Hawk or Barnett?

[Smeefers]

So I heard on the radio today a caller say that the packers made a mistake by getting rid of Barnett and keeping Hawk. He said that the proof is in that we can't cover anyone over the middle of the field and it's going to hurt us down the line. What do you guys think?

[Joemailman]

Does the caller know The Packers won the Super Bowl with Hawk and Bishop at ILB? Barnett may be better in coverage, but the defense is better overall with Hawk and Bishop in there.

[HarveyWallbangers]

No to mention Hawk is 27 years old and Barnett is 30 years old. So, yes, I'd rather have Hawk.

[Brandon494]

You already who they are going to vote for. Nick Barnett is the better player IMO but hes older and more injury prone, Packers made the right decision.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nick Barnett is the better player IMO but hes older and more injury prone

Probably only more injury prone because he is a little older. I'm fine with decision to keep Hawk over Barnett. Has anybody heard anything about how he is performing with Buffalo?

[pbmax]

I have read twice he is having a good year in Buffalo and seems a good fit. He is also probably more reliable in coverage.

That said, at the cost of the 4 LBs (Hawk, Chillar, Bishop and Barnett) Nick was the one who needed to go. Its too bad Chillar wasn't healthy, would have loved to see him on the field versus some of the offenses.

[gbgary]

You already who they are going to vote for. Nick Barnett is the better player IMO but hes older and more injury prone, Packers made the right decision.

i agree with this.

[mmmdk]

AJ Hawk

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hey, where is the lost love for Poppinga? He looked pretty good for St. Louis last week. He might be better than Walden, or maybe it is a tossup.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have read twice he is having a good year in Buffalo and seems a good fit. He is also probably more reliable in coverage.


we'll have to see what Nick looks like in 2 seasons from now. TT was making a long term decision.

[Joemailman]

Hey, where is the lost love for Poppinga? He looked pretty good for St. Louis last week. He might be better than Walden, or maybe it is a tossup.

Walden is much better against the run than Poppinga was.

[RashanGary]

Hawk.

5-15 yards behind the line of scrimmage is the most complex area of the field to play. Hawk and Woodson lock down the middle of the field. Barnett was a bit of a dummy. We got better when he went out because the leadership went to Hawk and Bishop is just flat out more physical.

[bobblehead]

Walden is much better against the run than Poppinga was.

WTF?? Did you ever watch the NFCC 2007 game? Poppinga was a beast vs. the run. His problem was in coverage (and he was below average rushing the passer).

[Guiness]

The defense seemed to get magically better last year when Barnett went out, and Hawk took over the play calling. Impossible to tell for sure from where I am sitting, but it's possible he's a better defensive play caller. It's been said many times that he's a student of the game.

[bobblehead]

I have read twice he is having a good year in Buffalo and seems a good fit. He is also probably more reliable in coverage.

That said, at the cost of the 4 LBs (Hawk, Chillar, Bishop and Barnett) Nick was the one who needed to go. Its too bad Chillar wasn't healthy, would have loved to see him on the field versus some of the offenses.

This is a good post pb. I also would point out that ILB slow down around the age of 30 as a general rule. Even Ray Lewis slowed down, but he went from the best in the league to good. Barnett may be having a solid season, but you have to believe his good days are behind him.

[retailguy]

I have read twice he is having a good year in Buffalo and seems a good fit. He is also probably more reliable in coverage.

That said, at the cost of the 4 LBs (Hawk, Chillar, Bishop and Barnett) Nick was the one who needed to go. Its too bad Chillar wasn't healthy, would have loved to see him on the field versus some of the offenses.

Overall, I've read the same thing. Though on Sunday, I watched the Buffalo game. Barnett gave up the 31-31 tying touchdown to Welker. Of course, everybody gave up a TD to Welker on Sunday, but nonetheless....

[Joemailman]

WTF?? Did you ever watch the NFCC 2007 game? Poppinga was a beast vs. the run. His problem was in coverage (and he was below average rushing the passer).

