Hawk and Barnett to switch positions

[texaspackerbacker]

Who do we have on the roster for the ILB spots? Hawk, Barnett, Bishop, Lansanah?

3-4 teams usually keep 4 ILBs, don't they?

Now this is more like it--ILB and OLB.

You play a "mike" and a "will" inside, and that just means one guy gets a little more gap-filling action and the other guy is a little more free to rove. But the bottom line is both do both. Both are like 4-3 MLBs--sideline to sideline, just working in tandem. You NEED two decent MLB types to be the most effective in the 3-4. We've got two more than decent ones.

Similarly, on the outside, both guys do both. You need a rotation; We've got Kampman, who should be a solid every down OLB; We've got Popinga and Chillar who should be better on run downs and Thompson and Hunter who seem like they could break out as excellent pass rushers.

I say we have damn good 3-4 LB personnel.

[Rastak]

Hawk looked bad last year at WLB and MLB. He was good his first two years. He was injured last year. I'm guessing he rebounds.

I agree it was likely due to injury. If the dude had a torn groin, who made the decision to play the guy? He's the guy I'd be pissed at. Sanders? McCarthy? The medical staff?

[mission]

Hawk looked bad last year at WLB and MLB. He was good his first two years. He was injured last year. I'm guessing he rebounds.

I agree it was likely due to injury. If the dude had a torn groin, who made the decision to play the guy? He's the guy I'd be pissed at. Sanders? McCarthy? The medical staff?

Judging by what I know of Hawk, he was probably the guy who made the decision.

[Lurker64]

I agree it was likely due to injury. If the dude had a torn groin, who made the decision to play the guy? He's the guy I'd be pissed at. Sanders? McCarthy? The medical staff?

Well, putting aside the fact that A.J. is an intense guy who would probably try to get the coach to let him play after getting both of his arms ripped off, promising that he'll just tackle with his head... I would have to say that there's definitely a case to be made for: if we gauge effectiveness on a 1-10 scale, and you have a healthy guy who would be about a 3 and an injured guy who, despite his injury, would be about a 5, you start the guy who's hurt if you're trying to win games.

I mean, Barnett with his hand in the cast wasn't as effective as he was without it, but he was still more effective than Hodge.

My guess is that Hawk was playing at Mike, despite his injury, just because the defensive staff just wasn't comfortable with Chillar, Bishop, or Lansanah there full time. Even with a hurt groin that slows him significantly, Hawk has better decisiveness than Chillar, better awareness than Bishop, and more experience than Lansanah.

[Lurker64]

You play a "mike" and a "will" inside, and that just means one guy gets a little more gap-filling action and the other guy is a little more free to rove. But the bottom line is both do both. Both are like 4-3 MLBs--sideline to sideline, just working in tandem. You NEED two decent MLB types to be the most effective in the 3-4. We've got two more than decent ones.

I'm also not sure that, since the 3-4 scheme capitalizes a lot on the offense's inability to predict what the defense is going to do on any play, that if the ILB spots are essentially "gap thumper" and "rover" that Hawk will always be one and Barnett will always be the other. Certainly it helps the defense confuse offensive blocking schemes if the offense doesn't know at the snap which role which guy is going to have.

I think that both Barnett and Hawk can play both ILB roles in this defense, which is the reason of all positions to be concerned about for the 3-4 switch, ILB is probably the least worrying. The only thing I'm concerned about is whether Barnett's knee can heal fully for him to be able to pick up the scheme and be 100% on Week 1.

[mission]

"gap thumper"

That sounds like a PERFECT role for AJ ... I'm excited to see how it plays off this year. Barnett seems like a good fit for a "rove" type position also...

[SnakeLH2006]

Interesting move. IMO both guys are better runaround players than run stuffers.

Bishop may better equipped to fill the run stuffer position.

Article again reiterates Hawk's lack of creating turnovers in 08.

Yes and yes. Hopefully Bishop gets a shot at one of the two ILB spots as I think he has a shot to do something good. Hawk was injured and hope a scheme change can ignite something positive, turning him from a guy, to a guy who makes some big plays. This could work out well.

[wist43]

You play a "mike" and a "will" inside, and that just means one guy gets a little more gap-filling action and the other guy is a little more free to rove. But the bottom line is both do both. Both are like 4-3 MLBs--sideline to sideline, just working in tandem. You NEED two decent MLB types to be the most effective in the 3-4. We've got two more than decent ones.

I'm also not sure that, since the 3-4 scheme capitalizes a lot on the offense's inability to predict what the defense is going to do on any play, that if the ILB spots are essentially "gap thumper" and "rover" that Hawk will always be one and Barnett will always be the other. Certainly it helps the defense confuse offensive blocking schemes if the offense doesn't know at the snap which role which guy is going to have.

I think that both Barnett and Hawk can play both ILB roles in this defense, which is the reason of all positions to be concerned about for the 3-4 switch, ILB is probably the least worrying. The only thing I'm concerned about is whether Barnett's knee can heal fully for him to be able to pick up the scheme and be 100% on Week 1.

Hawk can play on the inside, but I certainly wouldn't draft him as the #5 player in the draft to be a 2 down LB in a 3-4; can't see Barnett functioning at all in a 3-4.

