Hawk Cut

[vince]

The Packers cut A.J. Hawk today.

Per Adam Schefter

[Freak Out]

Wow. TT makes a big call.

[Smidgeon]

I guess that renders the debate in the other thread moot. I'm guessing they'll still try to get him back, though at a reasonable rate.

Any other cuts?

[swede]

Wow.

I am surprised and I am not happy to lose the guy. But if it means we keep Raji and CMIII and other young stars then we must remind ourselves that this is a business.

[vince]

Follow up tweet from Schefter.


Keep in mind that AJ Hawk had $10.5 million escalator, so Packers wanted to clear it from their books. New deal still could be in line now.

[Freak Out]

I feel the same way Swede.....really sorry to lose the guy but who knows.....? We might end up upgrading at LB and saving some money to boot.

[swede]

I guess that renders the debate in the other thread moot. I'm guessing they'll still try to get him back, though at a reasonable rate.

Any other cuts?

I guess it is easier to get a concession out of a guy whose name is no longer on the roster.

Will they make him fill out an application and list three references?

"It says here you played with a guy named Nick Barnett, is that right?"

[Lurker64]

Wow.

I am surprised and I am not happy to lose the guy. But if it means we keep Raji and CMIII and other young stars then we must remind ourselves that this is a business.

It's not necessarily the case that we'll lose the guy. It's more a case of the Packers couldn't reach a deal for an extension, and they wanted to clear the $10.5 million dollars they would be on the hook for if Hawk were under contract at the start of a new league year.

The fact that we cut him shortly before CBA armageddon and not weeks ago indicates that the Packers wanted to keep him, as they were negotiating with him, they just weren't able to get a deal done.

Let Hawk visit some other teams, let them set the market, and it's entirely likely that they will give the Packers the option to match whatever deals he is offered, as most guys generally seem like they'd prefer to stay where they are in most cases.

Disirregardless, we may not keep him any way because you really shouldn't be paying your buck ILB like a premium position.

[swede]

Disirregardless, we may not keep him any way because you really shouldn't be paying your buck ILB like a premium position.

Good use of disirregardless.

[RashanGary]

Makes sense. He's not worth that money. It's actually double what he's worth. We have Barnett and Chillar (two guys who started ahead of him on week 1 this season). The time to get Hawk restructured was before the season. Before the season we weren't even planning on starting him. The way it played out, he got on teh field and had his best year as a Packer. I think now, if we could do it all over, we would have resigned him last offseason for 6M/ year. The way it all played out though, Hawk would be an idiot ot not want UFA and teh Packers would be idiots to pay him 10.5M. Ultimately, because we draft so well, we pay less money to better players than Hawk. We'll be fine without him and the money he would taek in a long term deal would mean we can't sign better players. Everythign is a give and take and AJ's name/hype is bigger than his production so he'll get overpaid somewhere else.

[Lurker64]

The real problem, I think, is that this is a bad draft class for ILBs all throughout, and I'm not convinced we go any more than 3 deep (Barnett, Bishop, Chillar) at the position as it stands right now. Maybe one of the PS guys will surprise me, who knows.

So I'd like to get Hawk back, but he really doesn't deserve the mad scratch he was set to be paid.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

So by not cutting Barnett does that guarantee his salary unless we trade him?

[Smidgeon]

I think someone alluded that Barnett's salary isn't guaranteed until the first game or final cuts. He didn't have the "first day of the year" escalator that Hawk did in his rookie contract.

[Patler]

So by not cutting Barnett does that guarantee his salary unless we trade him?

Most vet salaries are not guaranteed until the season starts. Hawk's contract had a special provision guaranteeing the last year's salary at the start of the league year. In essence, it made him a typical FA, except the Packers could buy a year back for $10 million.

[Lurker64]

Donald Lee and Derrick Martin were also cut. Thompson indicated that those two won't be brought back, but that he would still like to bring back Hawk.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Ok thanks Patler/Smidgeon

UPDATE: The Packers also announced they have released TE Donald Lee and S Derrick Martin. Neither of those moves was salary related and both won't be back next year.

