstrated their ability to be the defensive signal caller, so it would be dangerous to just go with a Bishop/Chillar base. Hawk and Barnett have shown that they can call the signals for Dom's defense, so you pretty much have to keep one of them on the field until somebody else shows you they can do it.

And neither can neutralize a lone Guard or FB like Hawk. He isn't Levon Kirkland in this regard, but he is the sturdiest ILB in taking on a block. Only Matthews neutralizes faster.

By the way. Official apologies from me to Bishop. Though I still have concerns about coverage, they are no longer any greater than my concerns about Hawk or Barnett's coverage. Its possible all the nickel this year has helped to disguise this and that would be the only factor I can think of that would worry me.

He has proven to get more assignment sure with more playing time.

[Fritz]

Someone suggested moving Barnett outside. But isn't Barnett too small to be an outside guy in this system?

[Joemailman]

I don't think Barnett would be strong enough to hold the point on running plays. Probably why Chillar doesn't play there either, although they tried him there in training camp.

[pbmax]

Chillar has had a couple great blitzes, but for a coverage specialist, he seems to make too many mistakes and get beat regularly. Without looking at any stats, he seems to get beat more than Hawk, who's actually been very good in coverage this year. I'll take all four, but if forced to take two, it's Bishop and Hawk.

I think Hawk'll renegotiate and be back. He doesn't want to go anywhere. For the sake of continuity, it's time for Thompson to draft a new guy inside. I'm with those who think Barnett should be moved if Ted hits on a winner inside and is able to renegotiate Hawk's deal.

This year the Packer Defense versus the TE:

DVOA: 13.0%
Rank: 22
Passes/Gm: 6.6
Yds/Gm: 54.0

Last year:
DVOA: -21.7%
Rank: 3
Passes/Gm: 6.9
Yds/Gm: 50.2

DVOA stands for Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. Offensive numbers are positive so negative numbers are good for defense. The TEs are being targeted slightly less but for slightly more yards. DVOA also tracks the outcome of a play (score, first down, halving the distance for the next first down). So by their book, TE coverage has suffered. Chillar might make a difference.

Every other type of receiver has be covered more effectively this year (number 1, 2, otherWR and RB). If I had to guess it would TDs scored by the TE.

[red]

Someone suggested moving Barnett outside. But isn't Barnett too small to be an outside guy in this system?

yeah, that was me

yeah he's a little small, but he's a decent blitzer

[bobblehead]

Congratulations to him for getting paid and for proving me and many others wrong about his every-down dependability.

+1 I've never been happier to be so wrong about a player (in fairness I was basing it on like 5 regular season plays and the coaches word).

[bobblehead]

Isn't Hawk due a $10 Milliion bonus and Barnett only $6 Million......if I was a betting man, I'd go with Hawk being gone.

but, now they have leverage against hawk. No way hawk can really ask for more than Bishop. Same maybe, but not more. So if they somehow landed hawk for the same deal, we would have hawk, chillar, and Bishop locked for 4,3 and 4 years. Barnett has 2 left at 6+million. He would be expendable.

[bobblehead]

Put me down for liking Bishop and Chillar as our two best ILB's.

I agree and disagree. Chillar is studly in coverage, but hawk can stand a guard up and stack a running play. I'm a big chillar fan, but he is simply incapable of that. They made a great platoon. I think next season if Hawk is back you will see him lose time to Chillar in passing downs again. Chillar might get more work at OLB as well for passing downs. too much talent is never a problem, we can get them all involved.

[bobblehead]

Chillar has had a couple great blitzes, but for a coverage specialist, he seems to make too many mistakes and get beat regularly. Without looking at any stats, he seems to get beat more than Hawk, who's actually been very good in coverage this year. I'll take all four, but if forced to take two, it's Bishop and Hawk.

I think Hawk'll renegotiate and be back. He doesn't want to go anywhere. For the sake of continuity, it's time for Thompson to draft a new guy inside. I'm with those who think Barnett should be moved if Ted hits on a winner inside and is able to renegotiate Hawk's deal.

I think most of what you remember about Chillar getting beat in coverage is when he was forced to play safety last season. It was asking too much of him, or any LB. Even then he wasn't horrible, but some good TE's made some great plays against him. As a coverage LB I believe he is elite.

