merlin's article on hawk

[FritzDontBlitz]

first of all, i don't see the point in bashing you for having a conflicting viewpoint. we disagree on hawk's worth, but not to the point where i intend to start trashing you and your family.

having said that, i will just suggest you look at the negatives for both players - hawk and the player in question. assuming the other player is barnett, then just comparing their negatives alone makes hawk the better lb in my opinion. hesitancy and inefficiency are not things you want to see in your best linebacker. i agree that barnett will remain on the field on passing downs but only due to his 3 years experience in the league, not necessarily because of ability. we have already seen barnett's coverage flaws and hesitancy in key situations that may have cost us games in the past - 4th and 26 vs philly in '03, dropping coverage to chase daunte culpepper and allowing his man to catch an easy lob pass in the flat and score unmolested in the 2004 playoff game are just two examples.

hawk to me is already the better player. as far as contracts go, barnett's will be up soon so hopefully he will be rewarded accordingly for his contributions....

[Tarlam!]

first of all, i don't see the point in bashing you for having a conflicting viewpoint. ....

I do, I say we beat the proverbial outta him, then throw him a pool filled with kool-aid.

If he's still babbling Hawk-is-average sentiments, I say we sell him to the Bears fans for 2 kegs of brew! :lol:

[Merlin]

first of all, i don't see the point in bashing you for having a conflicting viewpoint. we disagree on hawk's worth, but not to the point where i intend to start trashing you and your family.

having said that, i will just suggest you look at the negatives for both players - hawk and the player in question. assuming the other player is barnett, then just comparing their negatives alone makes hawk the better lb in my opinion. hesitancy and inefficiency are not things you want to see in your best linebacker. i agree that barnett will remain on the field on passing downs but only due to his 3 years experience in the league, not necessarily because of ability. we have already seen barnett's coverage flaws and hesitancy in key situations that may have cost us games in the past - 4th and 26 vs philly in '03, dropping coverage to chase daunte culpepper and allowing his man to catch an easy lob pass in the flat and score unmolested in the 2004 playoff game are just two examples.

hawk to me is already the better player. as far as contracts go, barnett's will be up soon so hopefully he will be rewarded accordingly for his contributions....

I think you are taking two words out of an analysis that is 4 years old of Barnett and not completely grasping how the media hype thing has grown. The analysts were so high on Hawk that they wouldn't dare use those two words when listing the negatives. I think you have some serious blinders on because 99% of what was said, their analysis and their statistics are THE SAME. FYI, the 4th and 26, Barnett WAS NOT out of position, if anything he was too deep. You do know that we picked up Barnett for one reason right? Daunte Cullpepper, Michael Vick and Donivan McNabb. We needed a speedy agreesive LB to deal with running QB's. The Vikings designed plays around making the Linebackers decide: Is the QB going to run, or throw? It's a no win situation for the LB, he has to make the decision based on who the QB is. If you think Hawk would have reacted any differently, then you have some serious blinders on. Any more "Examples" where you didn't think them through?

[Merlin]

first of all, i don't see the point in bashing you for having a conflicting viewpoint. ....

I do, I say we beat the proverbial outta him, then throw him a pool filled with kool-aid.

If he's still babbling Hawk-is-average sentiments, I say we sell him to the Bears fans for 2 kegs of brew! :lol:

Don't recall saying he was average. I do recall saying we have the same player already and with Cullpepper out of the division, did we really need another LB that can chase down a QB who runs? Hawk was taken too high in the draft. He was over-hyped by the media and you all bought into it. People balked at us taking Barnett at 29 because he was slated as a seond rounder. With the same stats comming out of their senior year in college (and those of you who swore up and down he was faster and quicker than Barnett), it sure seems to me that when we got a good LB at #29 4 years ago, that drafting someone with similar abilites at #5 was not smart. Could it be that outisde of two players this draft was not as strong as 4 years ago? Maybe...

