Packers expected to cut Hawk when CBA done

[packers11]

www.rotoworld.com

The Packers are expected to waive ILB AJ Hawk if the sides don't agree to a restructured contract before a new CBA is finalized.

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "negotiations have gotten nowhere." Hawk played over 90 percent of Green Bay's defensive snaps in 2010, but they can't afford to pay his $10 million salary for 2011. If the sides are able to come to a new agreement, Hawk would battle Nick Barnett ($5.5 million salary) for one starting job. The loser might lose his roster spot entirely

[Lurker64]

I have a really hard time believing that Hawk's representation are unwilling to reach a deal on an extension. Regardless though, deadlines force action and "unwilling to budge" is probably just a play for leverage in the final accounting since there is currently no deadline.

Whenever a new CBA gets done, if there is to be free agency in that year, there will assuredly be a grace period built in between "the start of the new CBA" and "the beginning of free agency" to allow teams to to put their affairs in order, figure out the rules of the new deal, and negotiate with their players who would be free agents, which generally didn't occur due to CBA uncertainty.

[get louder at lambeau]

That would suck to lose Hawk. Bishop, Barnett, and Chillar would be decent for depth, but Hawk would still be missed, IMO. I want him and Bishop, with Chillar mixed in.

Even if they cut him, I wouldn't count the Packers out as a frontrunner to sign him back up in FA. His agent might just want to test the waters to set the market price. Doesn't mean the Packers won't pay it.

[MadScientist]

Similar to the Jenkins situation, with the amount the Packers have already committed, it will be hard to come up with an agreement without knowing what the CBA will be. I do want Hawk to be back, because the defense was much better with him calling things.

[Tony Oday]

Get rid of Barnett instead

[Smidgeon]

First, in JS, Hawk says the following:

"I would love to be back with Green Bay next year," Hawk told NFL Netword. "I don't know if that's going to happen with how my contract is structured and everything that's going on. I would hope that they would try to work something out, but we'll see. If not, hopefully somebody else will give me a shot."

Now, to me, that doesn't sound like someone unwilling to budge or make a deal to stay in Green Bay (it could, but that's not how I read it).

Next, I still find it difficult to take seriously reports of Barnett and Hawk battling it out for one starting position since they don't play the same position. John Kuhn isn't battling Brandon Jackson for a spot on the team. Morgan Burnett isn't battling Sam Shields for a starting role. And neither is Barnett battling Hawk, unless one of them changes positions first.

[bobblehead]

Get rid of Barnett instead

Easy to say, but Barnett is signed for 2 more years to the contract we all want Hawk to sign. Barnett is also only 29 and historically equal or better than Hawk when healthy. The most likely outcome is bye bye hawk.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Barnett is also only 29 and historically equal or better than Hawk when healthy. The most likely outcome is bye bye hawk.

Barnett is 29 with two major injuries in the last two years. He's an old 29. Hawk is younger and MUCH more durable. As far as him being better than Hawk, I'm not sure. I know the Packers defense was better when Hawk was QB'ing them.

BTW, the title of the article is misleading. It should read "Packers expected to cut Hawk when CBA done, if sides are unable to restructure contract." Which really isn't new news to any of us.

[Tony Oday]

If they get rid of Hawk the damn GB Packers owe me a jersey for Mason and I damn it!

[RashanGary]

First, in JS, Hawk says the following:

"I would love to be back with Green Bay next year," Hawk told NFL Netword. "I don't know if that's going to happen with how my contract is structured and everything that's going on. I would hope that they would try to work something out, but we'll see. If not, hopefully somebody else will give me a shot."

Now, to me, that doesn't sound like someone unwilling to budge or make a deal to stay in Green Bay (it could, but that's not how I read it).

Next, I still find it difficult to take seriously reports of Barnett and Hawk battling it out for one starting position since they don't play the same position. John Kuhn isn't battling Brandon Jackson for a spot on the team. Morgan Burnett isn't battling Sam Shields for a starting role. And neither is Barnett battling Hawk, unless one of them changes positions first.