I was referring to the situation ever since the Packers switched to the 3-4. He was a major liability against the run in early 2009 before Matthews took over the starter role. He had a tendency to commit too far inside. If St. Louis plays a 4-3, I wouldn't be surprised if he's doing better. Or maybe he's just gotten better.

[pbmax]

Its probably indicative of the demands of the position that all the OLBs have been sucked inside on plays away from them. Zombo and Walden each exhibited the same tendency as Popp. But both Walden and Zombo seemed to unlearn the bad habit faster than Popp. Hell, Walden was doing it in preseason, but since the Chiefs game, seemed to learn his lesson.

To his credit, Popp got Wally Pipp'ed by Matthews pretty fast, so he might have adjusted.

[The Shadow]

Hawk or Barnett? Hawk is the superior player.
Right desicion to keep him & jettison Barnett.

[ThunderDan]

I was referring to the situation ever since the Packers switched to the 3-4. He was a major liability against the run in early 2009 before Matthews took over the starter role. He had a tendency to commit too far inside. If St. Louis plays a 4-3, I wouldn't be surprised if he's doing better. Or maybe he's just gotten better.

This. Popp was poop against the run in the 3-4, lost contain all the time.

[Smeefers]

Wow. I would go with Hawk as well, but I'm surprised how damn near everyone is on the band wagon here.

[Pugger]

The defense seemed to get magically better last year when Barnett went out, and Hawk took over the play calling. Impossible to tell for sure from where I am sitting, but it's possible he's a better defensive play caller. It's been said many times that he's a student of the game.

This.

[bobblehead]

I was referring to the situation ever since the Packers switched to the 3-4. He was a major liability against the run in early 2009 before Matthews took over the starter role. He had a tendency to commit too far inside. If St. Louis plays a 4-3, I wouldn't be surprised if he's doing better. Or maybe he's just gotten better.

Thats fair enough.

[vince]

Barnett is clearly quicker from sideline to sideline but his problem is he's a look-at-me-first guy. Hawk is a better leader for the defense, more reliable, younger and consistently healthier. Hawk is the better fit for this team.

[Deputy Nutz]

Hawk gets hammered by the media for his coverage skills but in reality is no better or worse than Chillar or Barnett. Neither of those two guys would be able to run with Sproles or Forte. Running backs have the edge on almost all linebackers when it comes to routes. Barnett lacks the ability to play within the scheme, especially in the 3-4. Sure he makes plays, but he also allows big plays to happen when he free lances because he doesn't want to take on lead blockers or fill his gap responsiblities.

Hawk does need to pull his pecker out of the sand and start getting into the flow of the game. He is a step slow right now and I haven't seen him make a single solo tackle at or around the line of scrimmage this year. Bishop is also playing more like a street free agent right now than a well payed starting veteran.

[Deputy Nutz]

Barnett is clearly quicker from sideline to sideline but his problem is he's a look-at-me-first guy. Hawk is a better leader for the defense, more reliable, younger and consistently healthier. Hawk is the better fit for this team.

Barnett seemed faster because he never engaged at the point of attack. He was always running sideline to sideline and that is not what you really want from an inside linebacker in a 3-4.

[vince]

Barnett seemed faster because he never engaged at the point of attack. He was always running sideline to sideline and that is not what you really want from an inside linebacker in a 3-4.
Totally agree on the point of attack. Barnett "seemed" faster because he was/is faster. Hawk ain't going to win many races with pass-catching TE's much less running backs. That said, Ted made the right choice for a number of reasons.

[rbaloha1]

Hey, where is the lost love for Poppinga? He looked pretty good for St. Louis last week. He might be better than Walden, or maybe it is a tossup.

Always felt BP was better at inside lb instead of the outside.

[rbaloha1]

Totally agree on the point of attack. Barnett "seemed" faster because he was/is faster. Hawk ain't going to win many races with pass-catching TE's much less running backs. That said, Ted made the right choice for a number of reasons.

What about Hawk's 40 time.

[rbaloha1]

At the time, Hawk was the right resigning due to Barnett's injury status.

With the benefit of hindsight, prefer Barnett. Barnett's fiery leadership is missing. Barnett is clearly better in coverage especially in space. Hawk has improved in this area -- best when chasing a te downfield and turning around at the right time.

