Hawk at MLB?

[Green Bud Packer]

after reading about A.J Hawk all off-season and now after his first mini-camp i think the Pack should try Hawk at mike and move barnett to will.moving hawk to the middle will put the most instinctive lb in a position to make plays on both sides of the o.l.i hope the pack didn't spend a #5 on a weak side backer.

[wist43]

We've been having these discussions since the draft, and I think most of us are in agreement that whoever is in the middle, it shouldn't be Barnett. Apparently everyone can see that except the Packers organization.

I'd prefer to see Hodge at mike, Barnett at will, and Hawk at sam... Barnett has no business in the middle.

[RashanGary]

I used to think the same thing but now I'm changing my tune a little bit. First of all, Why shouldn't someone spend an early pick on a MLB but not a OLB?

1st Round 2005 OLB

1 11 DeMarcus Ware OLB Troy
1 12 Shawne Merriman OLB Maryland
1 15 Derrick Johnson OLB Texas
1 17 David Pollack OLB Georgia

1st Round 2004 OLB

1 17 D.J. Williams OLB Miami
1 27 Jason Babin OLB Western Michigan

1st Round 2003 OLB

1 32 Tyler Brayton OLB Colorado

1st Round 2002 OLB

1 23 Napoleon Harris OLB Northwestern
1 31 Robert Thomas OLB UCLA

1st Round 2001 OLB

1 7 Andre Carter OLB California

1st Round 2000 OLB

1 2 LaVar Arrington OLB Penn State
1 16 Julian Peterson OLB Michigan State
1 30 Keith Bulluck OLB Syracuse

13 Players selected to play OLB between 2000 - 2005 as high as pick # 2 with Lavar Arrington.

1st Round 2005 MLB

NONE

1st Round 2004 MLB

1 12 Jonathan Vilma MLB Miami

1st Round 2003 MLB

1 29 Nick Barnett MLB Oregon State

1st Round 2002 MLB

NONE

1st Round 2001 MLB

1 11 Dan Morgan MLB Miami

1st Round 2000 MLB

1 9 Brian Urlacher MLB New Mexico
1 28 Rob Morris MLB Brigham Young

Between 2000 and 2005 only 5 MLB's have been selected in the 1st round. None higher than Urlacher at 9


What I'm trying to show here is that NFL teams do not really value their MLB's.

For the most part, the OLB's are the playmakers. They get open looks on the QB with different blitz oppertunities. They are required to have more speed and quickness because most early picks are drafted to play whe weakside and are required to cover a big area of open field. MLB's are usually role players that are used to eat up blocks. The Packers scheme is unique in that the MLB is allowed to run free because the DT's don't focus at all on rushing the passer and just keep blocks off the MLB. That is acctually unusual in todays NFL. There is nothing saying Sanders can's change his scheme a little bit to accomodate his new star OLB.

[RashanGary]

MLB's are not playmakers unless you surround them with big expensive DT's. Look at Ray Lewis' crappy few years since he lost his DT's. He was on T.V. whining that he has to take on tough blocks. No MLB can take on OG's and win. Lewis knows his job was pretty much a role player to take a block adn open up the paly for someone else. That is just a fact. He had a right to whine. They went out and got Ngata and that is what it takes to protect your investment at MLB.

I think people here have some sort of distorted belief that MLB's are important and OLBs are unimportant. Why? I don't know, maybe they are old and they only remember the old NFL...Whatever it is, NFL GM's and Coaches don't agree.

[Spaulding]

Wist, you're exactly right on that. Hodge is a natural at MLB (although some say a tad short but look at Zach Thomas and Dat Nguyen) and Barnett with his speed could excel at weakside. Hawk might have a learning curve at strongside but being much more physical than Barnett would likely equate to a better ability to shed the TE and build on his coverage skills.

[RashanGary]

You guys are just crazy...Why would you want your star LB shedding blocks. Sure he'll be better at just about everything than any LB we have on our roster but is that any reason to make his assignment to eat up blocks.

