Any Noise about a Potential Hawk Trade?

[MadtownPacker]

Personally, if Bishop and Chillar's play forced the Packers to move someone, I'd prefer to keep Hawk and move Barnett.

I agree with the only thing Grandfather Shadow can remember since yesterday. Barnett should go instead of Hawk. He really has only has one great season. He has talked a much better game than he has played. I kinda see him as the replacement to darren sharper in the aspect.

[The Shadow]

Personally, if Bishop and Chillar's play forced the Packers to move someone, I'd prefer to keep Hawk and move Barnett.

I agree with the only thing Grandfather Shadow can remember since yesterday. Barnett should go instead of Hawk. He really has only has one great season. He has talked a much better game than he has played. I kinda see him as the replacement to darren sharper in the aspect.

You agree with me????
I'd better go back and review what I wrote....oops...now I can't quite seem to remember. Was it today or last week?

[Scott Campbell]

I love how Waldo posts from different posts about how he's smarter than someone else.

He's one of the best posters on this forum.

[Lurker64]

Personally, if Bishop and Chillar's play forced the Packers to move someone, I'd prefer to keep Hawk and move Barnett.

Really, having 4 good ILBs in a 3-4 defense isn't a serious problem, particularly if they're good at different things. You rotate in different guys in different packages to keep everybody fresh and to play to each player's strength. Pittsburgh has been doing it for years. The only issue is "paying to keep your >2 good ILBs", which is not one we'll face yet.

Having 5 good ILBs is probably too much though.

[pbmax]

Fritz, also don't discount that when they blast the organization, they are being sensational as they know the article will generate a lot of clicks and generate reader comments.

There is something to be said for taking a shot at someone or something that is big enough to shove back, and the NFL and its teams qualify in that regard. Any dolt can write a convincing article ripping the little guy, piling on with emotion and denunciations.

But having said that, it would help to be right much more often than they are. Most reporters would be better off sticking to reporting nothing but facts, but the 24 new cycle, internet and demand for immediate analysis make this difficult, unless you have McGinn's stature and can negotiate a contract that doesn't call on you to blog or write the notes column every day, or even cover the team for much of the offseason. Silverstein has the job I wouldn't want.

But the coverage of Favre was not simply the fault of the media. Even good posters on this board could not bring themselves to apportion his share of blame when he erred. It was too easy to point to other positions and say the game was lost there. Fans, the consumers of the sports coverage, did not want Favre raked over the coals while it was still an open question how good the team around him was. It was far easier to rip Thompson, the defense, the RBs or O Line. Both the JS and Wisconsin State Journal were ripped for being pro-Packer org when their readers wanted them to be pro Favre. McGinn and Wilde took a lot of heat for giving equal weight to the Packers side of the story.

The consumers of this coverage are human, and to one degree or another, we all loved what Favre did for 16 years. And no one was eager to acknowledge his shortcomings and were even more reluctant to argue that we should pay more attention to them.

[pbmax]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

[Waldo]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

Havner has played it too.

But yeah, I think that chances are high that one of Chillar or Bishop either gets the axe or is traded.

[Partial]

I love how Waldo posts from different posts about how he's smarter than someone else.

He's one of the best posters on this forum.

If you like hearing how smart he thinks he is.

[Partial]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

Havner has played it too.

But yeah, I think that chances are high that one of Chillar or Bishop either gets the axe or is traded.

100 bucks? You're crazy bro. No way.

[Lurker64]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

Havner has played it too.

But yeah, I think that chances are high that one of Chillar or Bishop either gets the axe or is traded.

100 bucks? You're crazy bro. No way.

Gets cut? Probably not, but if you have three guys playing one position and they're all good, wouldn't you want to see what you could get from somebody else in a trade?

[rbaloha1]

If Chillar, Bishop and Barnett are all playing the Mack, who is backing up Hawk at Buck? Is it Lasagna only?

Could Lasagna make the team over a better LB due to position?

Havner has played it too.

But yeah, I think that chances are high that one of Chillar or Bishop either gets the axe or is traded.

Chillar or Bishop can not be cut. Hawk has much higher trade value but as you mentioned Hawk's salary cap number is high.

Hawk plays in the base and is replaced in nickel and dime packages. Chillar and Bishop have demonstrated better blitzing ability than Hawk.

[rbaloha1]

Personally, if Bishop and Chillar's play forced the Packers to move someone, I'd prefer to keep Hawk and move Barnett.

Really, having 4 good ILBs in a 3-4 defense isn't a serious problem, particularly if they're good at different things. You rotate in different guys in different packages to keep everybody fresh and to play to each player's strength. Pittsburgh has been doing it for years. The only issue is "paying to keep your >2 good ILBs", which is not one we'll face yet.

Having 5 good ILBs is probably too much though.

Never too many due to special teams. IMO some of the Packer ilbs may be also capable of playing olb.

[Lurker64]

Chillar or Bishop can not be cut. Hawk has much higher trade value but as you mentioned Hawk's salary cap number is high.

Hawk plays in the base and is replaced in nickel and dime packages. Chillar and Bishop have demonstrated better blitzing ability than Hawk.

Hawk plays the ILB position whose responsibility is to allow the other ILB (e.g. Bishop, Chillar, Barnett) to get home on blitzes and shoot gaps with impunity. The ILB positions are not interchangeable.

Hawk is the only player playing his position in base at a high level. We have two people (Chillar and Bishop) playing the other base ILB position at a high level, but neither of them have played Hawk's position in the base.

We have three players who seem pretty good at Mack (Barnett, Bishop, Chillar). We have one player who seems pretty good at Buck (Hawk). If we're going to release or trade somebody, we're going to get rid of one of our three good Macks. We're not going to get rid of our one good Buck.

[Waldo]

I dunno. I've been impressed with Lansanah. Granted I need to see tomorrow's broadcast to speak about his performance tonight, but the kid is like a fullback that plays defense. As far as ILB's go, he's gigantic.

Two teams to keep in mind as trading partners for any of our defensive players - KC and Denver.

Denver doesn't exactly have the best ILB situation.

[rbaloha1]

I dunno. I've been impressed with Lansanah. Granted I need to see tomorrow's broadcast to speak about his performance tonight, but the kid is like a fullback that plays defense. As far as ILB's go, he's gigantic.

Two teams to keep in mind as trading partners for any of our defensive players - KC and Denver.

Denver doesn't exactly have the best ILB situation.

Maybe a starting caliber free safety.