Chewy

[ThunderDan]

I didn't say tackles are the only way to evaluate LBs, but it is the easiest and a 15 second search at NFL.com will get you the information.

But, saying there are other ways to judge LBs and then not mention one is silly.

Hawk is playing fine. Is he playing like we want a top 5 pick to play? No, but that years draft has turned out to be pretty weak.

Mmm. And a 15 second analysis gets you...well, that falls into the 'get what you pay for' category.

Who was that LB we picked up as an FA a couple years ago? Played for Cleveland, I think. I honestly can't remember his name - but he led his team in tackles the year before, and the thinking was when he was surrounded with some other good talent, he'd be a great player. Turned out to be JAG, gone after one mediocre year.

Well considering I'm only comparing the Packers and not comparing a Brown to a Packer there is some validity to the comparision.

[ThunderDan]

I didn't say tackles are the only way to evaluate LBs, but it is the easiest and a 15 second search at NFL.com will get you the information.

But, saying there are other ways to judge LBs and then not mention one is silly.

Hawk is playing fine. Is he playing like we want a top 5 pick to play? No, but that years draft has turned out to be pretty weak.

Mmm. And a 15 second analysis gets you...well, that falls into the 'get what you pay for' category.

Who was that LB we picked up as an FA a couple years ago? Played for Cleveland, I think. I honestly can't remember his name - but he led his team in tackles the year before, and the thinking was when he was surrounded with some other good talent, he'd be a great player. Turned out to be JAG, gone after one mediocre year.

At least it takes 15 seconds to look up Hawk's tackles verses 3 seconds to say he is underperforming this year.\

Same as saying Al Harris sucks or ARod or put in any Packer player other than Barbre.

[Deputy Nutz]

I didn't say tackles are the only way to evaluate LBs, but it is the easiest and a 15 second search at NFL.com will get you the information.

But, saying there are other ways to judge LBs and then not mention one is silly.

Hawk is playing fine. Is he playing like we want a top 5 pick to play? No, but that years draft has turned out to be pretty weak.

Mmm. And a 15 second analysis gets you...well, that falls into the 'get what you pay for' category.

Who was that LB we picked up as an FA a couple years ago? Played for Cleveland, I think. I honestly can't remember his name - but he led his team in tackles the year before, and the thinking was when he was surrounded with some other good talent, he'd be a great player. Turned out to be JAG, gone after one mediocre year.

His name was Ben Taylor and I can't believe he led the Browns in tackles.

[ThunderDan]

I didn't say tackles are the only way to evaluate LBs, but it is the easiest and a 15 second search at NFL.com will get you the information.

But, saying there are other ways to judge LBs and then not mention one is silly.

Hawk is playing fine. Is he playing like we want a top 5 pick to play? No, but that years draft has turned out to be pretty weak.

Mmm. And a 15 second analysis gets you...well, that falls into the 'get what you pay for' category.

Who was that LB we picked up as an FA a couple years ago? Played for Cleveland, I think. I honestly can't remember his name - but he led his team in tackles the year before, and the thinking was when he was surrounded with some other good talent, he'd be a great player. Turned out to be JAG, gone after one mediocre year.

His name was Ben Taylor and I can't believe he led the Browns in tackles.

Andra Davis led the Browns in tackles that year with 149 tackles and 2 sacks. Ben Taylor 113 tackles and 0 sacks.

[Deputy Nutz]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.

And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

I agree with Partial. I'm not a football guru and I don't know what other way to grade linebackers other than their tackles but apparently no one else does either.

To me it seems that even though Hawk is 2nd in tackles, he hasn't really made an impact much at all on our defense, and especially for being a top 5 pick.

Well I think tackles is an important statistic to levy a players production. I am not saying it is the only statistic, and if you wanted to really get complicated you could watch every game this year and break down a players tackle in comparison to the line of scrimmage.

Pass Coverage, zone responsibility.

A couple of things that I watch on the defense is the linebackers and in all the front seven. I love dvr it lets me watch a play several times in a row and I can see why a certain play was made, or why the play failed. I can tell you this nobody in the linebacking core has a leg to stand on in terms of playing solid football, making minimal mistakes both physically and mentally. It is not a very strong unit at this point. I will also mention that the defensive line is not eating up blocks and not making it difficult for offensive linemen getting to the second level and getting their hands on the linebackers, outside and inside.

[bobblehead]

And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

Well that narrows it down considerably. Thanks for the clarification.

Technically, it broadens your narrow vantage point.

oops

I concede this argument to Partial. Obviously he beat me if he uses 10 Emoticons after his point. If only I had done that first I would have won the argument.

No, cux ty would have responded with "game, set, match"

[rbaloha1]

Agree with Chewy and Butler's assessments. Requiring Kampy to drop into coverage is ridiculous. Scheme sweme. Rush your dominant pass rusher on almost every down.

Where are the Hawk apologists? Although Hawk is probably the most consistent performer its still not at the level associated with a first rounder. Recall some of the posters saying it was Vanilla Bob's fault for Hawk's performance. What about now?

AJ Hawk is second on the team in tackles behind Chillar with 3 less tackles. Pretty good for a guy who plays 25% less than Chillar.

No wonder why we are in trouble. Our sucky LB is second in the team in tackling.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but looking at tackles for an LB is not a reasonable argument in my opinion.

And what would be reasonable?

Not exclusively looking at tackles.

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

[pack4to84]

took picture of my shirt and uploaded it.

[MJZiggy]

Did it need to be life size?

[ThunderDan]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

Can you give us statistics for the Packers to see how the team ranks in impact plays please??

[sharpe1027]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

I am struggling to name a scheme isn't designed for lbs to make tackles...prevent defense maybe?

[rbaloha1]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

Can you give us statistics for the Packers to see how the team ranks in impact plays please??

No stats. My guess would be the packers would be ranked low.

[sharpe1027]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

Can you give us statistics for the Packers to see how the team ranks in impact plays please??

With less games than many teams:

Sacks = 30th
Interceptions = 3rd
Fumbles = 20th
3rd down percentage = 28th
4th down percentage = 6th
Yards/game = 18th
pts/game = 21

[ThunderDan]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

Can you give us statistics for the Packers to see how the team ranks in impact plays please??

No stats. My guess would be the packers would be ranked low.

So you are basing your opinion that Hawk is not playing well on a "guess". At least with tackles, that's what LBs do, we have some sort of quantitative way of measuring performance. An easy measure to look up, that paints a very broad stroke of what is happening and misses some of the finer detail.

I am not saying that you are wrong. But it sure would be nice to get a list of impact plays for the Packers and see where everyone ranks.

[ThunderDan]

Agreed. The scheme is designed for lbs to make the tackles. Impact plays imo are a better barometer.

Can you give us statistics for the Packers to see how the team ranks in impact plays please??

With less games than many teams:

Sacks = 30th
Interceptions = 3rd
Fumbles = 20th
3rd down percentage = 28th
4th down percentage = 6th
Yards/game = 18th
pts/game = 21

Thanks Sharpe, at least that gets to a starting point.