Ray Lewis wasn't too impressed with it. Urlacher played like crap when Chicago lost their bid DT's. It's funny how people here think MLB's are this rare breed of player when really they are just decoys. Kind of like a fullback. I completely disagree with you guys. Put A.J. over the tight end so he can shed blocks. I'm sorry but that is funny. Why don't they just put Arrington, Derrick Johnson, Julian Peterson on the TE as well becuase they are better at shedding blocks. Why you ask? Because they are better at everything and you'd rather give them open space to smack the QB or make the sometimes almost impossible open field tackle. Sorry guys, block eating is for the FB of the defense. The MLB/OLB.

Our scheme is a little differeent the way we use our DT's but who's to say we can't change a little to accomodate our difference maker at WLB?

[Green Bud Packer]

nice research nick.ware and babin play d.e in the pros. harris is a mlb with minn. pollack has a total 28 tackles. meeriman was rook of the year cuz of ten sacks which is a highly overrated stat in my world.57 total tackles for merriman.lewis,urlacher,vilma are the backbones of their respective "d"s. move hawk inside and he'll wreck havoc in the opposing teams backfield. i do agree if he plays outside it should be on the weak side.

[RashanGary]

Ware and Babin play OLB in a 3-4. I was going to take them off the list. NFL.com has Harris listed as an OLB. He played there in Oakland.

No matter how you cut it, the MLB's are rarely taken early. If you do take one early, you better surround him with great DT's becuase alone he will not be a playmaker.

[RashanGary]

The only problem I have with putting Hawk in the middle is that he would then be a one dimensional run stuffer. Sure he'll be better than Hodge or Barnett at anything he does but why limit him ot one aspect of the game.

Hodge on the other hand is only good at stuffing the run and he's real good at it. Why not put him where he is most able so succeed.

Barnett is the only really good man cover TE we have. Why not have him cover the TE's?

I just think you're most versitile playmaker should be on the weak side in most defenses. The MLB is a run stuffer only. Those gusy can be had in the 3rd round.

[MadtownPacker]

Yeah get Barnett out the middle, he is fast and athletic. His time in college as a S makes him perfect for covering the TE. Plus he has good hands(more INTs then FF).

Hodge sure sounds like a good fit at MLB though.

[Green Bud Packer]

i think part of the reason mlb isn't taken high is the position in college doesn't transfer over to the pros.in college mlb is nothing but a run stuffer.in the n.f.l. mlb has to be able to stuff the run and drop back in coverage.if hawk never leaves the field he'd be in coverags as mlb in nickle and dime situations.i beleive a "d"s idenity comes from the mlb more times than not.

[Tony Oday]

Makes sense take the team record holder for tackles out of the MLB spot.

I think Favre would be good at WR too.

Work Hodge in but he isnt, I PRAY TO GOD, a starter this year.

Hawk weakside, Barnett in the Middle and Taylor or Poppigna at Strongside.

With Pickett and another big body in the middle it will be scary back there this year.

If Taylor is a bust ala Thomas then Poppigna but man Hodge in the Middle as a Rookie that scares me.

[wist43]

Hodge is a very, very good football player, and needs to be on the field.

I find it inconceivable that Hodge wouldn't be one of the 3 best LB's on the Packer roster. If he doesn't start, it would only be b/c Moss and the defensive coaching staff might lack confidence in starting two rookies at LB... that wouldn't be a problem for me. I'd have Hodge penciled in in the middle, and work it out as to which side I put Barnett and Hawk.

That said, I also consider Hawk to be a more natural MLB, than an OLB... Hawk is just a good football player though, so I think they have a lot of flexibility on where they play him.

I'm not going to go off on a rant about Barnett, but I think he is so uninstinctual that he's simply not a good fit in the middle... he has other deficiencies to his game that I think make him a liability just about anywhere he's lined up, but I think his lack of instincts can be hidden more easily if he were lined up on the weakside.

