Giving Hawk his due

[Guiness]

Hawk played well. Still not at the level of Urlacher or Wills and most likely never will.

No need to resign after 2010.

What sort of (pad) level are we talking about here?

[rbaloha1]

The decision about whether to resign Hawk, how much to play him, and how much to pay him should have nothing to do with where he was drafted at this point. As underwhelming as Hawk has been from time to time he has been a consistently solid contributor and two good ILBs are needed to work in this scheme.

Plus, I mean, as much as we want to rag on the guy... he's still one of the 4-5 best players drafted among the top 16 that year in what was a very hyped, and ultimately very underwhelming draft.

Does Urlacher and Willis come off the field?

[Lurker64]

Does Urlacher and Willis come off the field?

That's totally irrelevant as to whether or not Hawk should be retained.

[Waldo]

read that. Hawk played a very solid game. The glorified safety got a game ball though.

Nice little jab at me.

He didn't play a single snap of run (base) defense, only playing in pass defense sets. I wonder why?

He's good at the task he is used for, coverage and blitzing.

[mraynrand]

read that. Hawk played a very solid game. The glorified safety got a game ball though.

I thought Urlacher was the glorified safety.

[Sparkey]

Hawk

2006
Led the Packers' defense with 121 total tackles, 84 of them solo. He also recorded 2 interceptions, 3.5 sacks, 6 passes defended and 1 forced fumble and 2 fumble recoveries. He was third place in voting for the Associated Press Defensive Rookie of the Year.

2007
Second on the team with 105 total tackles, 78 of them solo. He also had 1 interception, 1 sack, 4 passes defended and 1 forced fumble and 1 fumble recovery.

2008
86 Tackles, 67 solo and 3.0 sacks, and 1 pass defended.

If memory serves me correctly, Bates was the D-coordinator in 2006. The next two years, Mr. Boring Sanders ran the D. He fought through injuries in 2008 early on, then had to switch from WOLB to MLB when Barnett went down. (Remember, the Weakside backer in Bates 4-3 man defense is the main play maker and he moved to the middle in 2008)

In my opinion, AJ Hawk has been an outstanding linebacker for the Packers. He is assignment sure and has an incredible mix if skills. The new Capers defense is perfect for him as he can attack more instead of read and react. I feel that it was the Sanders defense that did not put him in siuations that allowed him to use his talents properly.

The Bears game, when Woodson missed the tackle on Hester, and Hawk actually caught up to him and forced him out of bounds... THAT was a great play! Yeah, yeah he had the angle, but lets not forget Hester is one of the faster WR's in the league.

[rbaloha1]

Does Urlacher and Willis come off the field?

That's totally irrelevant as to whether or not Hawk should be retained.

That is not the issue. The point is lbs drafted at Hawk's draft slot are SUPPOSED TO BE EVERY DOWN PLAYERS. Hawk is a solid player not playing at the same level as peers drafted at the same position.

Hawk is also not one of the top 5 Packers. Is he better than: Jenkins, Kampman, Harris, Woodson, Collins, Rodgers, Jennings, Driver?

[bobblehead]

read that. Hawk played a very solid game. The glorified safety got a game ball though.

Nice little jab at me.

He didn't play a single snap of run (base) defense, only playing in pass defense sets. I wonder why?

He's good at the task he is used for, coverage and blitzing.

Don't be so full of yourself, I was more tooting my own horn than jabbing at you. In your mind its about you, but in my mind its about me.

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

[bobblehead]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/splits?playerId=5655

BY DOWN TOT SOLO AST SACK STF STFY FF BK INT YDS AVG LNG TD PD
1st down 3 3 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd down 3 3 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd down 2 1 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
BY DOWN AND LENGTH TOT SOLO AST SACK STF STFY FF BK INT YDS AVG LNG TD PD
1st & 10 3 3 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & Long 1 0 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & Med. 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
BY DOWN AND DISTANCE TOT SOLO AST SACK STF STFY FF BK INT YDS AVG LNG TD PD
1st & 8-10 3 3 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
1st & 6+ 3 3 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd & 3-7 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd & 8-10 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd & 11+ 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd & <6 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2nd & 6+ 2 2 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & 3-7 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & 11+ 1 0 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & <6 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
3rd & 6+ 1 0 1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0


Not bad splits...seems like he played equally on all downs and distances. 3 tackles and a sack on first down. Led the team in tackles.

