Linebackers: Will Hawk Be A Two Down Player?

[bobblehead]

And only Bretsky and Skin note we haven't played a down of real football yet.

Hell, we haven't played a down of fake football yet.

I'm a little confused as to how Hawk has somehow become a punching bag over the off season. I don't remember anywhere near this level of criticism at the end of the season. You know, the season where he played injured the entire year and was filling a position he was unfamiliar with for a third of it? The same season we lost our starting DE in front of him and had a revolving door at safety behind him.

But whatever. Bishop must be a superior player because he hits people hard in preseason and TC, then generally looks like his brain's been addled when called upon in the regular season. And Chillar has proven what a reliable player he is every time he steps on the field and makes it look like he's taken coverage lessons from Bigby and plays like he walks at 150 pounds.

Gosh I wonder if the same guys drooling about Bishop were drooling about Jeremy Thompson before the pads came on. Now Thompson doesn't seem to be standing out anymore with pads.

Bishop is good at a couple things but IMO he's not a guy you can count on beaude he's not a complete player and it'd be easy to expose his weaknesses. Remember how teams exposed Brady Poppinga in coverage ? Scary what they'd game plan for Bishop.

Overally I'm luck warm and Bishop and like Chillar as a player more.

If we had three strong LB's Chillar would probably be alright; but I still don't buy the notion that he's better than Hawk.

I'm not convinced he is better than hawk either, but I was convinced that he was playing better than hawk last year. Like TT said, the team might have the talent to be better than 6-10, but they weren't better than 6-10 or they would have had a better record than 6-10. Almost yogi like.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm not convinced he is better than hawk either, but I was convinced that he was playing better than hawk last year. Like TT said, the team might have the talent to be better than 6-10, but they weren't better than 6-10 or they would have had a better record than 6-10. Almost yogi like.

1) I agree.
2) He wasn't better than Hawk was in 2006-2007.
3) Hawk had two significant injuries that he dealt with last year, and he didn't look like the same player.
4) He looks healthy this year. With that, I predict he'll be a solid starter in 2009.

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/52727432.html

Depending on how healthy Barnett proves to be after ACL surgery, the Packers could use Hawk (Buck) and Barnett (Mack) on the first two downs, and then replace them with Bishop and Chillar in passing situations or some similar combination.

On their run to a Super Bowl title last season, the Pittsburgh Steelers played veteran run-stuffer Larry Foote on the first two downs and then replaced him with athletic playmaker Lawrence Timmons in subpackages.

Capers brought the multiple 3-4 scheme to Pittsburgh in 1992. And it's no secret the Packers are using the current version of the Steelers' defense as a model.

But Moss said Hawk could be considered an every-down linebacker now that he is over the nagging injuries that derailed him last year.

"He's back healthy again and you can see where we worked on and emphasized his pad level and his hands inside," Moss said. "He's attacked that full-speed and improved on that.

"We're going to get him to pull the trigger and fire and take shots. Hawk wants to be right (in his assignment) all the time. We're going to get him focused on being a little bit more reckless like he did that rookie year when he was extremely productive. We're going to go back to him just going in there and making some things happen."

[SnakeLH2006]

Re: Linebackers: Will Hawk Be A Two Down Player?

Pete Dougherty has Chillar pushing AJ Hawk for a starting gig and in line to take reps from him in nickel and other sub packages.

What is Pete Dougherty smoking?

[SkinBasket]

Just cut Hawk now. He obviously blows. Maybe we can sign Vick to take his spot and run the wildcat defense.

and You call Me a "TROLL" ?

I've never called you a troll, just a coward. I don't mind the discussion you bring, but you run away every time your team takes a dive. So we don't see you much.

[woodbuck27]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

Nice post. Packerrats is more than just informative.

I just read another 'in depth' almost live analysis of LBer plays by Waldo and I could actually see that play. I'm intrigued as to how Waldo re-calls the details of a certain play in terms of his seeing it as a coach would and re-call to say inform or teach.

Reporters are more into the intrigue or direction of matters. They become political.

[Scott Campbell]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

Nice post. Packerrats is more than just informative.

I just read another 'in depth' almost live analysis of LBer plays by Waldo and I could actually see that play. I'm intrigued as to how Waldo re-calls the details of a certain play in terms of his seeing it as a coach would and re-call to say inform or teach.

Reporters are more into the intrigue or direction of matters. They become political.

Contrived controversy can keep people interested, even if they're just pissed off.

[woodbuck27]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

Nice post. Packerrats is more than just informative.

I just read another 'in depth' almost live analysis of LBer plays by Waldo and I could actually see that play. I'm intrigued as to how Waldo re-calls the details of a certain play in terms of his seeing it as a coach would and re-call to say inform or teach.

Reporters are more into the intrigue or direction of matters. They become political.

Contrived controversy can keep people interested, even if they're just pissed off.

You'd have to elaborate more on the meaning of that post Scott. It's a tad deep.