As for "taking on and shedding"... all, LB's have to take on blocks. SLB's in a traditional 4-3 have to routinely take on the RT, TE, and pulling guards to either force the play back inside, or to string it to the side line. The system the Packers run doesn't require their SLB to do that as much, but they still have to be able to shed blocks, or just as importantly, hold the point of attack and string the play out.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I find it inconceivable that Hodge wouldn't be one of the 3 best LB's on the Packer roster.

I don't know that he is any better than Manning. Lets see what he does this summer, college ball is college ball.

Poppinga certainly has fallen off the map! I wonder when he'll get back on the field.

[Green Bud Packer]

if hodge wows the coaches and they have to get him on the field then yes hodge at mike,hawk at will,barnett at sam.but if hodge ain't one of the top three then i like hawk at mike, taylor at sam, barnett at will.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think they will stick Hawk at his best natural position, and I don't know where that will be.

Barnett probably stays in the middle, unfortunately, but we'll see. Maybe Hodge will have a killer camp.

[HarveyWallbangers]

We've been having these discussions since the draft, and I think most of us are in agreement that whoever is in the middle, it shouldn't be Barnett. Apparently everyone can see that except the Packers organization.

I'm not in this silent majority. I want Hawk on the weakside. No TE to contend with. He can stay in coverage, stay at the line, or blitz. We don't blitz the MLB much, so why take one of Hawk's strengths away. If Hodge proves to much better at MLB than Taylor is at SLB, then I'm for moving Barnett. If not, keep Barnett in the middle.

[RashanGary]

I'm not in this silent majority. I want Hawk on the weakside. No TE to contend with. He can stay in coverage, stay at the line, or blitz. We don't blitz the MLB much, so why take one of Hawk's strengths away. If Hodge proves to much better at MLB than Taylor is at SLB, then I'm for moving Barnett. If not, keep Barnett in the middle.

I agree with this completely. Hodge might be a play maker in the run game, but that is where his ability seems to end. Hawk on the other hand is extremely explosive. He has a great feel for the entire game of football as opposed to just sniffing out the run. Hawk will have a chance to put pressure on teh QB from teh weakside position and he have enough open space to beable to make ball dropping hits.

I think the coaches want the best players on the field in positions they can succeed at. Putting Hodge anywhere but the middle would expose him to things he is not good at. I think that is a bad move. It's not so much that he'll be better than Barnett as a rookie. It's more because at first glance it looks like Hawk, Hodge, Barnett are the best 3 LB's. There is only one way to get them on the field together.

[Merlin]

We've been having these discussions since the draft, and I think most of us are in agreement that whoever is in the middle, it shouldn't be Barnett. Apparently everyone can see that except the Packers organization.
I'd prefer to see Hodge at mike, Barnett at will, and Hawk at sam... Barnett has no business in the middle.

Most of who? Packer Fans? Your friends? Did you poll all Packer Fans or those in your close circle only? Right away you lend zero creditability to your post. You don't take away a solid middle linebacker and replace him with a rookie. Look at Barnett's stats, oh yeah let's bring up the few times he blew a play. Hawk and Hoidge never did that in college let alone the pro's. I believe it was mentioned earlier in this post that without good DT's, no MLB is a monster because they can't fight off the guards ~ Well DUH. Don't give me this "Hawk can" "Hodge can" crap. At least have the decency to use some logic in your arguments. How many downs in the NFL have Hawk and Hodge played? Think hard it's a toughee...



after reading about A.J Hawk all off-season and now after his first mini-camp i think the Pack should try Hawk at mike and move Barnett to will.moving hawk to the middle will put the most instinctive lb in a position to make plays on both sides of the o.l.i hope the pack didn't spend a #5 on a weak side backer.