[Merlin]

What I probably should have done was not mention any names and then ask you to choose between the two. I would be willing to bet that a poll would be split right down the middle. That would have taken all bias out of it and kept people objectively looking at the facts. I would have course excluded the grade because I think it's biased based on over-hype continuing to grow every year. Last year it was Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers. We all know that Smith was thrown to the wolves in a shitty offense and Rodgers has not impressed anyone, including the Green Bay coaching staff. That's why if Vince Young was there at #5, we very well may have taken him.

[SkinBasket]

I think you have some serious blinders on because 99% of what was said, their analysis and their statistics are THE SAME... If you think Hawk would have reacted any differently, then you have some serious blinders on.

The only problem I have with your thoughts, and what is emphasized above, is that comparing the measurables and stats of two players and trying to use that as a basis of future predictors is absurd. If we scrolled through the NCAA ranks, we could probably find dozens of LBs who had stats almost identical to Hawk's. Comparing stats is about as useful as trying to figure out who has the biggest man sausage and declaring that will make them an awesome NFL player, and for all I know, maybe it does.

Having watched the players ON THE FIELD, and comparing how they react, tackle, move, and think vs their scores in the shuttle run, cone drill, and vert jump and having a reasonable idea that Hawk will be better than Barnett is not "having blinders on."

Just because people expected more out of Barnett and didn't necessarily get it does not mean we should all lower our expectations for Hawk just because their combine scores or stats are similar.

[Merlin]

I agree that we shouldn't lower our expectations of Hawk. There were two points to the article:

#1 - Hawk wasn't worth a #5 (I Believe Urlacher was a #9, Lewis a #6 and Barnett #29).

#2 - Having watched both Players, Hawk isn't any better then Barnett was comming out of college. People were so enamored with Hawk that I thought it was worth pointing out that we have a very good linebacker with similar (almost the same) qualities. All I heard (not necessarily just on this board but others) was that Hawk is faster than Barnett, quicker, better, blah blah blah. Comming out of college at least, that isn't the case.

I like the fact we have Hawk. But we still need a big dominante middle linnebacker so we can move Barnett and Hawk to the outside where they can make a bigger impact. Maybe Hodge can step up, although he is the tallest at 6'2", he is only 3 pounds heavier then Barnett and 9 pounders lighter then Hawk. Arrignton would have been a perfect fit with those two on the outside. Hopefully there will be some June 1st casualties (I hear Ray Lewis isn't happen in Baltimore) so we can pick up a good MLB.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I had a problem with the way you fudged the time for Hawk to match up with Barnett more. Hawk ran a 4.59 at the combine (same as Brian Urlacher), but you have him at 4.67. Just like Urlacher, Hawk ran much better at his Pro Day also. He ran a 4.45. This happens with most players, and guys aren't given 4.67 on a 40 when they do 4.59 at the combine and 4.45 on campus.

[Deputy Nutz]

I have to agree with Harvey. I read almost every analysis of AJ Hawk and I never heard 4.67 as a forty time. The above mentioned by Harvey are his recorded forty times.

I would also like to mention that several scouts at the Ohio St Pro Day had Hawk running a sub 4.4 forty on one of his attempts, and never one higher than 4.5.

[Rivers Rutherford]

40-time schmorty-time. Hopefully our linebackers will never have to run 40-yards unless it's into the opposing teams endzone with the ball. I like how Merlin fails to mention (well I assume he didn't I didn't read his sacreligious put down on Hawk) that Hawk had the fastest damn short shuttle of all players at the combine! Would you rather have a fast straight-line guy (which Hawk is posting a top 6 or 7 time at the combine out of 38 linebackers) or a guy that accelerates fast, moves laterally well, and has great closing speed--you know, the things a linebacker needs to be effective.

Merlin--you could've just written this: I have a hard-on for Huff and we didn't take him, boo hoo. Hell, that's what I'd say if we didn't take Hawk.