I disagree. They play different but similar positions. Hawk could play either position. So can Bishop. Bishop is paid as a starting LB and he's the best ILB we have. He'll be in there. Chillar is reasonably paid, plays ST's and is versatile on defense. He'll be on the team. Now it comes down to whether we want to pay 6 mil to Barnett and 7 mil to Hawk (he'll likely be overpaid because hes on a SB winner and he was a high profile draft pick that some scouts probably loved and never let go of that love).

I'd rather have Hawk, but if his salary demands get unreasonable, I could see Ted letting him go. I hope it doesn't go that way. I hope teams don't see Hawk as the difference maker he's not.

Sometimes the last RB spot goes to FB or RB. Sometimes the last TE/FB spot goes to the best of that position. Similar positions battle it out all of the time. OL, DL. In thsi case it's the most similar position of any in football. Those two are fighting it out. I'm hoping for Hawk.

[Smidgeon]

I disagree. They play different but similar positions. Hawk could play either position. So can Bishop. Bishop is paid as a starting LB and he's the best ILB we have. He'll be in there. Chillar is reasonably paid, plays ST's and is versatile on defense. He'll be on the team. Now it comes down to whether we want to pay 6 mil to Barnett and 7 mil to Hawk (he'll likely be overpaid because hes on a SB winner and he was a high profile draft pick that some scouts probably loved and never let go of that love).

I'd rather have Hawk, but if his salary demands get unreasonable, I could see Ted letting him go. I hope it doesn't go that way. I hope teams don't see Hawk as the difference maker he's not.

Sometimes the last RB spot goes to FB or RB. Sometimes the last TE/FB spot goes to the best of that position. Similar positions battle it out all of the time. OL, DL. In thsi case it's the most similar position of any in football. Those two are fighting it out. I'm hoping for Hawk.

How do we know Bishop can play Hawk's position? I don't recall ever hearing he was practicing there. From what I've picked up, there are different responsibilities and techniques required for the two positions. Hawk probably wouldn't be that good in Barnett's position because he isn't as quick-twitch as would be required. Of course, I could be characterizing the positions incorrectly in my head...

[gbgary]

dumb article.

[King Friday]

I think Hawk likes it in Green Bay, and would prefer to remain there if they pay him CLOSE to market. I'm not sure either side really knows what the market is right now. Basically, this will work out as follows:

1. Packers will cut Hawk to not get stuck with the $10M salary.
2. Hawk will be able to test the market and see what other teams might offer him.
3. Hawk's agent likely will come to Thompson and tell him what AJ would need to stay in Green Bay.
4. Thompson either says yes or no.

Nothing will happen before the CBA is signed.

[mission]

I think the Pack will just do what the Jets are doing with a lot of their vets. They'd save about 2.5 in bonus money even if they resigned him for 10 mil the first year if I'm correct. If I had to wager, I'd still say he ends up a Packer.

[Lurker64]

I'm pretty sure you could write the exact same story replacing "A.J." with "Reggie", "Packers" with "Saints", "Green Bay" with "New Orleans", and "Hawk" with "Bush".

Not entirely sure what Nick Barnett would have to do with the other story, or why the Journal-Sentinel would be reporting on it, though.

[rbaloha1]

Get rid of Barnett instead

Agreed. As a previous Hawk critic, AJ is a proven ilb starter. My guess is Hawk renegotiates a long term cap friendly contract.

[The Shadow]

Easy to say, but Barnett is signed for 2 more years to the contract we all want Hawk to sign. Barnett is also only 29 and historically equal or better than Hawk when healthy. The most likely outcome is bye bye hawk.

"..equal or better than Hawk when healthy" ??
I must be watching the wrong games - I find Hawk's play considerably superior to Barnett's.

[pbmax]

A lot depends on the new CBA and the FA period. The Packers aren't even sure if they will need to create cap room yet. And there is still the matter of Mack versus Buck ILBs in the base D. Only Hawk and the camp bodies played Buck (Simpkins and Francois I think).

While there is a lot more noise about the paycut, including comments from the agent, I could still see a scenario with a high enugh cap number, Hawk is back.