[bobblehead]

This. Bishop has spent no time at Hawk's position. Its the other need at LB beyond pass rusher not named Clay Matthews.

Did anyone know that Kevin Matthews, son of Bruce Matthews, cousin of Clay the III is the center for the Titans? I had missed this.

Yes, and also if i recall, Clays little brother won an award in college this year for stellar LB play. Quite the family.

[ND72]

I'm sorry, but chillar just is not the answer. Coaches all said he played for is cover skills, yet every team threw AT chillar. He is a nice backup, but is not a starter, at least not on a championship caliber football team.

[mission]

Blitzing (at an average level) and pass rushing/holding the edge are two separate things. No offense to anyone personally, but the idea that Barnett could maybe play outside has to stop now. Can't happen, won't happen.

:)

[vince]

This year the Packer Defense versus the TE:

DVOA: 13.0%
Rank: 22
Passes/Gm: 6.6
Yds/Gm: 54.0

Last year:
DVOA: -21.7%
Rank: 3
Passes/Gm: 6.9
Yds/Gm: 50.2

DVOA stands for Defense-adjusted Value Over Average. Offensive numbers are positive so negative numbers are good for defense. The TEs are being targeted slightly less but for slightly more yards. DVOA also tracks the outcome of a play (score, first down, halving the distance for the next first down). So by their book, TE coverage has suffered. Chillar might make a difference.

Every other type of receiver has be covered more effectively this year (number 1, 2, otherWR and RB). If I had to guess it would TDs scored by the TE.
I stand corrected. Thanks for looking that up PB. I just remember Chillar getting beat at important times I guess, even this year when he's played.

[Patler]

but, now they have leverage against hawk. No way hawk can really ask for more than Bishop. Same maybe, but not more. So if they somehow landed hawk for the same deal, we would have hawk, chillar, and Bishop locked for 4,3 and 4 years. Barnett has 2 left at 6+million. He would be expendable.

I don't know that they really have a lot of leverage against Hawk. Their options are to pay him his bonus, or lose him with no compensation whatsoever, just like Wahle. If let go, Hawk will get a decent contract somewhere. He is experienced, healthy, young and reliable.

[Patler]

I'm sorry, but chillar just is not the answer. Coaches all said he played for is cover skills, yet every team threw AT chillar. He is a nice backup, but is not a starter, at least not on a championship caliber football team.

Chiller is often called the Packers best pass coverage linebacker. I have always looked at that more as an indictment against the ability of the others in pass coverage than as a compliment to Chiller's ability. Chiller strikes me as a guy who SHOULD be good in coverage, but for some reason never really comes up big when needed.

[vince]

I don't know that they really have a lot of leverage against Hawk. Their options are to pay him his bonus, or lose him with no compensation whatsoever, just like Wahle. If let go, Hawk will get a decent contract somewhere. He is experienced, healthy, young and reliable.
At minimum, they strengthen their position by signing Bishop because they can afford to lose Hawk if he refuses to restructure or wants too much. From what I've heard out of Hawk over time, I think he sincerely wants to stay in Green Bay.

[pbmax]

I stand corrected. Thanks for looking that up PB. I just remember Chillar getting beat at important times I guess, even this year when he's played.

Yeah, I am not sure how to square those numbers with my memory. I seem to recall a LOT more long TE catches last year. But TE catches are down this year, and their avg. per catch is down. My guess is that they are still getting their team closer to a 1st down (one way they measure success) without as many big plays and are scoring more (which I think has happened).

Given how lights out the other coverage has been (versus the #1 WR, #2, other WR and RB the scores are double digit negative), the TE might remain the best of fewer options.

[Patler]

At minimum, they strengthen their position by signing Bishop because they can afford to lose Hawk if he refuses to restructure or wants too much. From what I've heard out of Hawk over time, I think he sincerely wants to stay in Green Bay.