[mraynrand]

I watched the Hawk for four years here in Ohio. I would say the greatest strengths that Hawk has in order are:

1) Ability to move quickly in confined spaces - extremely quick within a 10 yard range.
2) Instinct for the ball. What I mean by this is that ability to decide, and decide correctly whether you should take a chance at a narrow gap - perhaps go for the shoe-string tackle, or string the play out and make the tackle closer to the sidelines. LeRoy Butler had this, Barnett suffers from a lack of it.
3) Sure tackling - this guy doesn't miss often at all. Barnett has a tendancy to get there and slip off too frequently.

[Merlin]

I had a problem with the way you fudged the time for Hawk to match up with Barnett more. Hawk ran a 4.59 at the combine (same as Brian Urlacher), but you have him at 4.67. Just like Urlacher, Hawk ran much better at his Pro Day also. He ran a 4.45. This happens with most players, and guys aren't given 4.67 on a 40 when they do 4.59 at the combine and 4.45 on campus.

Go look on SI.com. I used the same source for everything. I didn't "fudge" the numbers. Barnett was timed lower as well but the final combine number was higher. Don't ask me why, ask SI. Both players ran in the 4.4's, 4.5's but their number posted for their analysis is what it is. Try looking up the source next time.

[Merlin]

Merlin--you could've just written this: I have a hard-on for Huff and we didn't take him, boo hoo. Hell, that's what I'd say if we didn't take Hawk.

I would have it there was even the slightess truth to it. The fact is I didn't want Huff either. It doesn't really matter what I thought, I don't make those decisions. As for the "Hard On" you so eloquintly refered to, maybe if you quit playing with yours and actually tried reading your I.Q. might raise from the double digit range.

[RashanGary]

Hawk's measurables are similar to Barnetts. The one important one that isn't mentioned is that Hawk does all the same things mobility wise while carrying 10 extra lbs muscle.

So we've determined that Barnett and Hawk move at about the same rate when asked to run in a strait line or follow a rehearsed drill. What about how they play football? The thing about playing LB in college or the NFL is that it isn't a string of rehearsed drills with one path to follow. The game is constantly changing and the ability to quickly respond and react to developing plays is as important if not more important than the speed that gets them there. Hawk reads and reacts much better than Barnett based the games and tape that I've watched. Hawk is tough and agressive. He has a knack for forcing fumbles and knocking defenders back where as Barnett never causes TO's.

They may have similar mobility #'s but lets not confuse that with how they play the game. When everything is on the line and plays need to be made, Hawk is there sacking teh QB or forcing a fumble. Barnett is gettting driven back 3 yards as the other team moves the chains. Barnett is a pretty good player but on the football field he has never been and will probably never be A.J. Hawk.

[Merlin]

I had a problem with the way you fudged the time for Hawk to match up with Barnett more. Hawk ran a 4.59 at the combine (same as Brian Urlacher), but you have him at 4.67. Just like Urlacher, Hawk ran much better at his Pro Day also. He ran a 4.45. This happens with most players, and guys aren't given 4.67 on a 40 when they do 4.59 at the combine and 4.45 on campus.

Go look on SI.com. I used the same source for everything. I didn't "fudge" the numbers. Barnett was timed lower as well but the final combine number was higher. Don't ask me why, ask SI. Both players ran in the 4.4's, 4.5's but their number posted for their analysis is what it is. Try looking up the source next time.

Better Yet, here are your direct links.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/draft/players/8030.html
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2006/draft/players/1831.html

Remember when you compare apples to apples, you don't use oranges. That's why I used the same site for comparision. It wouldn't be fair to use ESPN to Fox Sport, etc. SI had the draft information in the same format for both players.

I will accept apologies for being accused of playing number games now...

[Merlin]

Hawk's measurables are similar to Barnetts. The one important one that isn't mentioned is that Hawk does all the same things mobility wise while carrying 10 extra lbs muscle.

