Hawk gets praise .... wont be cut or restructured?

[ThunderDan]

McCarthy praises Hawk, lukewarm on Wynn

Per JSO:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/100372224.html

Looks like Hawk is having a strong start of camp.

[rbaloha1]

The demotion is working.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The demotion is working.

He wasn't demoted. He mostly played in base last year. The only difference is that it's been Bishop that's replaced him in nickel--instead of Chillar. Mainly because Chillar moved outside. Wouldn't surprise me if Hawk actually plays more nickel this year, if they like Chillar outside and Bishop doesn't do well in his chances here early in camp.

[Lurker64]

The demotion is working.

He wasn't demoted. He mostly played in base last year. The only difference is that it's been Bishop that's replaced him in nickel--instead of Chillar. Mainly because Chillar moved outside. Wouldn't surprise me if Hawk actually plays more nickel this year, if they like Chillar outside and Bishop doesn't do well in his chances here early in camp.

Bishop having locked down the nickel role is all but certain from what I've heard. Even the JSO is down on Bishop, as Bedard tweeted earlier this evening:

Lee easily beats Bishop for TD in team red zone. That's beginning to become a bit of a concern, Bishop covering TEs

If your ILB can't cover TEs, why the hell is he in the nickel? I've at least seen Hawk cover some TEs (he was definitely athletic enough to cover Vernon Davis a few years ago.)

Based on what I've seen in past preseasons, Bishop is the last person I'd want in the nickel. Short yardage? Sure. Special teams? Absolutely. But the nickel? He'll get eaten alive by average TEs.

[Tony Oday]

Bishop isnt even Mr August this year...

[PlantPage55]

I think Hawk was visibly hampered by having too much bulky muscle this last year. He looks slim, trim, and ready to win this year.

[packers11]

I think Hawk was visibly hampered by having too much bulky muscle this last year. He looks slim, trim, and ready to win this year.

Yea I noticed the same exact thing... He was way to bulky and less fluid... I guess working out to much (weights) hurt his game (in my opinion) ...

[hoosier]

The Packers released their first depth chart of the season yesterday and had Chillar as starting ROLB and Matthews at LOLB. My first reaction was to wonder why they are screwing around with their best pass rusher like that instead of just letting him what seems to be his most natural position. If Chillar is too small to play strong side then sit him and play Jones instead in the base defense, and let Chillar come on the field on passing downs--but don't force your best linebacker to play out of position, the difference between Chillar and Jones just isn't that great.

After sleeping on it, my hope is that Matthews at LOLB and now Bishop in nickle package are just training camp experiments that will be quickly ditched once the regular season starts. And that all this shuffling around won't negatively affect the cohesiveness on defense.

[Joemailman]

If they're serious about Chillar at ROLB and Matthews at LOLB, perhaps they feel that Chillar is capable of doing close to what Matthews did last year. They apparently are looking for a way to get Matthews and Chillar on the field more at the same time, and this is the way to do it.

Edit:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/100408459.html

The decision to move Matthews was made because at 255 pounds he's better equipped to handle the strong side of the opposition's offense, where he'll face road-grading tackles and double-teams from tight ends. After that, Capers decided he was going to be proactive and move Chillar from his inside spot to the right side and get him prepared to start in case Jones was out awhile.

[hoosier]

I don't know enough about Capers's system to have any intuition about whether moving CMII to the strong side is likely to diminish his pass rushing opportunities. The conventional wisdom is that you put your best pass rusher on the weak (left) side to minimize the help that the opponents can give his blocker and to put him on the (right handed) QBs blind side. But we have all seen exceptions to that general rule, such as Reggie White in the 4-3 and Sean Merriman or Kevin Greene in the 3-4. I would guess that the left outside backer in the 3-4 needs to pay a little more attention to the run and can't tee off as much as the weak side. I wonder if the additional responsibility against the run, combined with the likelihood of getting a little more worn down against the RT and TE, is likely to cut into Matthews's pass rushing effectiveness.

[pbmax]

The Packers released their first depth chart of the season yesterday and had Chillar as starting ROLB and Matthews at LOLB. My first reaction was to wonder why they are screwing around with their best pass rusher like that instead of just letting him what seems to be his most natural position. If Chillar is too small to play strong side then sit him and play Jones instead in the base defense, and let Chillar come on the field on passing downs--but don't force your best linebacker to play out of position, the difference between Chillar and Jones just isn't that great.

After sleeping on it, my hope is that Matthews at LOLB and now Bishop in nickle package are just training camp experiments that will be quickly ditched once the regular season starts. And that all this shuffling around won't negatively affect the cohesiveness on defense.

McCarthy has put out depth charts before that bore little resemblance to the actual playing assignments. The league forces them to release this info, and in his previous comments, he has made it clear he would rather have his teeth drilled that to do that chart.

Plus, injuries are affecting it greatly at LB.

[ThunderDan]

Just read in the latest Packers.com article that:

Hawk was only 1 of 10 LBs in the NFL who had over 85 tackles, 2 Int and 1 sack in 2009.

Also, even with Hawk's reduced playing time he averaged a tackle every 7 plays or a little over 14% of the snaps he played.

[falco]

Hawk was only 1 of 10 LBs in the NFL who had over 85 tackles, 2 Int and 1 sack in 2009.

Who comes up with these weird situational stats? Why 2 Int and 1 sack instead of 2 sacks and 1 Int???

[get louder at lambeau]

Hawk was only 1 of 10 LBs in the NFL who had over 85 tackles, 2 Int and 1 sack in 2009.

Who comes up with these weird situational stats? Why 2 Int and 1 sack instead of 2 sacks and 1 Int???

I think they just took A.J.'s stats and checked how many LBs bested them.

[Smidgeon]

Hawk was only 1 of 10 LBs in the NFL who had over 85 tackles, 2 Int and 1 sack in 2009.

Who comes up with these weird situational stats? Why 2 Int and 1 sack instead of 2 sacks and 1 Int???

I think they just took A.J.'s stats and checked how many LBs bested them.

Or as is most often the case with statistics, they tweaked the qualifying statistics until they came up with a combination of requirements that few fulfilled completely. Chances are they didn't use 2 Ints and 1 sack instead of 2 sacks and 1 Int because there were several more who qualified that way (pairing with 85 tackles) or several fewer making it an irrelevant grouping.

Statistics are used to identify either a) an elite player (see Rodgers, Aaron: the first QB to throw for 4k yards each of 1st two seasons or the only QB to throw for 30TDs run for 5TDs and throw 7 or fewer Ints) or b) an elite group (see Hawk, AJ: one of 10 LBs to record 85 tackles, two sacks and one Int in the season).

Statistics are largely meaningless. But they're fun too.