Your getting like a lot of posters around here who post things that fit their perception without checking the actual nasty little things known as facts.

Just man up now, admit chillar is the best LB on the team and save yourself 15 more weeks of this.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.

[Freak Out]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.

This is what I like about our new D so much....it puts the players we have in a position to be at their best....at least for the DL and LBs. I think Harris and Woodson are experienced/smart enough to read and react to just about any situation...not sure about the safeties.

[Waldo]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.

Chillar played 58 snaps, Hawk and Barnett each played 41 snaps.

Hawk and Barnett were the 3-4 LB's, Chillar and a rotation of Hawk and Barnett were the 2-4-5 LB's. Except for a couple of series that Chillar played 3-4 mack instead of Barnett. Hawk played every snap at 3-4 buck.

Hawk and Barnett are our best linebackers.

The best combination of run stopping, pass rushing, and pass coverage is Barnett, but he is not a physical linebacker. He can diagnose the best of our linebackers. By a mile.

The best combination of run stopping, pass rushing, and pass coverage, while being physical enough to tangle with the OL play after play, is Hawk. By a mile.

The best in coverage is Chillar. He is also the least physical LB on the team.

[Cheesehead Craig]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.

Chillar played 58 snaps, Hawk and Barnett each played 41 snaps.

Where did you find this info?

[Waldo]

What I read on JS online (and i haven't watched the game again yet) is that Hawk and Barnett were rotating while Chillar was staying in the game. That might not be accurate but it is what was reported.

I had read where Kampman played almost the entire game, Hawk and Chillar played similar number of snaps, and Barnett played a bit less than those two. You have to remember two things though:

1) Barnett was coming back from injury
2) The Packers were in nickel for 2/3 of their snaps. You won't likely see quite that high of nickel in future games. The Packers schemed against the Bears TEs.

I think it's debatable on which LB was the best in this game. Kampman provided pressure and run defense and wasn't exposed in coverage. Hawk was excellent against the run and wasn't exposed in coverage. Chillar rushed the QB, wasn't exposed in coverage, and only had a couple of plays (that I noticed) where he was exposed in run defense. I think it would be best to admit they all have their strengths, and it appears we have a defensive coordinator that can take advantage. Your argument misses on a crucial point -- the coaches don't think Chillar is good enough to start. I'm not saying that makes him any less valuable than the others, but it also shows that insinuating he is clearly the best LB is a bit much.

Chillar played 58 snaps, Hawk and Barnett each played 41 snaps.

Where did you find this info?

GBPG had a complete breakdown of snaps per player, blitzes and coverages, form of defense by snap, and other assorted stats, in 2 different articles, both by Pelissero I believe.

[Pugger]

Re: Hawk

2006
Led the Packers' defense with 121 total tackles, 84 of them solo. He also recorded 2 interceptions, 3.5 sacks, 6 passes defended and 1 forced fumble and 2 fumble recoveries. He was third place in voting for the Associated Press Defensive Rookie of the Year.

2007
Second on the team with 105 total tackles, 78 of them solo. He also had 1 interception, 1 sack, 4 passes defended and 1 forced fumble and 1 fumble recovery.

2008
86 Tackles, 67 solo and 3.0 sacks, and 1 pass defended.

If memory serves me correctly, Bates was the D-coordinator in 2006. The next two years, Mr. Boring Sanders ran the D. He fought through injuries in 2008 early on, then had to switch from WOLB to MLB when Barnett went down. (Remember, the Weakside backer in Bates 4-3 man defense is the main play maker and he moved to the middle in 2008)

In my opinion, AJ Hawk has been an outstanding linebacker for the Packers. He is assignment sure and has an incredible mix if skills. The new Capers defense is perfect for him as he can attack more instead of read and react. I feel that it was the Sanders defense that did not put him in siuations that allowed him to use his talents properly.

The Bears game, when Woodson missed the tackle on Hester, and Hawk actually caught up to him and forced him out of bounds... THAT was a great play! Yeah, yeah he had the angle, but lets not forget Hester is one of the faster WR's in the league.

This one play stood out for me too. Didn't that save a TD? He showed a nice burst of speed there. Hawk has been solid. That wasn't the most talent laden draft class in the history of the NFL. Instead of bashing Hawk cuz he don't play every stinkin snap why don't we celebrate the luxury we have = a great stable of LBers each possessing individual skills that Capers can utilize during our games?