And you know this how? Hawk played how many downs in the NFL? His main week ness is listed as over pursuit. Hrmmmm....sounds like Barnett to me....


Wist, you're exactly right on that. Hodge is a natural at MLB (although some say a tad short but look at Zach Thomas and Dat Nguyen) and Barnett with his speed could excel at weakside. Hawk might have a learning curve at strongside but being much more physical than Barnett would likely equate to a better ability to shed the TE and build on his coverage skills.

Are you really comparinhg tackling in college to that of the NFL? Please say it isn't so. Hawk looked good in college there is no doubt, but so did Barnett. Barnett looks good as a pro, Hawk? Do you even know yet?


The only problem I have with putting Hawk in the middle is that he would then be a one dimensional run stuffer. Sure he'll be better than Hodge or Barnett at anything he does but why limit him ot one aspect of the game.

Hodge on the other hand is only good at stuffing the run and he's real good at it. Why not put him where he is most able so succeed.

Barnett is the only really good man cover TE we have. Why not have him cover the TE's?

I just think you're most versitile playmaker should be on the weak side in most defenses. The MLB is a run stuffer only. Those gusy can be had in the 3rd round.

Nice contradiction. I am glad that everyone is so happy about who we drafted, I really am. However comparing a college player to an NFL player is just stupid. Neither of these rookies has played one down in the NFL. Although I am sure Hawk will be good, he will be no better (and in the first season worse) then Barnett in the middle. He needs to be on the weakside and Barnett on the strongside. They are both horiztonal players which is great for stopping the run and blitzing. Hodge needs to be able to defend the pass in the middle. You guys are all spooging over the guy and I mean to tell you every good play he makes you will be all bias and every bad play Barnett makes you will again be bias, but when the real analysis comes, in Hawk, you have another Barnett in the making. Take off your rose colored goggles long enough to see that sometime. In the end I hope you are all right because I want what is best for the Packers. But don't belittle an existing star player by saying a rookie is better then they are. It's not even a fair comparison. To say he "could" be better is appropriate. Unless of course you all aren't true Packer fans and just like to hop on the closest hype bandwagon...

[Deputy Nutz]

Keep Hawk on the Weak side. For crying out loud some of you think that a weakside linebacker lines up on the sideline. Majority of the time the weakside linebacker lines up on the outside shoulder of the backside tackle

http://letstalkdefense.com/43front.gif

[Green Bud Packer]

i think the Pack should try Hawk at mike and move Barnett to will.moving hawk to the middle will put the most instinctive lb in a position to make plays on both sides of the o.l.i hope the pack didn't spend a #5 on a weak side backer.

And you know this how? Hawk played how many downs in the NFL? His main week ness is listed as over pursuit. Hrmmmm....sounds like Barnett to me....

thats why i said the pack should try hawk at mike. key word being try.last time i looked hawk and hodges were nfl players and comparing them to their teammates is a given.what do you think training camp is about.

[Deputy Nutz]

Stop arguing with yourself.

[Noodle]

We don't blitz the MLB much,

Sorry Harvey, but I read this and my mind flashed back to the times when Barnett blitzed last year. He'd put his head down and run full steam right into either a guard or an RB. I'd get juiced that he was going, then depressed to see him running into another brick wall.

So maybe we didn't blitz much from the mike because Barnett showed little skill in getting home?

In any event, I'm on board with keeping Barnett at mike. Hawk at will seems to me a no-brainer. Not sure yet about sam. Is Hodge just too short to play it? I'd like to see what the kid can do. He certainly brings some nasty to the game.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Sorry Harvey, but I read this and my mind flashed back to the times when Barnett blitzed last year. He'd put his head down and run full steam right into either a guard or an RB. I'd get juiced that he was going, then depressed to see him running into another brick wall.