So we've determined that Barnett and Hawk move at about the same rate when asked to run in a strait line or follow a rehearsed drill. What about how they play football? The thing about playing LB in college or the NFL is that it isn't a string of rehearsed drills with one path to follow. The game is constantly changing and the ability to quickly respond and react to developing plays is as important if not more important than the speed that gets them there. Hawk reads and reacts much better than Barnett based the games and tape that I've watched. Hawk is tough and agressive. He has a knack for forcing fumbles and knocking defenders back where as Barnett never causes TO's.

They may have similar mobility #'s but lets not confuse that with how they play the game. When everything is on the line and plays need to be made, Hawk is there sacking teh QB or forcing a fumble. Barnett is gettting driven back 3 yards as the other team moves the chains. Barnett is a pretty good player but on the football field he has never been and will probably never be A.J. Hawk.

It's interesting that you compare Barnett's NFL Play to Hawks College Play. Go do a search for Barnett's college play video. Then get back to me about your "observations" Apples to Apples. Hawk hasn't played 1 down in the NFL, you have no idea how he will do. Saying you do based on your analysis is pure speculation. Which is the whole point. You draft a player based on your speculation of how they will perform in the NFL. Hawk hasn't played in the NFL and yet it's funny how you compare Barnett's MLB play in the NFL to Hawks MLB Play in college. Barnett was never a MLB in college, he is a converted Strong Safety who play OLB his senior year. Kind of funny how Barnett got driven back three yards playing OLB in college, or do teams line up the center of their line based on where the OLB is playing in college? Hard to drive a guy straight back unless you are in front of him vs. side blocking him...

[Rivers Rutherford]

Merlin--I know you didn't propose Huff, but for the purposes of my laziness I put all Hawk-haters in one big meat-grinder and say what I have to say all at once. So I guess some polar bear stuff went in there too--however, I did go and look at your article and now realize that I did read it, I just didn't remember since there really was no insight or content of any kind, just two rows of numbers and your pointing out Barnett already plays for the Packers. Wow. Great insight.

At least some who aren't sold on Hawk offer insight, commentary, or other reasons for not liking the pick. I agree Laura Quinn is a downer. You did none of that. And what's middle linebacker stuff? Hawk is not a middle linebacker, the Packers won't be using him at middle linebacker, and he, therefore, is not small for a middle linebacker. I could go and post about 50 guys that have similar combine numbers to Ray Lewis. So what? Putting a few numbers side-by-side and then offering no insight or commentary is totally useless. That, that's what I think.

Also, Hawk plays the game with anger. Does Barnett do this? Not really, but he does a mean Samurai sword bit every now and then. It's not bad enough he's the softest MLB in the league, he also has to show us what a geek he is by doing the sword bit. My guess Barnett got beat up a lot in middle school, got used to it, and now carries over that pansy mentality to the MLB position. It would explain why he lays on his back so often.

[Homer Jay]

If ony AJ was as big as Zach Thomas, then we'd have something.

[Deputy Nutz]

Fine I won't blame Merlin, but his source sucks and posts untrue information. That unfortunately reflects on the author or writer. Sorry.

I remember that Barnett ran a 4.74 at the combine, but he had a fast shuttle and three cone drill. Granted I am not SI.com.

[FritzDontBlitz]

If you think Hawk would have reacted any differently, then you have some serious blinders on.

yes.

a more instinctive linebacker knows he's supposed to make a mobile qb commit to - or cross - the line of scrimmage before he drops coverage on his man and starts to pursue the qb. that's a basic rule of man-to-man coverage: as long as the qb is still in the backfield its still a pass play.

[HarveyWallbangers]

A lot of these numbers are trustworthy--unless you find a source that uses the numbers directly from the combine or Pro Day. Some of these sits use an average in the time.