[Pugger]

Let's suppose Hawk does not agree to a pay decrease for the coming season, the Packers do cut him and he decides to test the market. Do any of you think any other team is gonna pay him $10M in 2011?

[prime311]

Kind of a no brainer, no way he was coming back at that price. I wouldn't be surprised to see him sign a long term deal though. Guess we'll see how the market plays out. Interesting to see the Pack in this scenario at all. TT has made a point of frontloading contracts so they don't balloon into ridiculous numbers we can't afford. I can only surmise that this was due to his being a high draft pick.

[Patler]

A lot depends on the new CBA and the FA period. The Packers aren't even sure if they will need to create cap room yet. And there is still the matter of Mack versus Buck ILBs in the base D. Only Hawk and the camp bodies played Buck (Simpkins and Francois I think).

While there is a lot more noise about the paycut, including comments from the agent, I could still see a scenario with a high enugh cap number, Hawk is back.

Yes, I also would not be surprised if the Packers went ahead and paid Hawk. The Packers brought back KGB for at least two seasons when the writers assured us they would release him because of his exorbitant salary in relationship to the then-existing salary cap. They brought him back on a hope and a prayer that he could fill a bit role for them as a pass rush specialist. Hawk will be a starter if he is brought back. $10 million for Hawk now looks like a better investment than nearly $8 million for KGB in 2008.

I could very easily see Barnett being the odd man out. The defense played pretty well without him this year. If it were a normal year, I might expect a draft day trade involving Barnett. Without a new CBA, it is my understanding players can not be traded.

[Brandon494]

I hope they cut him just so I won't have to see you guys on his dick anymore. He gets way too much love for the average player he is. Barnett when healthy is clearly the better LB. Now if he can stay healthy is the question. I've been saying for years the only reason he was playing ahead of Bishop was because of his draft status and the money he was making. Bishop finally got on the field this year and proved you haters wrong. If not for Bishop making that shoe string tackle against his college teammate Jackson the Packers don't even make it out of the first round. Yea I'm really going to miss him making tackles from knees while getting push back 2 more yards. 10 million for Hawk? He should be making 2 million at the max.

[Brandon494]

KGB was a pass rusher, that's why they took a chance on him for that amount of money. They arent going to pay Hawk 10 million when they have two other guys on the bench who are just as good if not better then Hawk. If they keep Hawk for 10 million and let Jenkins go instead of franchising him I'll be pissed.

[RashanGary]

Hawk took over leading the defense and did it in a way that had coaches and players raving. He was voted a team captain for the playoffs (a kinda big deal).

I never thought much of Hawk either. He's always been so darn pedestrian. You feel like Robert Francois could come in and play as mediocre as Hawk. Barnett hasn't been much better. This year though, Hawk rose a level above Barnett in my eyes (good LB) and seems to do all of the little things right.

I think the Packers will value Hawk more than Barnett. 6M per year should be the max though. There are better players you can have for 8M/year. Jennings, Nick Collins, Tramon Williams, Ryan Grant just to name a couple on our team. Hawk doesn't deserve that jack and if they pay it to him I wont be on board with it. Then other teams will value our SB winning players through the roof. A lot of wise posters think he's here, but the writing is on the wall that he very well may not be. This is a story whether we want it to be or not.


As far as Cullen Jenkins, this is an incredibly deep draft for DE's. With everyone we already have and the chances of BPA being DE at some point, I don't know if resigning him (30 years old, will be declining and paid through the roof) will be a good thing.

[Kiwon]

In other interviews I got the impression that Hawk would be fine going elsewhere. He'll take getting paid more $$ over giving GB a hometown discount.

[mraynrand]

I think Hawk is gone, simply due to his on-field performance. The film most damning is probably from the reg. season game at Philly. Nice knowin' ya Hawk.

[RashanGary]

I think Hawk is gone, simply due to his on-field performance. The film most damning is probably from the reg. season game at Philly. Nice knowin' ya Hawk.

Yeah, that was bad that game for him. No sacks or forced fumbles, just like usual for him.

In all seriousness though, Hawk almost never makes big plays. Matthews, Raji, Tramon, Collins, Bishop even, hell throw Shields in there. . . There are guys out there making it happen. Hawk is now and has always been pedestrian, similar to what Peprah has been at Safety.