Often times Hawk looks too stiff and still "thinking too much." Soar Hawk!

[Partial]

Barnett is a super nice guy. He took a slew of photos last year with my group of friends, shared drinks with us, and even bought a round of shots. We ran into him at AJ Bombers one night. He invited us to a strip club LOL! Really cool guy. Had a super nice sports car parked illegally out front, though.

[3irty1]

I think its been a while since people have seen Barnett while he's on his game. I think everyone can agree that if you take each at the top of their game in their prime, Barnett was better. I think Barnett is back to that level. Its close but I think I'd prefer Barnett.

[Fritz]

Hawk gets hammered by the media for his coverage skills but in reality is no better or worse than Chillar or Barnett. Neither of those two guys would be able to run with Sproles or Forte. Running backs have the edge on almost all linebackers when it comes to routes. Barnett lacks the ability to play within the scheme, especially in the 3-4. Sure he makes plays, but he also allows big plays to happen when he free lances because he doesn't want to take on lead blockers or fill his gap responsiblities.

Hawk does need to pull his pecker out of the sand and start getting into the flow of the game. He is a step slow right now and I haven't seen him make a single solo tackle at or around the line of scrimmage this year. Bishop is also playing more like a street free agent right now than a well payed starting veteran.

Based on what you wrote it sounds less like Hawk needing to pull his penis out of the sand and more like he needs to pull his head out of his anus.

[ThunderDan]

Hawk and Barnett don't play the same position in the 3-4.

When Hawk took over at Mike in the 4-3 the year Barnett was hurt, Hawk had 1 great game and then disappeared. Maybe we would remember Hawk more if he did the Samari dance everytime he tackled someone 5 yards down field.

[vince]

What about Hawk's 40 time.
40 schmorty. I'm talking about linebacker speed and lateral quickness.

[Deputy Nutz]

Based on what you wrote it sounds less like Hawk needing to pull his penis out of the sand and more like he needs to pull his head out of his anus.
No it is all about getting into the flow, and you do that with your pecker.

[Deputy Nutz]

What about Hawk's 40 time.

He Ran a 4.59 and a 4.67. At a Pro Day his Junior year he ran a 4.49. Barnett ran a 4.67
Shuttle Hawk ran a 3.96. Barnett ran a 4.08
Three Cone Hawk ran a 6.82 . Barnett ran a 7.00

Barnett may have played faster or looked faster, but he isn't based on the numbers. Hawk is a bit of a work out warrior so I don't think his numbers translated over to the game.

[MJZiggy]

No it is all about getting into the flow, and you do that with your pecker.
So noted.

[rbaloha1]

He Ran a 4.59 and a 4.67. At a Pro Day his Junior year he ran a 4.49. Barnett ran a 4.67
Shuttle Hawk ran a 3.96. Barnett ran a 4.08
Three Cone Hawk ran a 6.82 . Barnett ran a 7.00

Barnett may have played faster or looked faster, but he isn't based on the numbers. Hawk is a bit of a work out warrior so I don't think his numbers translated over to the game.

Agreed. Hawk is not explosive.

[Zool]

Barnett is a chase and drag guy. Always out in the open so he can actually make plays. Gets stuck to blockers like glue.

[Pack-man]

Hawk, no question. The Packers are #1 in the NFL against the run. I highly doubt if Barnett was here we would be able to say this. Hawk is much stouter against the run and way more assignment sure.

I remember reading an article last year about how the Packer defense took off last year after Barnett went down. Mostly because Hawk took over making the defensive calls and miscommunications stopped!

[rbaloha1]

Hawk, no question. The Packers are #1 in the NFL against the run. I highly doubt if Barnett was here we would be able to say this. Hawk is much stouter against the run and way more assignment sure.

I remember reading an article last year about how the Packer defense took off last year after Barnett went down. Mostly because Hawk took over making the defensive calls and miscommunications stopped!

Another misleading stat -- Packers are #1 due to opponents ease of passing against the Packers.

Also Raji and Pickett are beasts to run against.