[Patler]

This is interesting that the Packers did it now. There has been talk (worry) by some teams about what the impact would be on contracts like Hawk's with no CBA in place. Would they or wouldn't they have a grace period after the CBA is signed? The Packers didn't take the risk.

We should hear about RFA tenders soon, too. I think the deadline is 3:00 pm Thursday.

[Lurker64]

We should hear about RFA tenders soon, too. I think the deadline is 3:00 pm Thursday.

I know the Giants tendered all of their nontraditional RFAs (the guys with 4 and 5 years of service) with exactly the same tender (probably original round tender) just because it wouldn't make sense not to do that, but they didn't want to upset anybody by indicating that they're less valued than someone else. I imagine the Packers will do something similar.

[red]

hope they resign him, he's one of my favorite packers, and i would much rather have him on the team starting ILB then the anti team player barnett

[BlueBrewer]

hope they resign him, he's one of my favorite packers, and i would much rather have him on the team starting ILB then the anti team player barnett

Ditto.....The Dude Abides. Hawk really tied the defense together not unlike how the Dude's rug tied the room together.

[Bretsky]

probably a classy move by GB as well; it will give Hawk time to shop himself around and my bet is he gives TT the chance to match even if he does find big bucks somewhere else

[channtheman]

Good use of disirregardless.

That's like the ultimate way of saying "however," right?

[rbaloha1]

Big gamble. Hawk could sign with another team.

IMO Barnett is not a suitable replacement due to injury history. Chillar is not an every down backer.

TT is always good at finding linebackers. Bet TT finds another Bishop in the late rounds.

[Lurker64]

That's like the ultimate way of saying "however," right?

Well, it's specifically because "regardless" is a negative ("without regard"), yet people frequently use "irregardless" which is a double negative ("Not without regard") to mean the same thing as "regardless", so the solution is clearly to generate a triple negative so as to preserve the original meaning.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Is it a word? I have never seen it used before now

[Lurker64]

Is it a word? I have never seen it used before now

It's a neologism, used primarily to make fun of people who say "irregardless."

[Patler]

Quote from TT:


“With A.J., the business side of the game is driving this decision. We’re hopeful that we can continue to work with A.J. to have him be a part of our team in the future.”

Sounds like they still want him.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

It's a neologism, used primarily to make fun of people who say "irregardless."

ah makes sense.

[BobDobbs]

I'm sure that they still want him, but how can you make any real offers without a CBA? There's no way to know the cap situation. Ultimatley AJ was able to negotiate leverage into his contract because he was a number five pick. Now he gets to use that leverage.

I hope that Barnett comes back healthy we absolutely cannot have both of them on the team and we're not realistically going to be able to trade either one unless we carry them both into the season healthy and then take a lowball offer.

I love the physicality that AJ brings and the players obviously rallied around him. I don't love the fact that he only had one great year and it was in a contract year. I don't love the fact that his market value may be inflated by a Super Bowl ring or an owner that throws money around to make a name signing to sell season tickets.

He might still be back, but I don't think you can sign him for more than we're paying Barnett and I think he'll get that. We've got Sitton, Matthews, and Finley to sign probably by the end of next year or the offseason. Obviously without knowing any info on the cap its hard to make a proclamation, but we have signed a lot of guys. Time to make choices. I'd lose Hawk if I was TT.

[gbgary]

not surprised knowing the big bonus was on the line. they'll resign him though. tt wants him. he told martin and lee goodbye though.

[Fritz]

I think Nick Barnett provides more stability and team leadership. Little less flamboyant than Hawk.

[Lurker64]

I think Nick Barnett provides more stability and team leadership. Little less flamboyant than Hawk.

Barnett's samurai dance is also much better than Hawk's.