[pbmax]

Just cut Hawk now. He obviously blows. Maybe we can sign Vick to take his spot and run the wildcat defense.

and You call Me a "TROLL" ?

No BEARMAN, we are not giving you another Hunter Hillenmeyer. Go find you own players!

[pbmax]

I'm not convinced he is better than hawk either, but I was convinced that he was playing better than hawk last year. Like TT said, the team might have the talent to be better than 6-10, but they weren't better than 6-10 or they would have had a better record than 6-10. Almost yogi like.

1) I agree.
2) He wasn't better than Hawk was in 2006-2007.
3) Hawk had two significant injuries that he dealt with last year, and he didn't look like the same player.
4) He looks healthy this year. With that, I predict he'll be a solid starter in 2009.

We also can't be sure that he wasn't miscast as a MLB in a 4-3. There was an assumption that Hawk should replace Barnett at MLB due to his better size, but that might not be his natural position.

And after all the talk about a 3-4 transition, would it surprise anyone that it takes a year for a heady player to feel comfortable in the scheme?

The comments from Moss above at least confirm that some of what people have seen at practice is being discussed by the people that matter. But even if Bishop continues to excel, that will only help the worst part of the team last year: Run defense (unless it was second worst to punting).

[MichiganPackerFan]

Brian Brohm was throwing it. I wonder who the receiver was.

Curious: if Brohm hit the receiver, does that mean the receiver ran the wrong route? Do they both get their asses chewed?

[bobblehead]

I'm not convinced he is better than hawk either, but I was convinced that he was playing better than hawk last year. Like TT said, the team might have the talent to be better than 6-10, but they weren't better than 6-10 or they would have had a better record than 6-10. Almost yogi like.

1) I agree.
2) He wasn't better than Hawk was in 2006-2007.
3) Hawk had two significant injuries that he dealt with last year, and he didn't look like the same player.
4) He looks healthy this year. With that, I predict he'll be a solid starter in 2009.

2) Never said he was....this all started cuz I criticized MM for not sticking to his guns and playing the best player. When Hawk was hurt Chillar was far outperforming him on the field yet chilar was on the bench until barnett went down for the season....and they still tried Bishop first. This addresses 3 and 4 as well. You have to go back to the Leroy Butler said thread to see how this all started.

[Patler]

I'm not convinced he is better than hawk either, but I was convinced that he was playing better than hawk last year. Like TT said, the team might have the talent to be better than 6-10, but they weren't better than 6-10 or they would have had a better record than 6-10. Almost yogi like.

1) I agree.
2) He wasn't better than Hawk was in 2006-2007.
3) Hawk had two significant injuries that he dealt with last year, and he didn't look like the same player.
4) He looks healthy this year. With that, I predict he'll be a solid starter in 2009.

2) Never said he was....this all started cuz I criticized MM for not sticking to his guns and playing the best player. When Hawk was hurt Chillar was far outperforming him on the field yet chilar was on the bench until barnett went down for the season....and they still tried Bishop first. This addresses 3 and 4 as well. You have to go back to the Leroy Butler said thread to see how this all started.

You are forgetting that Chiller, too, was hurt for a while. He was nursing some injuries that they did not widely discuss until they finally kept him out a week, and again a few weeks later. Essentially they were trying to protect him a little and use him only when he could be most effective.

[Waldo]

Reading this thread leads me to believe that the reporters covering the team are a lot more like me than they are like Waldo or Patler or KY or PB or many of the others who frequently comment here.

I'm a fan. I watch and see Bishop blow up a play, or Chillar crush a QB on a blitz or cover someone tight, I think, "Man, that guy is great! He should be starting!" When I see Hawk or Poppinga taking on a blocker and getting tangled up, or when I see Barnett dragging someone down, I think, "Man, that guy sucks. Get him out of there!"

However, that reaction indicates that I am a fan. I don't have the level of expertise to know what each player's real job is (though I am learning thanks to some fine posters on this site). But I'm okay with that. I'm a fan. I can cheer Rogers wildly on one play and then scream that he should be benched on the next play.

I expect more from reporters, though. I expect them to have enough knowledge of the game to know what is required of players at various positions. Instead, they write like mere fans.

And I have to come to Packerrats to get a better understanding of what's really going on in camp.

Nice post. Packerrats is more than just informative.

I just read another 'in depth' almost live analysis of LBer plays by Waldo and I could actually see that play. I'm intrigued as to how Waldo re-calls the details of a certain play in terms of his seeing it as a coach would and re-call to say inform or teach.

Reporters are more into the intrigue or direction of matters. They become political.

Tivo, and its smooth slow mo. After watching lots and lots of stuff at slow mo, it started to translate to seeing things at full speed that I never would have seen before, I started to know what to look for when assigning blame or praising good play.

[Fritz]

But the point is that you take the time to watch stuff over and over in super slo-mo. Me, I just see it once live, and start screaming.