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

[falco]

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

I disagree. Statistics can be very helpful. But only if you don't distort them to support your argument.

[Smidgeon]

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

I disagree. Statistics can be very helpful. But only if you don't distort them to support your argument.

I agree with your point. But my point was: show me a statistic in the news, and I'll show you an incomplete story... not that I'll actually be able to do that since I don't know everything. Just statistics are a tool and not an end all.

[pbmax]

They still are not going to get off this notion that the Packers cannot have him cost $10 million next year. Silly reporters.

Now I fully believe the Packers would be willing to restructure and extend to lower that number, but whether they will want to pay Hawk's asking price for the additional years is yet to be determined.

So, depending on how his year go, I think its as likely he is back at $10 mil next year as he will be given a new deal.

[get louder at lambeau]

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.

It might also put him in a coverage role on the TE more. Maybe he'll make up for a few less sacks with a couple INTs and FFs.

[falco]

I agree with your point. But my point was: show me a statistic in the news, and I'll show you an incomplete story... not that I'll actually be able to do that since I don't know everything. Just statistics are a tool and not an end all.

Definitely agree.

[sharpe1027]

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

I disagree. Statistics can be very helpful. But only if you don't distort them to support your argument.

Don't blame the statistics or call them meaningless, blame the person using them. Statistics are just facts. You can apply them in a meaningless manner or use the wrong statistics when reaching a conclusion or opinion, but the statistics are still completely valid and meaningful.

Good coaches and scouts make extensive use of statistics, they just have a better understanding of what they mean and, more importantly, what they do not mean.

IMO, its a bad sign that there were ten LBers that statistically beat Hawk in all three of the selected categories, which seem to have been selected to favor Hawk. Those LBers were statistically as good or better than Hawk across the board despite the author using hand-picked categories designed to paint Hawk in the best light.

[get louder at lambeau]

IMO, its a bad sign that there were ten LBers that statistically beat Hawk in all three of the selected categories, which seem to have been selected to favor Hawk. Those LBers were statistically as good or better than Hawk across the board despite the author using hand-picked categories designed to paint Hawk in the best light.

I don't think they were hand picked to paint him in the best light. At least not unfairly so. Tackles, sacks, and INTs (I'd add FFs) are a fairly good measure of playmaking ability for a LB, of which AJ has been criticized for not having much. They may have been selected to show that expectations may be a little high if anything.

[sharpe1027]

I don't think they were hand picked to paint him in the best light. At least not unfairly so. Tackles, sacks, and INTs (I'd add FFs) are a fairly good measure of playmaking ability for a LB, of which AJ has been criticized for not having much. They may have been selected to show that expectations may be a little high if anything.

The comparison leaves much to be desired. A hypothetical LBer that had 100 tackles, 10 sacks, and one INT would not have made the list, but nobody in their right mind would take Hawk's stats over that.

[get louder at lambeau]

I don't think they were hand picked to paint him in the best light. At least not unfairly so. Tackles, sacks, and INTs (I'd add FFs) are a fairly good measure of playmaking ability for a LB, of which AJ has been criticized for not having much. They may have been selected to show that expectations may be a little high if anything.

The comparison leaves much to be desired. A hypothetical LBer that had 100 tackles, 10 sacks, and one INT would not have made the list, but nobody in their right mind would take Hawk's stats over that.

Very true. But it's not that skewed in reality at all.

If you just take INTs, only 10 LBs in the NFL bested Hawk's total of 2. Only one had more than 3, and that guy is about to serve a suspension for using steroids. Only two 3-4 ILBs had more than 2 INTs. Like I said, it shows that fan expectations might be unrealistic.

[sharpe1027]

Very true. But it's not that skewed in reality at all.

If you just take INTs, only 10 LBs in the NFL bested Hawk's total of 2. Only one had more than 3, and that guy is about to serve a suspension for using steroids. Only two 3-4 ILBs had more than 2 INTs. Like I said, it shows that fan expectations might be unrealistic.

It is misleading because the author lists tackles and sacks, but the only relevant stat is INTs. It is also misleading because there were something like other 10 LBers with exactly 2 INTs. Hawk was slightly-above average in that regard because he got 2 instead of 1. What does that say about anything? IMO, not much.