Hawk timed slightly better in the 40, and better in the shuttle or three-cone drill. How could he not? Hiss times were some of the best in the last 10 years. I don't even think the Barnett haters question his athletic ability though. They question his instincts, his tenacity, his ability to tackle. Hawk has those things. You don't measure those things by his measurables. You look at film. Hawk has good instincts, and watch the film and you will find as good of a tackler as you'll find on the college level. He's as sure of a tackler as you'll ever find. When he gets to somebody, they go down. That's a big part of being a great LB. Tons of LBs measure well (take a look at what Thomas Howard ran in his 40). Barnett is a hell of an athlete at LB in his own right. I don't think that's a knock on Hawk. If you could throw out the other things for Barnett and he was bigger, he would have gone in the top half of the draft.

[RashanGary]

I've watched Barnett play in 30 + games as a pro. I know what he does and I respect certain aspects of his game. I've watched 2 full games of Hawk. I've watched multiple clips and the bowl game about 6 times because I recorded it. Hawk plays faster and stronger than Barnett.

I would be very surprised if Hawk isn't better than Barnett in his rookie campaign.

[Deputy Nutz]

Prediction of Hawks stats his rookie year

Total tackles 120, solo tackles 80, assisted tackles 40, sacks 4.5, INT 2, forced fumbles 4, recovered fumbles 3.

[Tarlam!]

Prediction of Hawks stats his rookie year

Total tackles 120, solo tackles 80, assisted tackles 40, sacks 4.5, INT 2, forced fumbles 4, recovered fumbles 3.

This is a great prediction and I want you to remind us after week 16 how good you were! I really mean it, Nutz. I reckon you're gonna get damned close with this...

[Deputy Nutz]

That is the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.

[RashanGary]

If he can force 5 turnovers and get 4+ sacks, his entire year will be a success. I don't care if he has 10 tackles as long as he makes a few game changing plays.

5 turnovers = 5 games that were very likely won on his play.

[Sparkey]

Merlin,

The last I checked, a 4-3 defense actually requires 3 linebackers.

Btw, if you read those reviews without a bias against Hawk, you would put more stock in the comments about barnett being hesitant at times.

Its called instincts and the best players at their positions have natural instincts for the game. Their is no hesitation and no indecision on the field.

Also. when scouts grade a player based on a 5 point scale. The difference between a 4.59 and a 3.91 is significant. It is actually a 17% higher grading for Hawk than for barnett.

If the grading was based on a 100pt grade scale, then it would be a 91.8 for Hawk and a 78.2 for Barnett.....

Hmmmm, 91.8 compared to 78.2 ...... very much NOT SIMILAR!

[jack's smirking revenge]

To put a positive spin on this, look how a Packer Rats article is garnering so much conversation! Merlin, thanks for submitting your article and starting up a debate on the subject. I hope to see more of this in the months to come. We won't all agree on the point of view of Packer Rats content creators, but at least we have our own flock of people creating this stuff, not just respewing crap written by other so-called experts on the "major sites".

Way to go Merlin!

tyler

p.s. I love the Hawk pick. You're welcome to your opinion. ;-)

[Merlin]

Merlin--I know you didn't propose Huff, but for the purposes of my laziness I put all Hawk-haters in one big meat-grinder and say what I have to say all at once. So I guess some polar bear stuff went in there too--however, I did go and look at your article and now realize that I did read it, I just didn't remember since there really was no insight or content of any kind, just two rows of numbers and your pointing out Barnett already plays for the Packers. Wow. Great insight.

At least some who aren't sold on Hawk offer insight, commentary, or other reasons for not liking the pick. I agree Laura Quinn is a downer. You did none of that. And what's middle linebacker stuff? Hawk is not a middle linebacker, the Packers won't be using him at middle linebacker, and he, therefore, is not small for a middle linebacker. I could go and post about 50 guys that have similar combine numbers to Ray Lewis. So what? Putting a few numbers side-by-side and then offering no insight or commentary is totally useless. That, that's what I think.