Any leverage that gives the Packers depends entirely on how badly Hawk wants to stay in GB. I'm not too sure the desire to stay is that great with Hawk. Didn't he put his house up for sale this fall? It is my understanding it was a custom designed house he had built as a rookie. Kind of soon to have it on the market if he really wants to try to stay. My interpretation was that he knew he would be gone at the end of this season by the Packers choice, or at the latest at the end of 2011 at his own choice. I think he intends to be gone one way or the other. Hawk says all the right things, but I think he will look for a better opportunity somewhere else. Don't forget, early this year there was a game in which he did not play at all on defense, just STs. I doubt that sat well with him, even if he said nothing.

[vince]

Don't forget, early this year there was a game in which he did not play at all on defense, just STs. I doubt that sat well with him, even if he said nothing.
That was precisely the time when he put his house up for sale if I'm not mistaken - or at least that was the time when it was noticed by bloggers and the media. He wants to play no doubt. It'll be iinteresting to see how it pans out.

[mraynrand]

Don't forget, early this year there was a game in which he did not play at all on defense, just STs. I doubt that sat well with him, even if he said nothing.


That was Philly, when they stayed in nickel most (all?) of the game. Hey - think Hawk will be sidelined again this Saturday?? (LOL)

My prediction: There will not be a street named after AJ Hawk in Green Bay WI.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Did it seem to anyone other than me that Hawk became more physical playing next to Bishop? When paired with Barnett, Hawk tackled a lot like Barnett, hanging on and dragging down ball carriers. He seems to be becoming more and more physical in pursuit, tackling and even blitzing the last few weeks.

One thing I like about Bishop is that we finally have an ILB who likes to HIT people. I'm still not sold on Hawk: he has had ONE good season that coincidentally was a contract year. His speed and college reputation hadn't carried to the NFL until this season.


It's interesting how quickly public opinion changes. A couple months ago, Barnett was considered the best overall LB on the team. Now people want him gone? Did one injury do all that?

At least with Barnett, you know what you've got. But he has had TWO major injuries in three seasons.


...Didn't he put his house up for sale this fall? It is my understanding it was a custom designed house he had built as a rookie. Kind of soon to have it on the market if he really wants to try to stay. My interpretation was that he knew he would be gone at the end of this season by the Packers choice, or at the latest at the end of 2011 at his own choice. I think he intends to be gone one way or the other....unity somewhere else. Don't forget, early this year there was a game in which he did not play at all on defense, just STs. I doubt that sat well with him, even if he said nothing.

In the long run, didn't this prove to be a non-story? If i recall correctly, Hawk and his wife had waterfront property and a small child and had a high level of concern. They sold that one and purchased another one I think. Can someone confirm?

[Smidgeon]

I know it can mostly be attributed to natural reaction, but is anyone else feeling whiplash from the abrupt about face on this message board on the value of Hawk? I know some people have been fans all along, but he was the source of an intense debate not too long ago.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hawk has had one good year? I think that's funny. He's basically the same player he's always been. The only difference is that they let him play full-time his first 2-3 years, started replacing him with Chillar on passing downs once Capers got here, and now he's back to playing full-time because of the injuries to Chillar and Barnett. Hawk is solid. He's always been solid. Nothing more. Nothing less. The only thing that he's shown this year is that it looks like he's an excellent "quarterback" of the defense.

[vince]

I've always been generally a Hawk supporter as he's been solid, but I think the previous negative arguments had merit, as do the current positive ones. He's faster this year than he's been since his rookie year IMO.

[MichiganPackerFan]

AJ Hawk has been nothing special. He was put in position to make a LOT of tackles, which he did, but usually a couple yards after a solid player would do so. He had plenty of opportunity over the previous four years to show he belonged on the field and just didnt do it. I don't know if it was motivation or what. He hasn't made the plays that are expected from a 5th overall pick. He HAS played better this year, but it IS a contract year. He HAS been on the field before. Personally, i don't think there will be a post contract renewal drop off in his play and there is little risk in resigning him, but $10m / year requires better results.

[Patler]

AJ Hawk has been nothing special. He was put in position to make a LOT of tackles, which he did, but usually a couple yards after a solid player would do so. He had plenty of opportunity over the previous four years to show he belonged on the field and just didnt do it. I don't know if it was motivation or what. He hasn't made the plays that are expected from a 5th overall pick. He HAS played better this year, but it IS a contract year. He HAS been on the field before. Personally, i don't think there will be a post contract renewal drop off in his play and there is little risk in resigning him, but $10m / year requires better results.