He did a nice job running the defense and he was voted as a captain so obviously he's a leader.


Actual play though, Hawk is just a guy. He's replaceable. I don't want him gone, but a lot of teams fell in love with him after his SR season at OSU. He hasn't flopped so some guys are probably still in love with him and he's coming from the Champs. He's gonna get paid and he's not worth it.

I see the 10m one year deal as being more likely than an extension and I see him going elsewhere as the most likely option of all.

[mmmdk]

Get rid of Barnett instead

Agree 100% - Hawk is a leader, rock solid football player & durable too. Get rid of the "Bitter Twitter"!

[KYPack]

KGB was a pass rusher, that's why they took a chance on him for that amount of money. They arent going to pay Hawk 10 million when they have two other guys on the bench who are just as good if not better then Hawk. If they keep Hawk for 10 million and let Jenkins go instead of franchising him I'll be pissed.

The deadline for using the two tags has passed. Jenkins won't be tagged as no Packer will be tagged this season.

[RashanGary]

We've successfully moved on from Favre, A Green, J Walker, D Sharper, W Henderson, M Tausher, M Rivera, M Flannagen, C Williams, KGB and many many more. We all get attached to the players but the reality is, when you have a good GM, you don't have to pay through the roof for decent talent. YOu can find that for almost free in the draft and UFA. Even the best talent, you can replace.

We have Ted and with that, AJ or Barnett are replaceable. We could lose both at the same time and I wouldn't fret. Save the big bucks for Matthews. He's actually worth it.

[mmmdk]

I think Hawk is gone, simply due to his on-field performance. The film most damning is probably from the reg. season game at Philly. Nice knowin' ya Hawk.

So you're saying you saw it too? From week 1 to 7 Packers were closer to a mediocre team than a SB winning team; Hawk had a slow start, the whole team sucked, yet Hawk emerged as the QB of the defense...and was part of an improbable SB team. Pay Hawk & let "Bitter Twitter" walk!

[ThunderDan]

Next, I still find it difficult to take seriously reports of Barnett and Hawk battling it out for one starting position since they don't play the same position. John Kuhn isn't battling Brandon Jackson for a spot on the team. Morgan Burnett isn't battling Sam Shields for a starting role. And neither is Barnett battling Hawk, unless one of them changes positions first.

Exactly, Hawk plays a different position than Barnett. Barnett could not take over Hawks spot. Barnett would be completely washed out taking on 305 lbs guards running free on him.

I am sure Hawk will not be in GB in 2011 with his original contract. That is all I am fairly certain about.

[ThunderDan]

I hope they cut him just so I won't have to see you guys on his dick anymore. He gets way too much love for the average player he is. Barnett when healthy is clearly the better LB. Now if he can stay healthy is the question. I've been saying for years the only reason he was playing ahead of Bishop was because of his draft status and the money he was making. Bishop finally got on the field this year and proved you haters wrong. If not for Bishop making that shoe string tackle against his college teammate Jackson the Packers don't even make it out of the first round. Yea I'm really going to miss him making tackles from knees while getting push back 2 more yards. 10 million for Hawk? He should be making 2 million at the max.

So rather than having to "see us guys on Hawk's dick anymore" you would rather our team get worse. Hmmmmm..... that makes sense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Let's suppose Hawk does not agree to a pay decrease for the coming season, the Packers do cut him and he decides to test the market. Do any of you think any other team is gonna pay him $10M in 2011?

$10M wouldn't be the average annual salary of the contract. It would be the lump sum for this year. It all comes down to what the Packers are offering long-term and what Hawk and his agent thinks he can get on the open market. If the Packers are offering $5M/year and Hawk's agent thinks he can get $6M/year, then he'll call the Packers bluff. The Packers will either increase their offer or they'll cut him. Then, we'll find out what he can make on the open market. Like Justin, I don't think Hawk is worth more than $6M/year (although he's better than Brandon thinks he is and he's "clearly" better than Barnett). I have a bad feeling that his agent thinks he can get more. With his name recognition I think he's gone if he hits the open market. Somebody will overpay for him.

