Practice 4 - live update thread

[ThunderDan]

[quote="rbaloha"][quote="Lurker64"]

The majority of the problems with Bishop's game are mental, and that's always correctable (but not necessarily easily correctable).

Dude went to Berkley -- easily correctable with more playing time with the 1st team.

As I mentioned should have trade Kampman last season prior to training camp.

Hawk is due big roster bonus next season -- trade him now while there is value.

How can Hawk have value? He does have a huge roster bonus due next year so any team that trades for him knows it is 1 year deal. Who would be willing to give up something of value for that?

[rbaloha1]

[quote="ThunderDan"][quote="rbaloha"]

The majority of the problems with Bishop's game are mental, and that's always correctable (but not necessarily easily correctable).

Dude went to Berkley -- easily correctable with more playing time with the 1st team.

As I mentioned should have trade Kampman last season prior to training camp.

Hawk is due big roster bonus next season -- trade him now while there is value.

How can Hawk have value? He does have a huge roster bonus due next year so any team that trades for him knows it is 1 year deal. Who would be willing to give up something of value for that?

Obviously the trade would have to include a revised deal. Hawk fits into a scheme that allows him to run free without taking on blockers on the weak side (like the old Jimmy Johnson Cowboy scheme).

Last season maybe the Packers could have a received a second or third for Kampman. Hawk may fetch a third or maybe higher.

[gbpackfan]

Dude went to Berkley -- easily correctable with more playing time with the 1st team.

There's a big, big difference between football intelligence and intelligence in the ordinary sense. I mean, I have a graduate degree in pure mathematics, but I can't read run/pass cues to save my life.

I didn't say Bishop was stupid, I just said he doesn't read plays very well, which is something you can see by watching him play.

I agree. Nick Collins is borderline retarded but the guy can play the hell out of the free safety position.

And if you think Im being harsh, listen to an interview with him. He's flat out country dumb. But yet rich. So I dont think he gives a f*@k!

[Lurker64]

Obviously the trade would have to include a revised deal. Hawk fits into a scheme that allows him to run free without taking on blockers on the weak side (like the old Jimmy Johnson Cowboy scheme).

Last season maybe the Packers could have a received a second or third for Kampman. Hawk may fetch a third or maybe higher.

If Hawk is willing to rework his contract if traded to another team, he would presumably be willing to rework his contract with the Packers, after all I get the impression that he likes Green Bay and the Packers organization.

So really what you're saying is that a third round pick would add more to the Packers going forward, which is kind of silly. With how Hawk has played, if he was a third round pick instead of a top 10 pick, people would say he was the steal of that draft.

I don't get why everybody thinks Hawk is so terrible because he doesn't make plays. He plays in a defense that is designed so that if everybody on defense executes their assignment and doesn't lose one-on-one battles, the defense wins the play. Not only that, but the defense was pretty good last year. But since he's a high pick and he's just a guy who does his job reasonably well, and he's not sacking the QB every three minutes, that he's somehow execrable.

[rbaloha1]

Obviously the trade would have to include a revised deal. Hawk fits into a scheme that allows him to run free without taking on blockers on the weak side (like the old Jimmy Johnson Cowboy scheme).

Last season maybe the Packers could have a received a second or third for Kampman. Hawk may fetch a third or maybe higher.

If Hawk is willing to rework his contract if traded to another team, he would presumably be willing to rework his contract with the Packers, after all I get the impression that he likes Green Bay and the Packers organization.

So really what you're saying is that a third round pick would add more to the Packers going forward, which is kind of silly. With how Hawk has played, if he was a third round pick instead of a top 10 pick, people would say he was the steal of that draft.

I don't get why everybody thinks Hawk is so terrible because he doesn't make plays. He plays in a defense that is designed so that if everybody on defense executes their assignment and doesn't lose one-on-one battles, the defense wins the play. Not only that, but the defense was pretty good last year. But since he's a high pick and he's just a guy who does his job reasonably well, and he's not sacking the QB every three minutes, that he's somehow execrable.