They paid KGB $6.15 million in salary the year they cut him after the start of the season. Hawk is a better player now than KGB was at that time. Keeping Hawk for one Super-Bowl-run season at $10 million isn't so far fetched, imo. I could see them doing it for depth. In essence, it also would "buy" a draft pick if they let him go as a FA after 2011. They will get nothing if they let him walk this year. A lot could ride on whatever the salary cap rules are, if any.

[MichiganPackerFan]

They paid KGB $6.15 million in salary the year they cut him after the start of the season. Hawk is a better player now than KGB was at that time. Keeping Hawk for one Super-Bowl-run season at $10 million isn't so far fetched, imo. I could see them doing it for depth. In essence, it also would "buy" a draft pick if they let him go as a FA after 2011. They will get nothing if they let him walk this year. A lot could ride on whatever the salary cap rules are, if any.

I think with KGB they were so desperate for a pass rush, they were willing to not only pay him, but work hard to convince themselves he had something left in the tank. You may be right on Hawk though. It does seem as though he's finally "getting it".

[Patler]

I think with KGB they were so desperate for a pass rush, they were willing to not only pay him, but work hard to convince themselves he had something left in the tank.

They did kind of seem blind to the fact that KGB had done little of nothing for several years, didn't they? :lol:

[swede]

I think with KGB they were so desperate for a pass rush, they were willing to not only pay him, but work hard to convince themselves he had something left in the tank.

I've met KGB a few times in the past two years. He continues to be active in his faith-based activities and likes to work with kids, preaching hard work, good character, and setting goals. In his case, the knee injury alone may have taken away his ability to make a difference on the field, but the money may have hurt his career as well; his life outside of football is comfortable and rewarding for him and he no longer needed success on the field.

[Scott Campbell]

They paid KGB $6.15 million in salary the year they cut him after the start of the season. Hawk is a better player now than KGB was at that time. Keeping Hawk for one Super-Bowl-run season at $10 million isn't so far fetched, imo. I could see them doing it for depth. In essence, it also would "buy" a draft pick if they let him go as a FA after 2011. They will get nothing if they let him walk this year. A lot could ride on whatever the salary cap rules are, if any.


$10M is a lotta dough for a compensatory pick. Or maybe I should say about $5M, as that's the rough difference between what he's worth, and what he'll make.

[Fritz]

I've met KGB a few times in the past two years. He continues to be active in his faith-based activities and likes to work with kids, preaching hard work, good character, and setting goals. In his case, the knee injury alone may have taken away his ability to make a difference on the field, but the money may have hurt his career as well; his life outside of football is comfortable and rewarding for him and he no longer needed success on the field.

Dammit, Swede, we're trying to bash AJ Hawk or Nick Barnett or other posters here, and you muck it up with some story about how KGB is doing good in the community and living a faith-based life and being fulfilled without football. What's the matter with you?

[MichiganPackerFan]

I've met KGB a few times in the past two years. He continues to be active in his faith-based activities and likes to work with kids, preaching hard work, good character, and setting goals. In his case, the knee injury alone may have taken away his ability to make a difference on the field, but the money may have hurt his career as well; his life outside of football is comfortable and rewarding for him and he no longer needed success on the field.

I've heard the same. He was always high character and certainly didn't fleece the packers, he was just done. He made a healthy transition to real life though.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What if it's a 3rd round pick? :) I tend to think Hawk would get something closer to Barnett. Say $6M/year.

[Cheesehead Craig]

He had plenty of opportunity over the previous four years to show he belonged on the field and just didnt do it.
Doesn't even belong on the field? That's just silly.

[pbmax]

McGinn has Bishop as the best at taking on blockers among the ILBs. I might have to stop watching Woodson for signs of decline and start watching Bishop on D. If that is true and the coaches agree with it, then losing Hawk would not be a catastrophe.