[Smidgeon]

Yeah, that was bad that game for him. No sacks or forced fumbles, just like usual for him.

In all seriousness though, Hawk almost never makes big plays. Matthews, Raji, Tramon, Collins, Bishop even, hell throw Shields in there. . . There are guys out there making it happen. Hawk is now and has always been pedestrian, similar to what Peprah has been at Safety.

But if Hawk sets up someone else to make a play, he's done his job. He takes guards on so the other LB (Bishop for the last half of the season) can make the plays. Don't underestimate Hawk doing the dirty work.

Now that being said, could he do better? Absolutely. He isn't amazing and (from what I've heard) doesn't shed blocks well. But he does tie people up and hold his gap. That's good enough to be a starter on a Super Bowl winning team even if he isn't an All-Pro.

[RashanGary]

But if Hawk sets up someone else to make a play, he's done his job. He takes guards on so the other LB (Bishop for the last half of the season) can make the plays. Don't underestimate Hawk doing the dirty work.

Now that being said, could he do better? Absolutely. He isn't amazing and (from what I've heard) doesn't shed blocks well. But he does tie people up and hold his gap. That's good enough to be a starter on a Super Bowl winning team even if he isn't an All-Pro.

Hawk is at the very max end of what a solid player can make (6M per year). We're all respecting his accountability, reliability and leadership. That's worth something, hell, it's worth a lot. But we have an OLB who is the epitome of what great play is all about. Not just rushing the passer but covering as well as Hawk, tackling better than Hawk, shedding blocks better than Hawk, playing faster than Hawk. Take away his benefit of rushing the passer. Take out the sacks. Clay is better in every way other than maybe leadership.

At some point, there is a line drawn for what Hawk is worth. Having Barnett, Bishop and Chillar already on the roster makes him worth even a little less to us.

I think he's going to get 8M per year. He's worth maybe 6M.

[Smidgeon]

Hawk is at the very max end of what a solid player can make (6M per year). We're all respecting his accountability, reliability and leadership. That's worth something, hell, it's worth a lot. But we have an OLB who is the epitome of what great play is all about. Not just rushing the passer but covering as well as Hawk, tackling better than Hawk, shedding blocks better than Hawk, playing faster than Hawk. Take away his benefit of rushing the passer. Take out the sacks. Clay is better in every way other than maybe leadership.

At some point, there is a line drawn for what Hawk is worth. Having Barnett, Bishop and Chillar already on the roster makes him worth even a little less to us.

I think he's going to get 8M per year. He's worth maybe 6M.

I don't disagree with any of that. I would add that--at this point--Hawk probably stacks the point better than Clay. But you are right, Clay does so much more. And when his contract is renegotiated, he'll be payed like that.

[get louder at lambeau]

Hawk almost never makes big plays.

And Ted Thompson is a cheap-ass who will never get us over the hump. Not many people say either of those things anymore, because they were proven wrong. You must have missed it.

Hawk tied for the league lead among all LBs with 3 INTs this year. He was 2nd among all LBs in passes defensed, with 13. He also had a fumble recovery. Over the last two years, no LB has more INTs. This is among ALL LBs- ILB, OLB, 4-3, 3-4, all 300 or so of them, with about 100 starting players.

Too bad he can't cover and almost never makes plays.

[Cheesehead Craig]

It all comes down to what the Packers are offering long-term and what Hawk and his agent thinks he can get on the open market. If the Packers are offering $5M/year and Hawk's agent thinks he can get $6M/year, then he'll call the Packers bluff. The Packers will either increase their offer or they'll cut him. Then, we'll find out what he can make on the open market. Like Justin, I don't think Hawk is worth more than $6M/year (although he's better than Brandon thinks he is and he's "clearly" better than Barnett). I have a bad feeling that his agent thinks he can get more. With his name recognition I think he's gone if he hits the open market. Somebody will overpay for him.

Agree. It all depends on how much Hawk will want. The junk on here that he's JAG is funny. He's more than proven his worth to the defense. Anyone who can't see that is just being willfully blind.