[channtheman]

Well, it's specifically because "regardless" is a negative ("without regard"), yet people frequently use "irregardless" which is a double negative ("Not without regard") to mean the same thing as "regardless", so the solution is clearly to generate a triple negative so as to preserve the original meaning.

Yes I realized after I posted that "regardless" generally has a more negative tone. Very clever way to outdo the wrong with that triple negative. :D

[Fritz]

Barnett's samurai dance is also much better than Hawk's.

Hawk would still be a Packer if he'd taken my suggestion and started "The Thrust" after every tackle.

[Brandon494]

Wow this year just better and better.

[Lurker64]

Wow this year just better and better.

I, for one, am looking forward to the impending lockout. "Which players run out of money first" has tremendous comedy potential.

[ThunderDan]

I love the physicality that AJ brings and the players obviously rallied around him. I don't love the fact that he only had one great year and it was in a contract year. I don't love the fact that his market value may be inflated by a Super Bowl ring or an owner that throws money around to make a name signing to sell season tickets.


AJ was still under contract to the Packers. The Packers cut his contract. It may be that Hawk played very well this year but the Packers had to do nothing to retain his services if they wanted to.

[ThunderDan]

Kind of ironic don't you think? Year after year it was, Hawk was not living up to his contract and is going to get cut. Finally, he has an excellent season and he is sent packing (at least for now).

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Sounds like the making of a reality tv show Lurker. If the masses will watch drivel like Dancing with the Stars then that show would be a smash hit.

[packerbacker1234]

Big gamble. Hawk could sign with another team.

IMO Barnett is not a suitable replacement due to injury history. Chillar is not an every down backer.

TT is always good at finding linebackers. Bet TT finds another Bishop in the late rounds.

He's had two major injuries in his career, one of which is arguably on it's seriousness. He had the knee injury two years ago. This year it was a wrist - same injury that IR'd Urlacher a couple seasons ago. The wrist injury isn't even remotely considered a serious injury or a hard one to come back from - it's just a "play with it before it heals, risk crippling your hand the rest of your life". It has little to do with his body's condition or his ability to play the LB position in 2011. It's essentially just a year off, a year off that was definitely to the benefit of any additional rehabiliation he was still doing on his knee, They say the knee injury he had takes a bit longer than a year to be 100%, and with the extra season off it;s like his knee is back to being what it was pre injury.

The wrist is of little concern and none of us should even consider it as an ongoing problem.

Barnett has had 2 "season ending" injuries the last two years. Does that suddenly erase all his years prior to that of being great? Does Rodgers 2nd and possibly 3rd concussion magically mean Rodgers can no longer take a hit anymore? His injury last season was a choice to not cripple his hand, not a choice of being physically unable to perform.

Why is everyone quick to call Barnett an injury waiting ot happen? He isn't Juston Harrel folks, or even Will Blackmon. He got VERY unlucky last year. Urlacher lost two seasons in a row as well to fluke injuries, yet he was just fine last season. I'm not fetting over barnett getting hurt again - the chances of him getting hurt are no greater than say Tramon Williams getting hurt at this point. It's just a matter of who is the better LB for this team, and right now it's hard to say. Barnett was better than hawk in the previous years leading into last year. Hawk got better last year, but did he get better than Barnett or did he simply just have "one of those years" like his rookie season? WHo knows.

Barnett will be fine. His status as a starter is still debatable unless Hawk signs elsewhere.

[ThunderDan]

Hawk and Barnett don't play the same position. What you will see is Bishop and Barnett fighting for playing time.

[Lurker64]

Hawk and Barnett don't play the same position. What you will see is Bishop and Barnett fighting for playing time.

McCarthy said at the Combine that Bishop is one of the starters. So I guess it's either "Hawk gets resigned and Barnett gets shown the door" or "Bishop gets moved to Buck LB" since Barnett simply can't play it.

[get louder at lambeau]

McCarthy said at the Combine that Bishop is one of the starters. So I guess it's either "Hawk gets resigned and Barnett gets shown the door" or "Bishop gets moved to Buck LB" since Barnett simply can't play it.