[red]

bollon payments are added to the end of contracts to force teams and players to negotiate a new deal before the current one is up. we see this all the time, and the case with hawk is no different.

teams no this, agents no this, and players should know this, but they will act like they don't.

i'm sure the team and hawks agent will get a new deal worked out before the start of next season. that 10 million he was suppose to earn will become part of a signing bonus or something along those lines

hawk is a valuable player, and you just don't get rid of young valuable players. he's just not flashy so people don't take notice of him. if he did barnetts sword thing after every tackle, or made one big hit a year like bigby, most of you haters would be calling him a god.

[Fritz]

I still think someone - Hawk? should stand over his opponent after a tackle & do a hip thrust.

[swede]

Dammit, Swede, we're trying to bash AJ Hawk or Nick Barnett or other posters here, and you muck it up with some story about how KGB is doing good in the community and living a faith-based life and being fulfilled without football. What's the matter with you?

Sorry.

You ass, Fritz! This team is finally getting superior play out of the interior linebackers. Barnett was too busy swishing his ghey-a$$ sword to bring a truly physical nature to our defense.

[sheepshead]

Man I dont get the Barnett bashing at all. I thought the biggest loss this year was of course Grant. Finley was potentially going to be a huge factor. But the second biggest loss and certainly the biggest on defense was Barnett. I think his leadership and his numbers had a huge negative impact that Capers skillfully overcame as much as he could. Nick Barnett needs to be back in green and gold next year for certain.

[Little Whiskey]

teams no this, agents no this, and players should know this, but they will act like they don't.



I'm not one to normally laugh at grammer errors, but this one it too good to pass up. thanks for the chuckle red! 1 out of 3 aint bad! :)

[MichiganPackerFan]

Doesn't even belong on the field? That's just silly.

I was saying BEFORE this year. He came a long way this season for sure.

[pbmax]

I still think someone - Hawk? should stand over his opponent after a tackle & do a hip thrust.

But in what style? Elvis? Madonna? Three Amigos? KGB? Michael Jackson?

[swede]

But in what style? Elvis? Madonna? Three Amigos? KGB? Michael Jackson?

Rocky Horror.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hawk is basically the same player he's always been. He didn't magically transform from being below average to good this year. In fact, I think he was even better in years 1 and 2. Then, he fell off just a tad. Not a big drop, but I felt like he bulked up a bit too much. Now, he's sort of gotten back to the level of his first two years. He's been pretty damn consistent since day one. Solid, but unspectacular. He's still that.

[red]

I'm not one to normally laugh at grammer errors, but this one it too good to pass up. thanks for the chuckle red! 1 out of 3 aint bad! :)

lol, wow

i guess my brain didn't start clickin right away

[red]

I still think someone - Hawk? should stand over his opponent after a tackle & do a hip thrust.

i vote for someone doing this after a sack or big play


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qUSHBIc6BQ

[woodbuck27]

Yup !

Barnett's age and injury status of late a factor as well.

[woodbuck27]

Yup !

Barnett's age and injury status of late a factor as well.

Then in 'the real world'.

Mucho money for Hawk.

[MJZiggy]

Rocky Horror.

Perfect!:drma:

[Patler]

$10M is a lotta dough for a compensatory pick. Or maybe I should say about $5M, as that's the rough difference between what he's worth, and what he'll make.

If KGB was worth $6.15 million 3-4 years ago, Hawk is worth more than $5M now, a lot more.

I'm not suggesting it be done ONLY for the compensatory pick. Hawk IS the starting linebacker. KGB had been relegated to a hoped for specialist role that he performed poorly the year before. Yet, they still kept him for $6.15M.

[Patler]

Hawk is basically the same player he's always been. He didn't magically transform from being below average to good this year. In fact, I think he was even better in years 1 and 2. Then, he fell off just a tad. Not a big drop, but I felt like he bulked up a bit too much. Now, he's sort of gotten back to the level of his first two years. He's been pretty damn consistent since day one. Solid, but unspectacular. He's still that.

I agree. After his second season, many were saying he was borderline Pro-Bowl, just missing the turnover causing plays. Basically, he is still that. I think he has been a Pro Bowl Alternate last year and this, hasn't he?

[Fritz]

But in what style? Elvis? Madonna? Three Amigos? KGB? Michael Jackson?