[RashanGary]

And Ted Thompson is a cheap-ass who will never get us over the hump. Not many people say either of those things anymore, because they were proven wrong. You must have missed it.

Hawk tied for the league lead among all LBs with 3 INTs this year. He was 2nd among all LBs in passes defensed, with 13. He also had a fumble recovery. Over the last two years, no LB has more INTs. This is among ALL LBs- ILB, OLB, 4-3, 3-4, all 300 or so of them, with about 100 starting players.

Too bad he can't cover and almost never makes plays.

His interceptions are really good. I'd rather see forced fumbles, big hits and key stops from a LB. Hawk does none of those things.

He's a good player. Some team will pay him like a great one that he's not. We won't match. Hawk's gone.

10M for one year is possible. I think the most likely scenario is that he's gone. If I had to list likelyhood in an order of %, I'd go like this:

50% Hawk is gone (8+M/year for some other team who thinks he's a star, haha)
35% Hawk plays for 10M one year
15% Hawk extends with the Packers

[Smidgeon]

And Ted Thompson is a cheap-ass who will never get us over the hump. Not many people say either of those things anymore, because they were proven wrong. You must have missed it.

Hawk tied for the league lead among all LBs with 3 INTs this year. He was 2nd among all LBs in passes defensed, with 13. He also had a fumble recovery. Over the last two years, no LB has more INTs. This is among ALL LBs- ILB, OLB, 4-3, 3-4, all 300 or so of them, with about 100 starting players.

Too bad he can't cover and almost never makes plays.

Good stats. Thanks.

[RashanGary]

Agree. It all depends on how much Hawk will want. The junk on here that he's JAG is funny. He's more than proven his worth to the defense. Anyone who can't see that is just being willfully blind.

We might have different defintions of Jag. Jag's are guys you can replace with another guy easily. Hawk can be replaced by Barnett (already has been), Chillar (already has been) and Bishop (definitly can be). He's not hard ot replace, there-for he shouldn't get paid a lot of money.

[get louder at lambeau]

Hawk is 27, has never missed a game, is assignment sound, gets INTs and passes defensed like few others, can thump with the big OL guys, called the plays on a Super Bowl winning defense, and his teammates voted for him, along with Woodson, as the defensive team captains for the playoff run.

His Head Coach recently said this about him- "A.J. as a football player and a person, he’s exactly what you’re looking for." I think he's underrated by most fans.


Green Bay -- There are different game captains throughout the year. But for playoffs, the team votes for postseason captains for offense, defense and special teams. This year the Packers chose WR Greg Jennings, QB Aaron Rodgers, LB A.J. Hawk and CB Charles Woodson, and CB/S Jarrett Bush and K Mason Crosby.

It might seem that Clay Matthews or Nick Collins, Pro Bowl players, would be chosen. Or Ryan Pickett, Tramon Williams. Why Hawk?

“He’s one of the leaders on our defense,” said linebacker Desmond Bishop. “He’s not really your typical, vocal, emotional leader but he runs the defense in his own way. And that’s the A.J. way. He’s a quiet guy when he’s out on the field. He directs, he gets the call, he lines everybody up, and I think there’s a quality that he has that everybody looks up to: he never panics. He’s never flustered. He’s always calm, cool and collected. And when you’re out there and the game gets so hectic you need somebody like that to get the play called and get everybody lined up.”

I think the Packers will figure out how to keep him.

[RashanGary]

get louder,

Bart Scott got 8M. Hawk will get at least 8M. While we all like him and want him back, there is a realism that comes into play here. He'd be hurting us more (by taking away money from real stars) than helping us at that way.



It's not that we think he's bad or doesn't play well. It's that he's not great and his name and UFA status is going to get him paid like a superstar. Some teams don't have superstars in the wings to pay, so they buy Hawk. At the end of the day though, that's why we're better. They pay 9M for Hawk, we pay 6M for Collins and 4M for Bishop. We get more for our money and because there is only so much teams can spend, we end up with more overall. That's why we're champs. The way that contract was structured, the way we didn't value Hawk as much heading into the season when we could have restructured him. . . . It's all played out where Hawk is going to hit UFA. Some team will think they're getting a superstar. That's what UFA is all about. The players other teams don't value are there to be had. For the money there are far more disappointments than successes. Congrats to Hawk, he's going to get paid. Too bad for us, we lose our 2nd best ILB (but we do have a couple guys nearly as good behind him.)

