Hawk at MLB ... after thoughts

[The Gunshooter]

Assigning Barnett at MLB was a gamble that Mike Sherman took as Barnett never played MLB in college.

In his first two years at Oregon State, Barnett was a safety. For his last two years, he played outside linebacker. OSU had a solid MLB in Richard Seigler(who played a couple of seasons in the NFL).

As a couple of posters have noted, it is too early to judge Hawk's effectiveness from just one game. I do think, however, that Barnett could be an effective outside backer, be it strong or weak side.

It has been my philosophy for years that the reason teams who play on artificial turf fade at the end of the season and have only won two super bowls out of 42 is because those teams tend to utilize smaller players. These smaller guys tend to get banged up as the season progresses and then they are no longer more agile than the bigger player who plays on grass. Once that happens the smaller guy gets mauled.

That's why Barnett is useless to me. With his reduced agilty due to age, ACL and his sizable salary, he is not part of a championship formula.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Assigning Barnett at MLB was a gamble that Mike Sherman took as Barnett never played MLB in college.

In his first two years at Oregon State, Barnett was a safety. For his last two years, he played outside linebacker. OSU had a solid MLB in Richard Seigler(who played a couple of seasons in the NFL).

As a couple of posters have noted, it is too early to judge Hawk's effectiveness from just one game. I do think, however, that Barnett could be an effective outside backer, be it strong or weak side.

It has been my philosophy for years that the reason teams who play on artificial turf fade at the end of the season and have only won two super bowls out of 42 is because those teams tend to utilize smaller players. These smaller guys tend to get banged up as the season progresses and then they are no longer more agile than the bigger player who plays on grass. Once that happens the smaller guy gets mauled.

That's why Barnett is useless to me. With his reduced agilty due to age, ACL and his sizable salary, he is not part of a championship formula.

He's only 27 years old. I don't think his age is a factor at all at this point with his agility. His ACL injury will have more to say about that then anything next season. He has no history of being repeated injured so I don't see how your philosophy of injury to these types of players applies to Barnett at this point.

We'll see how he comes back from his injury but if he heals fine I think he's still a very good LB.

[prsnfoto]

I tend to agree. I think Hawk has natural leadership abilities, and MLB's are often the leader of great defenses. Now that Nick has a big contract extension, he might be more agreeable to a switch than he may have been in the past.

And if he don't like it they should trade him to Seattle for not being a team player and being a selfish primadonna. Hawk looked good today lets keep our fingers crossed it doesn't take much to look better than the softest MLB in the game. Ya Ya I know he can cover well but he is a frickin pussy against the run this is a good move any coach with balls would have already made our last two have lacked the balls.

[Partial]

If they end up switching schemes and go with a 3-4, I could see Barnett being the odd man out. Unfortunate as he seems like a good guy.

They run the Bates scheme. I am surprised by you bringing a 3-4 scheme into the discussion. They haven't drafted or recruited players that can play that scheme, nor do they have a coaching staff that could employ it.

Or do they?

I wonder why you took the discussion in this direction. It seems absurd to me, but, what do I know?

WSSP, the milwaukee sports radio station that covers the Packers has speculated at it from Week 4 or 5. Evidently their Packer Insider, Rob Demosky or the Green Bay Press Gazzette, thinks it will happen as well.

From a secondary perspective, I think we'd stick with the same style of physical play, it would just be a matter of adding the pieces in the front 7. Many of them are already in place and are versatile players. Jason Hunter, a back-up in the 4-3 has tremendous athletic ability and could be a dangerous starting OLB in a 3-4.

With that said, I think Hawk played very well in his debut, despite being injured. I think he's more instinctive and better at shedding blockers than Barny.

[sharpe1027]

I don't think any of us should be too surprised that Hawk was better in the run than Barnett, at least when playing against a physical-run oriented team like the Bears. It should be interesting when they play a pass-first team this coming week.

[Tony Oday]

I just like when Olin Kreutz got his pawns on Hawk middle of the first drive (I think) Hawk just pushed him off...that was great!

[MadtownPacker]

I was extremely impressed with Hawk at MLB. The whole flow of the defense seemed to follow his movement. His awareness of the ballcarriers location on the field is something Barnett has never showed. I dont recall too many, if any, plays of Hawk chasing someone down from behind. Nope, all his tackles where in your face hits. The defense was just brutal yesterday and I think that White boy in the middle had a lot to do with it. Remember this is coming from someone who has been a Barnett supporter this whole time.

[Joemailman]

Another thing I like about Hawk in the middle is that he's almost as ugly as Nitschke. Your MLB can't be ugly enough, as far as I'm concerned.

[rbaloha1]

Hawk looks more natural playing in the middle. Took on blocks and filled gaps very well.

Always thought Hawk appeared stiff and out of position on the outside.

Barnett should be on the strong side covering tes and backs.