Also, Hawk plays the game with anger. Does Barnett do this? Not really, but he does a mean Samurai sword bit every now and then. It's not bad enough he's the softest MLB in the league, he also has to show us what a geek he is by doing the sword bit. My guess Barnett got beat up a lot in middle school, got used to it, and now carries over that pansy mentality to the MLB position. It would explain why he lays on his back so often.

I never said I wasn't a Hawk fan. I wouldn't have taken him that high in the draft is all. Basically what you have are people who have such a "hard on" for Hawk that they are trying to nit pick Barnett to death. Face it, Barnett is a good LB. I think he would be even better on the outside. As a team we haven't addressed the lack of a true MLB. Every year people get down on Barnett about this tackle or that tackle that he missed. Hawk never missed a tackle in college? Never misread a play? Well hot damn he is the second comming of Christ! Pulease, if you are going to spin only the negative towards Barnett (NFL Veteran) and only tought the positives of a Hawk (College player), of course Hawk will look better. When you level the playing field, when all things are equal, only then can you say who is better. The field isn't level with Hawk lovers, they just refuse to see anything wrong with him...

[Sparkey]

Merlin--I know you didn't propose Huff, but for the purposes of my laziness I put all Hawk-haters in one big meat-grinder and say what I have to say all at once. So I guess some polar bear stuff went in there too--however, I did go and look at your article and now realize that I did read it, I just didn't remember since there really was no insight or content of any kind, just two rows of numbers and your pointing out Barnett already plays for the Packers. Wow. Great insight.

At least some who aren't sold on Hawk offer insight, commentary, or other reasons for not liking the pick. I agree Laura Quinn is a downer. You did none of that. And what's middle linebacker stuff? Hawk is not a middle linebacker, the Packers won't be using him at middle linebacker, and he, therefore, is not small for a middle linebacker. I could go and post about 50 guys that have similar combine numbers to Ray Lewis. So what? Putting a few numbers side-by-side and then offering no insight or commentary is totally useless. That, that's what I think.

Also, Hawk plays the game with anger. Does Barnett do this? Not really, but he does a mean Samurai sword bit every now and then. It's not bad enough he's the softest MLB in the league, he also has to show us what a geek he is by doing the sword bit. My guess Barnett got beat up a lot in middle school, got used to it, and now carries over that pansy mentality to the MLB position. It would explain why he lays on his back so often.

I never said I wasn't a Hawk fan. I wouldn't have taken him that high in the draft is all. Basically what you have are people who have such a "hard on" for Hawk that they are trying to nit pick Barnett to death. Face it, Barnett is a good LB. I think he would be even better on the outside. As a team we haven't addressed the lack of a true MLB. Every year people get down on Barnett about this tackle or that tackle that he missed. Hawk never missed a tackle in college? Never misread a play? Well hot damn he is the second comming of Christ! Pulease, if you are going to spin only the negative towards Barnett (NFL Veteran) and only tought the positives of a Hawk (College player), of course Hawk will look better. When you level the playing field, when all things are equal, only then can you say who is better. The field isn't level with Hawk lovers, they just refuse to see anything wrong with him...

I agree that there is no valid comparison one can make at this time. Hawk has yet to play in an NFL game, so trying to say he is better or worse than X is pointless. I think by admitting your bias against the selection, it negates much of what you say, regardless of what you say.

My main issue with the article was two fold:

1. You insinuated that because we already had Barnett, it was a mistake to take Hawk. As if only one or the other would actually play.

2. Your comparison of draft grades and commenting that those numbers are pretty similar, when in fact they are not.

If we were to only apply a grade upon choosing players (Yes, I know foolish, but humor me) then would you not want a player that is nearly 17% better than what you currently have ? Now factor in that the two can play together makes it even better.

It has been a long LONG time since Green Bay has had playmakers at the linebacker spot. Will Hawk be a playmaker ? We can presume he will based on his college career, but until he actually plays some NFL games, it is pure speculation.

One other thing I think is important to look at. By adding Hawk to the team, he will no doubt draw focus from the opposing teams offense, which in turn, should help Barnett make more plays.