The point is Hawk could become a backup. Before this happens -- trade him. Maybe someone gives up a higher pick. A third is conservative. Hawk has the stats apologists love. The Hawk apologists are becoming comical again.

Where does anyone say Hawk is terrible? The dude does not cause enough big plays as opposed to others.

If everyone just played their assignments turnovers would be rare. A high positive turnover margin generally correlates to winning. If an NFL team is a plus 2 during a game winning is greatly enhanced.

Who cares about lb sacks. What about tfl, forced fumbles, interceptions and game changing hits. Where is Hawk -- padding tackle stats.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hawk is a good player. The combination of him on run downs and Chillar on passing downs is a good one. Bishop hasn't done much, and he has gotten chances. I remember him getting burned on the first play he was in the game vs. the Vikings a couple of years ago. His problem is that he's slow. Hawk hasn't been as fast as he timed, but Barnett makes him look fast. Really, they are very similar players (sure tacklers), but Hawk misses few assignments, and you can't say that about Bishop when he's gotten a chance. Plus, Hawk is a bit more athletic. Bishop is more of a thumper who gets beat more often because of his recognition and foot speed. He's to ILB what Bigby is to safety.

[Packman_26]

It seems that people simply want to trade Hawk just for the sake of trading him. You could argue that his career has been a disappointment so far based on his draft position but that should not matter at this point. The only thing that does is if he is one the best 53 on the team.
What would trading him accomplish? He would garner a mid-round selection at best but he clearly gives him more value the an unknown 3rd or 4th round pick. Especially, when you consider this is a team many consider to be poised to make a run. Trading away a levelheaded starter (or at the very least your quality depth) is something a team with Super Bowl aspirations shouldn't do.

[Tony Oday]

I like Hawk. He is Packer People and a solid starter.

[Lurker64]

To be honest, I think the Packers would be better off trading Bishop than trading Hawk. Bishop is a player who's chomping at the bit for playing time, looks great before the season starts, and has a tiny contract. We could get a pretty decent backup/developmental player for him.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Thank you again for these updates. As I said during the first one where Lori Nichol Nickel was talking security asking her to close her umbrella, I get more from your observations than from the press corps.

I have another favor to ask you. Could you write up your impressions of each unit at a time?

For example on the O-line, with Lang missing a lot of the spring work seemed rusty and got beaten early but after a couple of days was getting back into form. Is that your impression?

It also sounds like Deitrich-Smith and Giacomini are doing well and impressing while Barbre is not.

And if those offensive guys are impressing it seems that Harrell is not and Neal is still a bit raw.

Could you go through how some of these positions and battles and sum up your observations please?

[Fritz]

Did either of you - any of you - see Harrell drop out of practice, and if so, did he seem to be stretching his back inordinately or was he just beat from the humidity? Or both?

[hoosier]

Did either of you - any of you - see Harrell drop out of practice, and if so, did he seem to be stretching his back inordinately or was he just beat from the humidity? Or both?

I read somewhere that he was seen panting and gasping for air, after which he took a second look at his lunch. Apparently the three years on IR has not been enough time to get his conditioning to where it needs to be. But give him a few weeks and everything will be fine.

[gbpackfan]

Thank you again for these updates. As I said during the first one where Lori Nichol Nickel was talking security asking her to close her umbrella, I get more from your observations than from the press corps.

I have another favor to ask you. Could you write up your impressions of each unit at a time?

For example on the O-line, with Lang missing a lot of the spring work seemed rusty and got beaten early but after a couple of days was getting back into form. Is that your impression?

It also sounds like Deitrich-Smith and Giacomini are doing well and impressing while Barbre is not.

And if those offensive guys are impressing it seems that Harrell is not and Neal is still a bit raw.

Could you go through how some of these positions and battles and sum up your observations please?

No problem. But it may take a day or two. Gotta go to work here soon.

[vince]

Thanks gb for all the practice updates. I too look forward to your follow-up summary when you have a chance...