[pbmax]

Its one game and a game we won in dominating fashion. Everyone looked good and separating out the truly gifted versus the tag alongs will take time and a few closer games. The one development that was evident was the lack of a monster run. Whether this was the D Line maintaining gaps or LBs in the correct hole, is a question for someone with game tape.

Some of the same folks who have been talking about the 3-4 were excitedly discussing the son to come ouster of Sanders last off-season. So their radar might be stuck.

The Packers have no ends for a 3-4. Thompson, Kampman and Montgomery are all too small to play end in a 3-4. Cole and Jolly are the right size but undisciplined. Its possible Jolly could do it, but as valuable as Chillar and Bishop might be, they are not going to dump Kampman and Thompson to switch schemes short term.

I have my doubts that Pickett is strong enough for a 3-4 nose tackle. He is big enough, but he can be washed out. And the only inside backer they have for a 3-4 might be Hawk. I seriously doubt this is going to happen due to personnel. It might only happen if they decide Sanders isn't going to get it done and the best hire they can find is a 3-4 guy. Even then, the tendency will be to stick with the program and personnel who are here in the short term.

[Fritz]

I'm with Joe - the mlb is all about ugliness.

Hawk is uglier than Barnett.

Thus, Hawk is a better mlb than Barnett.

Don't make football any harder, okay? It's not that hard of a game, really.

But I am also with those who caution us that it's only been one game with Hawk in the middle. I agree. He's got six more games to show that he can get even uglier. Nietschke certainly got uglier over time.

[The Gunshooter]

Assigning Barnett at MLB was a gamble that Mike Sherman took as Barnett never played MLB in college.

In his first two years at Oregon State, Barnett was a safety. For his last two years, he played outside linebacker. OSU had a solid MLB in Richard Seigler(who played a couple of seasons in the NFL).

As a couple of posters have noted, it is too early to judge Hawk's effectiveness from just one game. I do think, however, that Barnett could be an effective outside backer, be it strong or weak side.

It has been my philosophy for years that the reason teams who play on artificial turf fade at the end of the season and have only won two super bowls out of 42 is because those teams tend to utilize smaller players. These smaller guys tend to get banged up as the season progresses and then they are no longer more agile than the bigger player who plays on grass. Once that happens the smaller guy gets mauled.

That's why Barnett is useless to me. With his reduced agilty due to age, ACL and his sizable salary, he is not part of a championship formula.

He's only 27 years old. I don't think his age is a factor at all at this point with his agility. His ACL injury will have more to say about that then anything next season. He has no history of being repeated injured so I don't see how your philosophy of injury to these types of players applies to Barnett at this point.

We'll see how he comes back from his injury but if he heals fine I think he's still a very good LB.

If you like the George Cumby type LB then you will love Barnett.

[LL2]

I really liked the defensive call on the 4th and 1 play. We used a 4-4 defense of four LBs with Hawk and Bishop in the middle. Together they ganged up on Forte and got us back the ball.

Hawk upped his game today, but the real star is the depth we've built into the line backing core. Chillar has turned into a good pickup and even Bishop is making contributions.

I like Chillar too...He's a real solid back up and now starter.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Assigning Barnett at MLB was a gamble that Mike Sherman took as Barnett never played MLB in college.

In his first two years at Oregon State, Barnett was a safety. For his last two years, he played outside linebacker. OSU had a solid MLB in Richard Seigler(who played a couple of seasons in the NFL).

As a couple of posters have noted, it is too early to judge Hawk's effectiveness from just one game. I do think, however, that Barnett could be an effective outside backer, be it strong or weak side.

It has been my philosophy for years that the reason teams who play on artificial turf fade at the end of the season and have only won two super bowls out of 42 is because those teams tend to utilize smaller players. These smaller guys tend to get banged up as the season progresses and then they are no longer more agile than the bigger player who plays on grass. Once that happens the smaller guy gets mauled.

That's why Barnett is useless to me. With his reduced agilty due to age, ACL and his sizable salary, he is not part of a championship formula.

He's only 27 years old. I don't think his age is a factor at all at this point with his agility. His ACL injury will have more to say about that then anything next season. He has no history of being repeated injured so I don't see how your philosophy of injury to these types of players applies to Barnett at this point.

We'll see how he comes back from his injury but if he heals fine I think he's still a very good LB.

If you like the George Cumby type LB then you will love Barnett.

Sorry never saw him play so don't understand your reference.

[Lurker64]

We have one data point here. Barnett was a house on fire last year, and was a big part of that defense that got us to 13-3. This year, he was underwhelming. Who knows if it was the grim hand of age, minor nagging injuries, a tumultuous offseason, or what. Hopefully next year he returns to his 2007 form. Hawk has demonstrated himself as steady but unspectacular with occasional flashes at Will, and he played a good game at Mike. But one good game is not enough to determine anything. The Bears offense really wasn't on the field long enough to really get a good scouting report with Hawk at MLB.