Jones, Hawk and Jenkins are three guys we have depth to replace. Keep drafting well and don't let the stars get away. I'm sure we'll get a couple comp picks if we lose these guys. Maybe two 3rds or a 3rd and 4th or something like that.

[Patler]

Assuming Hawk, Bishop and Barnett can be mixed in any combination, it probably comes down to spending an extra $4 million for Hawk, because I doubt Barnett will play the happy soldier and second fiddle to Hawk/Bishop. The likely options are:

Pay Hawk $10 million and dump Barnett's $6 million.
Pay Barnett's $6 million and dump Hawk's $10 million.

For $4 million extra in 2011 TT gets a starting linebacker who had maybe his most valuable year yet in 2010, who never causes a problem even when he isn't happy, who never misses games (so far), who is respected by his team mates and who took charge of the defense on the field and seemingly did very well. TT will also get that same player at a new rate for 2012 and beyond if they can agree on terms, or he will get draft choice compensation in 2013 if they don't reach agreement and Hawk leaves as a free agent in 2012. He will also likely be able to trade Barnett's existing contract at some point before or during the season before the trade deadline, because it has a few years left and is not outrageous.

To save the $4 million, TT gets a starting linebacker who may be flashier but less solid, who can present PR problems with his mouth, and who has an injury history. TT will also get that same player in 2012 at a somewhat higher price; and more likely than not draft choice compensation in 2014 when Barnett is not re-signed after 2012. It will be next to impossible to trade Hawk's $10 million contract, and TT will not likely have time to do anything on a trade before Hawk's salary is guaranteed when the CBA is signed. If this is the route they select, they will get nothing for Hawk.

All-in-all, I think I would prefer paying Hawk.

[RashanGary]

I think I'd prefer letting him go. That money can be put back into Matthews or Raji. Barnett is almost as good as Hawk. But I see your point too. For right now, one year, keeping Hawk and letting Barnett go would be better move. If the season starts, you can always work on an extension with Hawk too, before he hits UFA next year. I'd go wtih Barnett and Chillar though and put that money toward a guy who's really worth the 10M. Then keep drafting and developing.

[Fritz]

So it's really an eight million dollar swing - keep Hawk and cut Barnett, and you basically pay Hawk 4 mill a year. Keep Barnett and cut Hawk, and you save four million a year. Is that correct?

[get louder at lambeau]

I don't really disagree with most of what you're saying there, Justin. It wouldn't shock me if it played out that way.

The reason I think it won't is those guys nearly as good as him behind Hawk are not team leaders, and have not been durable at all. McCarthy preaches availability and accountability, and Hawk wins hands down by those criteria over both of them.

I think Hawk is likely to play as many games as the two of them combined over the rest of their careers. Both have missed a significant amount of time over the last few years, will be coming back from significant injuries, and are older than Hawk. Both are undersized too. Hawk is not.

I don't think you let a team leader walk at 27 years old, healthy. His best days are probably ahead of him. I'd rather see both Chillar and Barnett gone than Hawk, personally. Get some young guns in behind Hawk and Bishop in the draft. Then we can pay Hawk and still not have a crazy amount tied up on ILBs.

[Patler]

I think I'd prefer letting him go. That money can be put back into Matthews or Raji. Barnett is almost as good as Hawk. But I see your point too. For right now, one year, keeping Hawk and letting Barnett go would be better move. If the season starts, you can always work on an extension with Hawk too, before he hits UFA next year. I'd go wtih Barnett and Chillar though and put that money toward a guy who's really worth the 10M. Then keep drafting and developing.

There is an extra draft pick there, too, by keeping Hawk:
- If they keep Hawk, they can likely trade Barnett for something.
- If they keep Barnett, they will have to release Hawk because of timing.