Like my dog when he greets your leg.

Or me when I'm dreaming of Drew Barrymore.

[pbmax]

Like my dog when he greets your leg.

Or me when I'm dreaming of Drew Barrymore.

The horny dog. Got it.

[pbmax]

If KGB was worth $6.15 million 3-4 years ago, Hawk is worth more than $5M now, a lot more.

I'm not suggesting it be done ONLY for the compensatory pick. Hawk IS the starting linebacker. KGB had been relegated to a hoped for specialist role that he performed poorly the year before. Yet, they still kept him for $6.15M.

That's the issue though. KGB was not worth the money by that time. First his sack production slipped then he was replaced as a starter by Jenkins. He collected that $6-7 million for two years as a result of inertia (or blind hope). It would have entailed a cap hit to remove him and the available replacement wasn't going to be better (might not be as good). If someone is willing to pay you that amount of money, in a sense that is market value, but I think several other factors had to come into play for the Packers to decide to stand pat.

But as you point out, Hawk has not had the production slip KGB had and is earning a significantly larger portion of his salary.

What is the going market rate for ILB's? Was it Barnett's deal? Or was that below market?

[SkinBasket]

I would love to see Hawk and Bishop in the middle and Matthews and Jones/whoever on the outside.

Barnett is a retard blitzing and he takes more bad angles than Bigby against the run. I don't see him improving in those areas coming off his "injury." If Chillar has proven anything in his time in GB, it's that he should be executed. He's too... bad to do anything good on a consistent basis and he's obviously a weak pussy. Send them as a package deal to Oakland for a 5th and a whiff of Al Davis' taint.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I would love to see Hawk and Bishop in the middle and Matthews and Jones/whoever on the outside.

Barnett is a retard blitzing and he takes more bad angles than Bigby against the run. I don't see him improving in those areas coming off his "injury." If Chillar has proven anything in his time in GB, it's that he should be executed. He's too... bad to do anything good on a consistent basis and he's obviously a weak pussy. Send them as a package deal to Oakland for a 5th and a whiff of Al Davis' taint.

I wouldn't have said it in those exact terms..............but what he said.

[bobblehead]

Chiller is often called the Packers best pass coverage linebacker. I have always looked at that more as an indictment against the ability of the others in pass coverage than as a compliment to Chiller's ability. Chiller strikes me as a guy who SHOULD be good in coverage, but for some reason never really comes up big when needed.

How would you know if he comes up big when needed. Consider that every time he was on the field on 3rd down and you DIDN'T see him get beat he came up big. I think a few people remember him being forced to play safety last season due to Aaron Rouse's ineptitude and when he got beat playing out of position they think he can't cover or something. All I know is that, imo, he is by far the best coverage backer we have. Hawk bordered on atrocious after his rookie year, and don't even make me mention Poppinga. Barnett was average in coverage.

[Patler]

Chiller is often called the Packers best pass coverage linebacker. I have always looked at that more as an indictment against the ability of the others in pass coverage than as a compliment to Chiller's ability. Chiller strikes me as a guy who SHOULD be good in coverage, but for some reason never really comes up big when needed.


How would you know if he comes up big when needed. Consider that every time he was on the field on 3rd down and you DIDN'T see him get beat he came up big. I think a few people remember him being forced to play safety last season due to Aaron Rouse's ineptitude and when he got beat playing out of position they think he can't cover or something. All I know is that, imo, he is by far the best coverage backer we have. Hawk bordered on atrocious after his rookie year, and don't even make me mention Poppinga. Barnett was average in coverage.

1. Just offering my opinion, never said I "knew" anything.
2. I guess I "know" about Chillar as much as you "know" about Hawk and Barnett, who you termed as "atrocious" and "average". How could you know, or form that opinion about them, if I can't have an opinion about Chillar?
3. Chillar has been in GB 3 years. He played safety a couple times last year, so no, my opinion is not based on just those few games.

I don't think Chillar is a bad coverage linebacker, I just don't think he is a great one. I think he looks better only in comparison to what the other Packer linebackers have provided. We seem to agree on that part of it, that the others besides Chillar have not been very good in coverage. Although, for some reason this year Hawk seems to have picked up his game in that area.