The silver lining to the Packers tepid attempt at transitioning to a 3-4, is that they are talking "hybrid"... e.g. after it is shown that they can't play a 3-4 with the personnel they currently have, they'll probably be almost exclusively back to a 4-3 by the 4th game

[Pugger]

Elephant? Shouldn't that be a position manned by guys like Grady Jackson?

[Guiness]

Hawk can play on the inside, but I certainly wouldn't draft him as the #5 player in the draft to be a 2 down LB in a 3-4; can't see Barnett functioning at all in a 3-4.

I was wondering about something similar - what does a nickel D look like in the 3-4? Do they generally go with a 3-3-5 alignment? What backer gets dropped, one of the ILB's?

[Waldo]

Hawk can play on the inside, but I certainly wouldn't draft him as the #5 player in the draft to be a 2 down LB in a 3-4; can't see Barnett functioning at all in a 3-4.

I was wondering about something similar - what does a nickel D look like in the 3-4? Do they generally go with a 3-3-5 alignment? What backer gets dropped, one of the ILB's?

They usually go to a 2-4-5 alignment that is essentially the same thing as a 4-2-5 alignment (especially since the OLB's put their hand in the dirt a good % of the time). Remember the OLB's are pretty much 4-3 pass rush DE's. Pickett comes off in nickel.

[Lurker64]

Hawk can play on the inside, but I certainly wouldn't draft him as the #5 player in the draft to be a 2 down LB in a 3-4; can't see Barnett functioning at all in a 3-4.

Umm... all four LBs stay on the field in the nickel for the 3-4, it's the nose tackle that comes off (since it's not a running down.) Also, what makes you think Barnett can't function inside (other than that characteristic pessimism we've come to love you for)? He's no smaller, less instinctive, less aggressive, or less physical than who Pittsburgh has playing inside. Not only that, but he's going to be playing a position very much like the position he's currently playing.

[texaspackerbacker]

Hawk can play on the inside, but I certainly wouldn't draft him as the #5 player in the draft to be a 2 down LB in a 3-4; can't see Barnett functioning at all in a 3-4.

I was wondering about something similar - what does a nickel D look like in the 3-4? Do they generally go with a 3-3-5 alignment? What backer gets dropped, one of the ILB's?

Pittsburgh went with a lot of 2-4-5. Here too, you've got a lot of flexibility, and the Packers have excellent personnel to play it a lot of different ways--contrary to the chronic negativity you read from some posters.

[Guiness]

I was wondering about something similar - what does a nickel D look like in the 3-4? Do they generally go with a 3-3-5 alignment? What backer gets dropped, one of the ILB's?

They usually go to a 2-4-5 alignment that is essentially the same thing as a 4-2-5 alignment (especially since the OLB's put their hand in the dirt a good % of the time). Remember the OLB's are pretty much 4-3 pass rush DE's. Pickett comes off in nickel.

Ok, I get the idea; NT comes off in favor of another DB, but one (or both) the OLB's can move up to the line and play a sort of DE position, coming out of a 3pt stance. Obviously Kampman would be particularly suited for that.

The guys who are normally at the DE positions would effectively end up in a DT alignment, which is fine because Jenkins and Jolly have both played DT - and Jenkins in particular has a good inside rush.

I wonder if another, non-nickel, variation might result from this sort of an idea. Ever heard of the Oklahoma defense, a '5-4'? A nose, and two tackles on the line, and two ends (hybrid guys, our OLB's) on or just off the line.

[wist43]

True enough fella's... of course there should be 4 LB's on the field in most 3-4 nickel packages, I guess I'm just used to viewing the Packers LB's as so completely useless, that I instinctively replace them every chance I get.

As of now, they don't have the players to play a 3-4... everybody is extrapolating this player here, and that player there; but in every instance you have to go into a dream state to see those guys excelling in the new scheme.

These guys were scouted and drafted to play in that passive POS 4-3 scheme run by Bates and Sanders, and none of them were really worth a damn in that scheme. Simply put, the Packers have very little talent in the front 7, and what talent there is, is 4-3 talent.

Barring a massive infusion of talent in the front 7, I think the Packers will revert back to what they do (best) below average, and that is play a 4-3 most of the time... if the choice is disaster with miscast personnel trying to play a 3-4; or, below average results but not getting gashed every snap... expect a lot more 4-3, than 3-4.

Of course, if TT actually acknowledges reality, and swings for the fences in the draft and in FA at 3-4 personnel, maybe the outlook improves... but, I wouldn't hold my breath on betting that TT will do much to bring in a lot of personnel suited to the 3-4.

Just not feeling warm and fuzzy about how TT is going about this... the indecisive DC search, in which it was rumored that the Packers got stiffed armed, TT's statements about moving players and thinking they'll be fine in new roles, his penchant for ignoring needs at the top end of the draft...

Which would suprise you more??? If TT -

1) traded up and drafted Raji

or

2) traded down and took an offensive player

Of course we can all easily envision scenario #2... scenario #1 is a pipe dream.

Then again, Hawk and Barnett are both stud pass rushers, so no worries