Keeping Hawk will also buy some injury protection. If they release Hawk and Barnett or Bishop is injured in camp, they will be scrambling for another ILB. If the keep Hawk, they can hang on to Barnett at least until the final cutdown when his salary would guarantee, or for as long as they want to before the trade deadline.

Best case scenario - The lockout lasts at least until after the draft so the Packers can postpone any decision on Hawk until after they see if they get anyone they like at ILB in the draft.

[Smidgeon]

My only real concern should Hawk walk (I know he wouldn't be walking, but I wanted it to rhyme) would be: who would play his position? Bishop was called by M3 "the most instinctive player in the front 7." If that's the case, you don't want him "thumping with the O-Line". You want him reading the plays develop behind the guy thumping with the OL. And I truly believe neither Barnett nor Chillar can do what Hawk does.

So who could step up into that position? Francois? A player who spent most of the year on the practice squad? In my opinion, not likely. They'd have to find someone in the draft to do that, I think.

[Patler]

So it's really an eight million dollar swing - keep Hawk and cut Barnett, and you basically pay Hawk 4 mill a year. Keep Barnett and cut Hawk, and you save four million a year. Is that correct?

Don't confuse yourself, the difference is just $4 million.

Keep Hawk, team salaries are "X" + 10 million.
Keep Barnett and salaries are "x" + 6 million.

Where "x" = salaries for all other players.

The difference is 4 million.

[Smidgeon]

Well, Hawk was cut. There goes that part of the debate. :|

[get louder at lambeau]

Here's my prediction- Packers sign Hawk this offseason to a 5 year, $35 million contract. Barnett is traded. Chillar is the 3rd ILB. A rookie or Francois fills it out.

EDIT- Just saw that he got cut. I stand by my prediction.

[RashanGary]

Here's my prediction- Packers sign Hawk this offseason to a 5 year, $35 million contract. Barnett is traded. Chillar is the 3rd ILB. A rookie or Francois fills it out.

EDIT- Just saw that he got cut. I stand by my prediction.

That reads more like a wish. Scott got 8M a year or two ago as a role playing Buck in the Ravens scheme. Now He's a high paid dude. Hawk has a bigger name and all the production of Scott. He'll get sick $$ and it won't be from us.

[pbmax]

New contract is definitely a wish now. Hawk has been released.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/02/packers-cut-a-j-hawk/

Well, the cap casualty chorus finally got one right.

[Smidgeon]

Say Hawk doesn't come back? I'm still curious who will replace him since I think Bishop would be wasted there and Barnett/Chillar can't do it.

[Cheesehead Craig]

We might have different defintions of Jag. Jag's are guys you can replace with another guy easily. Hawk can be replaced by Barnett (already has been), Chillar (already has been) and Bishop (definitly can be). He's not hard ot replace, there-for he shouldn't get paid a lot of money.
Barnett (Hawk's proven to be a better leader and defensive playcaller and he's far more physical than Barnett)
Chillar (Can't stay on the field)
Bishop (No basis for your argument)

Hawk's leadership and and playcalling are very difficult to replace, that alone makes him more than JAG.

[SkinBasket]

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "negotiations have gotten nowhere."

Top notch stuff.

[swede]

:lol:
Top notch stuff.

[Fritz]

So he remains unsigned?

[Lurker64]

Someone should edit the title of this thread, I keep seeing it and thinking "they're going to cut him again!?!"

[Zool]

That reads more like a wish. Scott got 8M a year or two ago as a role playing Buck in the Ravens scheme. Now He's a high paid dude. Hawk has a bigger name and all the production of Scott. He'll get sick $$ and it won't be from us.

Or, you know.....maybe he will be a Packer after all. You might want to preface your future statements as opinion instead of fact. Seems to be your sticking point in discussions.

[RashanGary]

Or, you know.....maybe he will be a Packer after all. You might want to preface your future statements as opinion instead of fact. Seems to be your sticking point in discussions.

I'm shocked Hawk took that deal. I'm usually right though ;)

[packers11]

Someone should edit the title of this thread, I keep seeing it and thinking "they're going to cut him again!?!"

it won't let me edit it ... hmmm