[Iron Mike]

I'm not one to normally laugh at grammer errors, but this one it too good to pass up. thanks for the chuckle red! 1 out of 3 aint bad! :)

Are you sure you don't mean grammar, LW?

[Scott Campbell]

I'd love to see some reporter ask Hawk why he's playing so much better since Bishop replaced Barnett.

[bobblehead]

1. Just offering my opinion, never said I "knew" anything.
2. I guess I "know" about Chillar as much as you "know" about Hawk and Barnett, who you termed as "atrocious" and "average". How could you know, or form that opinion about them, if I can't have an opinion about Chillar?
3. Chillar has been in GB 3 years. He played safety a couple times last year, so no, my opinion is not based on just those few games.

I don't think Chillar is a bad coverage linebacker, I just don't think he is a great one. I think he looks better only in comparison to what the other Packer linebackers have provided. We seem to agree on that part of it, that the others besides Chillar have not been very good in coverage. Although, for some reason this year Hawk seems to have picked up his game in that area.

fair enough. I wasn't so much attacking your opinion as pointing out that we don't see chillar a hell of a lot, which means he is covering his guy. When we did see it last year he was playing a made up safety position, and still in position to make plays, but not familiar with playing downfield with his back to the LOS. I judged Hawk as atrocious in coverage in '08 especially, but '09 as well because I constantly saw his coverage in 3rd and 7-11 end up in first downs. I broke at least a few things in those situations watching Hawk run after a RB who would get tackled about 3 yards after the first down. Barnett wasn't as bad, but it happened to him as well. As for chillar, other than the few TD's he gave up playing safety I don't recall him giving up a hell of a lot in coverage. He is below average in the run game though, which is why he is a situational player.

[RashanGary]

I would love to see Hawk and Bishop in the middle and Matthews and Jones/whoever on the outside.


It wasn't very long ago you were bitching an whining about how good Bishop sucked balls.

[retailguy]

It wasn't very long ago you were bitching an whining about how good Bishop sucked balls.

It wasn't very long ago that you thought McCarthy was the 2nd coming of Christ as well.

I'd say that Bishop was a very unexpected, welcome surprise, that surprised every one, probably not limited to just fans. My guess is there are a bunch of folks inside 1265 that are just as surprised as we are.

[pbmax]

I am not sure about the safety issue Bobble. Its Chillar versus the TE that is the problem. And it happened in more than just Big Nickel. Capers toned down the use of that Package as the season wore on. Chillar at times looked slightly more in position than Hawk. Both allowed long completions. This year, the TE production is up but their catches are down.

[SkinBasket]

It wasn't very long ago you were bitching an whining about how good Bishop sucked balls.

Are you going to argue that he hadn't sucked balls until this season? The problem with fanboys is that occasionally the sun shines on them and they think they're not located under the tail.

He's played well. I've always said i wanted him to succeed. Notice he isn't "laying the wood" anymore however, which is what got some of you guys so hot and bothered, but has learned to control his body instead. He's an adequate MLB now.

[Zool]

Are you going to argue that he hadn't sucked balls until this season? The problem with fanboys is that occasionally the sun shines on them and they think they're not located under the tail.

He's played well. I've always said i wanted him to succeed. Notice he isn't "laying the wood" anymore however, which is what got some of you guys so hot and bothered, but has learned to control his body instead. He's an adequate MLB now.

He still gets caught out of place quite a bit and has to recover. Was it just me or did the Eagles O line play stellar today? I saw plenty of 5 and 6 man blitzes stonewalled.

[ThunderDan]

I for one had bashed Bishop because he was assignment unsure. He has cleaned most of that up.

A perfect example of that was during the Bears game. The D played an off-tackle run by Forte perfectly on a play that was well blocked by the Bears O-Line. Bishop was one-on-one verses Forte for the tackle. In the past Bishop would have exploded thru the hole and blown up Forte 85% of the time and 15% of the time Forte would have scored a 50+ yard TD. Instead Bishop waited in the hole and made a tackle for a yard gain. No big hit, no TFL just perfectly played football. Get up, brush the dirt of your uni and head back to the huddle.