A couple times/game maybe. Seriously, how often have you seen a MLB blitz in this scheme (that includes Zach Thomas in Miami and Dexter Coakley in Dallas)? It's not often. I'd rather have the threat of a blitz on every play from Hawk then the occasional, keep them off balance blitz. It's another reason Barnett should stay in the middle. He's not a very good blitzer. Hawk had 9 1/2 sacks last year.

[pbmax]

Keep Hawk on the Weak side. For crying out loud some of you think that a weakside linebacker lines up on the sideline. Majority of the time the weakside linebacker lines up on the outside shoulder of the backside tackle

http://letstalkdefense.com/43front.gif
Nutz, I don't think the Sanders/Batres defense flops OLBs according to strength of the formation.

I think that was one of the reasons Diggs couldn't get on the field last year until the entire unit was decimated, as a more natural SAM he probably wouldn't fare well if the strong side went away from him.

So saying Hawk or Barnett could or could not play one of the OLBs is a dicey proposition, as the offense will determine the strong side backer by its formation, and it will vary play to play.

[Deputy Nutz]

Well how do they flip? stength of the field, or do they take one side of the field and thats it. Hawk is our left outside linebacker and Barnett or who ever is our right outside linebacker?

[RashanGary]

I think that's how it has worked Nutz. It just so happens the TE is usually on the right side of the offense so practically speaking, whoever is on that side of the defense would be more like a strongside backer.

Does anyone have a theory on why TE's are usually on the right?

[gbpackfan]

I am pretty sure that the Packers LB's DO NOT FLIP regardless of where the TE lines up. Both OLB are required to cover the TE. So the Packers do name the OLB positions but that is all they are, names! They both might as well be called SWLB!

So that being said, stop arguing who should be weak side and who should be strong side! There is NO DIFFERENCE!!!!! They both have to cover the TE!

I would love to see Hawk, Hodge, Barnett.

But I believe it will be Hawk, Barnett, Taylor. Which is still pretty good!

[Tarlam!]

IDoes anyone have a theory on why TE's are usually on the right?

Yeah, the Sports Idiot has a theory, but to prove it, you'll need to assist me.

I would have bet the TE lines up right if the QB is right handed and vice versa if he's left handed. If he's on a blocking assignment, the QB can roll out of the pocket behind the right tackle/ TE if the left side starts to cóllapse and still make an easier throw that way, than rolling left and trying to find an open guy.

Now, where does the TE line up for left handed QB's?

[Noodle]

In college and HS, you see more flipping of the TE due to the wider hashmarks. So if you're on the right hash, you'll have your TE line up on the left, because the right side of the field is so small.

With the NFL's tighter hashes, the "short" side of the field is not as dramatically "short" as it is at the HS/college level. So pro teams can be more right handed in their basic sets.

Don't know if SF with Young or Atlanta with Vick plays the TE on the left -- interesting question.

[wist43]

As for the TE being lined up on the right, beyond what others have posted, I also think running to that side as the dominant running side, is more natural for a right handed player to block by leading with their left shoulder - ala a right hand boxer who leads with the left jab.

I'm a very dominant right hander, and as a result, find it more difficult not only to move to my left, but to lead with my right shoulder. I was a very good basketball player in HS, and had to work tirelessly to develop my game moving to my left and shooting with my left hand. I was able to master it, but it certainly wasn't natural.

[Noodle]

Wist -- Exactly right about how most RBs just seem to like to run right. A lot of them like to carry the ball with their right hands (Green being a famous exception), which means the ball's on the outside when running right, so that's another reason beyond QB preferences.

[RashanGary]

I thought those where the main reasons. I thought it had to do with the running back running better to the right too but apparently the blockign has a lot to do with it as well. I was thinking it was something along those lines.

Also, if the strong side of the formation is the right then the QB can see his targets better when he drops back. He doesn't have to turn his head and then turn and throw. It's better for a lot of reasons.

In the end, Hawk will be a WLB. CAll it an OLB or whatever, but he's not going to be on the right side of the offense. I'm almost certain of that.