Can Bishop play it? Hawk has 10 pounds on either of them.

[Lurker64]

Can Bishop play it? Hawk has 10 pounds on either of them.

I think he can play it, he's definitely physical enough (Barnett is not nearly physical enough), it's just a matter of teaching him the position. I'm not how quick he'd pick it up, or how much of an offseason he would have to learn it.

We kind of need to have either Hawk or Barnett on the field, since those are the guys who can make the calls on the defense. Maybe they stealth-taught Bishop that responsibility during last season, but I'm not sure.

[RashanGary]

McCarthy said at the Combine that Bishop is one of the starters. So I guess it's either "Hawk gets resigned and Barnett gets shown the door" or "Bishop gets moved to Buck LB" since Barnett simply can't play it.

Right. It's not like we're talking about penises and vaginas here. In this situation one can do the role of another. I agree with you that Barnett cannot play the Buck, but to say Bishop can't. . . . . There's no reason to think that. Bishop plays big. James Harrison is too short and too light for OLB, but he's amazing at it. Bishop is no James Harrison, but he does play big and strong. I don't know if it's a leverage thing, attitude thing or what.

[mission]

Big gamble. Hawk could sign with another team.

IMO Barnett is not a suitable replacement due to injury history. Chillar is not an every down backer.

TT is always good at finding linebackers. Bet TT finds another Bishop in the late rounds.

Maybe, but it's also not Madden where you cut a guy and he's instantly on another team with no communication whatsoever. Both of these sides have had plenty of time to talk. No one on the open market is going to offer Hawk 10m but they might do something like 5-6m/y at a price that might be slightly inflated. I'm assuming Hawk wants to stay and I'm taking TT/MM at their word that they want to keep him around. So the idea is for Hawk to find out his current market value and come back at or around that price. So TT saves 3-5m (inc bonuses) and Hawk feels like he's being treated fairly. I just don't see a situation where TT is thinking they're going to work something out and all of a sudden he gets a call that AJ Hawk is now a Cleveland Brown or w/e.

That's in a perfect world of course. Barnett can't play Hawk's position and I don't really like the idea of taking the play-making potential away from Bishop. Seems like we'll definitely draft an ILB prospect this year to keep the pipeline open.

BTW as an aside... I was streaming MKE540 ESPN today in the car and it was like hearing chalk on a chalkboard listening to them talk about this topic. All these callers wanting Barnett to be moved outside, to have Barnett play Hawk's position. That Barnett was, before his knee injury, as good as Brian Urlacher. All this stuff, it was difficult. By the time I got through, they were already going into the Marquette broadcast. =/

[Lurker64]

Oh, I don't think anybody has ever said that Bishop can't play the Buck. He plays big, physical, and aggressive which is what you want out of the position. What you give up going from Hawk to Bishop at the Buck is mostly in terms of experience and quickness/reaction time, but the Buck is the LB in your defense that has the least use for elite athleticism. The thing about reaction time is probably minimized in the transition because while Hawk appears to see things quicker than Bishop, Bishop appears to anticipate better than Hawk. Earlier on in his career, Bishop seemed like he was "guessing" a lot, but as he got more time in the defense it seemed like he spent more time anticipating than guessing.

[mission]

Oh, I don't think anybody has ever said that Bishop can't play the Buck. He plays big, physical, and aggressive which is what you want out of the position. What you give up going from Hawk to Bishop at the Buck is mostly in terms of experience and quickness/reaction time, but the Buck is the LB in your defense that has the least use for elite athleticism. The thing about reaction time is probably minimized in the transition because while Hawk appears to see things quicker than Bishop, Bishop appears to anticipate better than Hawk. Earlier on in his career, Bishop seemed like he was "guessing" a lot, but as he got more time in the defense it seemed like he spent more time anticipating than guessing.

Yeah it's not so much that he can't... it's more of "do we want him to?"

Doesn't fit the Mr. October-January mold. ;)