It is like comparing DBs based upon the number of sacks they have, while ignoring the number of interceptions, passes defensed and tackles. It is a valid comparison, but it doesn't mean squat.

[get louder at lambeau]

Very true. But it's not that skewed in reality at all.

If you just take INTs, only 10 LBs in the NFL bested Hawk's total of 2. Only one had more than 3, and that guy is about to serve a suspension for using steroids. Only two 3-4 ILBs had more than 2 INTs. Like I said, it shows that fan expectations might be unrealistic.

It is misleading because the author lists tackles and sacks, but the only relevant stat is INTs. It is also misleading because there were something like other 10 LBers with exactly 2 INTs. Hawk was slightly-above average in that regard because he got 2 instead of 1. What does that say about anything? IMO, not much.

It is like comparing DBs based upon the number of sacks they have, while ignoring the number of interceptions, passes defensed and tackles. It is a valid comparison, but it doesn't mean squat.

There are over 100 starting LBs in the NFL. If half the league runs a 4-3 and half a 3-4, there are 112 starting LBs. 21 of them recorded at least one INT, and about 90 of them got none. About 1 in six starting LBs got one.

One INT is not average for a LB. Closer to zero. Hawk had two. That's not slightly above average. It's significantly above average. It's not easy to get multiple INTs as an LB in the NFL. Give the guy credit where credit is due.

[sharpe1027]

There are over 100 starting LBs in the NFL. If half the league runs a 4-3 and half a 3-4, there are 112 starting LBs. 21 of them recorded at least one INT, and about 90 of them got none. About 1 in six starting LBs got one.

One INT is not average for a LB. Closer to zero. Hawk had two. That's not slightly above average. It's significantly above average. It's not easy to get multiple INTs as an LB in the NFL. Give the guy credit where credit is due.

Maybe so, but I think you are missing the point.

Andy Studebaker had 28 tackles, 0 sacks and 2 ints, only 10 LBers were better Mr. Studebaker in all the same categories.

What good is that type of comparison? Not very.

Let's look a little closer.

Hawk's position in
Total tackles: 40th.
Sacks: tied for 87th with almost 50 other players

Other than INTs, he is no where near 10th.

Personally, I think Hawk is a good player for the things he does that don't show up in the stat sheet. I just don't think he ranks well statistically.

[falco]

I'm not trying to argue the point that Hawk is or isn't good. I'm just saying that the statistical comparison they are making doesn't really hold any water with me.

[Smidgeon]

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

I disagree. Statistics can be very helpful. But only if you don't distort them to support your argument.

Don't blame the statistics or call them meaningless, blame the person using them. Statistics are just facts. You can apply them in a meaningless manner or use the wrong statistics when reaching a conclusion or opinion, but the statistics are still completely valid and meaningful.

Good coaches and scouts make extensive use of statistics, they just have a better understanding of what they mean and, more importantly, what they do not mean.

IMO, its a bad sign that there were ten LBers that statistically beat Hawk in all three of the selected categories, which seem to have been selected to favor Hawk. Those LBers were statistically as good or better than Hawk across the board despite the author using hand-picked categories designed to paint Hawk in the best light.

statistic a numerical fact or datum, esp. one computed from a sample

So while technically AJ Hawk having at least 85 tackles, 1 sack, and 2 Ints are each statistics, the emphasis from the dictionary is regarding the computation. In this case, that would be the "only 10 LBs in the NFL" part.

That part (and my reference to statistics in the news) is the part I'm calling relatively meaningless because they don't tell the entire story. And you're right in that it falls on the person using them to get the story straight, but I'd put out there that no one can present an accurate picture whenever anyone tries to identify trends and variables. Give ten people the same raw data, and they'd probably come up with ten different perspectives and sets of statistics on it.

For example, the QB rating is a standardized statistic in the NFL, meant to determine the effectiveness of a QB over a season, but people use it for the rating during a quarter of a game. Also, other people don't like it because it doesn't take into account sacks (a negative) or throw away passes to avoid sacks (likely neutral though considered a negative in the formula).

Statistics can be meaningful, but on a theoretical level, I believe it's rare to find anyone who can present statistics unbiasedly due to their very nature.

[mraynrand]

Statistics can be meaningful, but on a theoretical level, I believe it's rare to find anyone who can present statistics unbiasedly due to their very nature.

You have any numbers to back that up?