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

[sharpe1027]

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.

Most/all of us realize that you can reach improper conclusions from statistics. That doesn't make all uses of statistics meaningless or only theoretical. As I said, the many coaches/scouts/gms use statistics to their advantage. My best coaches worked out a lot of details from "computed numerical facts" and planned accordingly. It seemed to work for them.

I respectfully disagree.

[hoosier]

This is a good example of a conversation that could only happen during preseason. Only 27 more days....

[swede]

This is a good example of a conversation that could only happen during preseason. Only 27 more days....

A week from now that number isn't going to be so accurate.

[Joemailman]

This is a good example of a conversation that could only happen during preseason. Only 27 more days....

Football tomorrow night...sort of. That should help a little bit.

[Brohm]

Given Hawk's role, a better measure may be the statistics of the guy lining up next to him on the inside, Barnett (who was part-time at the beginning due to knee recovery) and Chillar (played with cast if I recall).

Barnett 105 Tackles (82S/23A) 4 Sacks (with no Ints)

Chillar 42 Tackles (32S/10A) 2 Sacks (with no Ints)

[ThunderDan]

Given Hawk's role, a better measure may be the statistics of the guy lining up next to him on the inside, Barnett (who was part-time at the beginning due to knee recovery) and Chillar (played with cast if I recall).

Barnett 105 Tackles (82S/23A) 4 Sacks (with no Ints)

Chillar 42 Tackles (32S/10A) 2 Sacks (with no Ints)

The problem there is I know for certian that at least 2 of Barnett's sacks were because of Hawk and an X blitz. Hawk comes thru first and takes out the RB and Barnett runs clean to the QB.

[get louder at lambeau]

Given Hawk's role, a better measure may be the statistics of the guy lining up next to him on the inside, Barnett (who was part-time at the beginning due to knee recovery) and Chillar (played with cast if I recall).

Barnett 105 Tackles (82S/23A) 4 Sacks (with no Ints)

Chillar 42 Tackles (32S/10A) 2 Sacks (with no Ints)

The problem there is I know for certian that at least 2 of Barnett's sacks were because of Hawk and an X blitz. Hawk comes thru first and takes out the RB and Barnett runs clean to the QB.

Yeah, I've even heard Barnett say that.

[ThunderDan]

Given Hawk's role, a better measure may be the statistics of the guy lining up next to him on the inside, Barnett (who was part-time at the beginning due to knee recovery) and Chillar (played with cast if I recall).

Barnett 105 Tackles (82S/23A) 4 Sacks (with no Ints)

Chillar 42 Tackles (32S/10A) 2 Sacks (with no Ints)

The problem there is I know for certian that at least 2 of Barnett's sacks were because of Hawk and an X blitz. Hawk comes thru first and takes out the RB and Barnett runs clean to the QB.

Yeah, I've even heard Barnett say that.

Plus Barnett and Hawk have different responsibilities.

[Brohm]

Yep, that was my point there. Hawk's work inside helps those guys shine.

[rbaloha1]

Hawk needs to improve pass coverage. Over committed on the Browns te resulting in a td.

Generally Hawk is overly aggressive in pass coverage and passive during run plays. Blitzing has improved though.

[get louder at lambeau]

Hawk needs to improve pass coverage. Over committed on the Browns te resulting in a td.

Generally Hawk is overly aggressive in pass coverage and passive during run plays. Blitzing has improved though.

So does Barnett. He sucked in coverage yesterday.

[ND72]

Hawk needs to improve pass coverage. Over committed on the Browns te resulting in a td.

Generally Hawk is overly aggressive in pass coverage and passive during run plays. Blitzing has improved though.

So does Barnett. He sucked in coverage yesterday.

I think Capers needs to work on his pass coverage schemes....The TD Hawk gave up had ZERO help over the middle, everyone was man up with no safety deep or anyone in the middle.

As I sat in Lambeau last night studying the game, I really started to wonder what we are doing defensively. Our blitz's looked rather blah, and our blitzing techniques were rather blah. Chillar would run full speed and then as he got to the Tackle on his blitz, he would square up to the blocker...that's crappy. A LB needs to give as little as possible to be blocked, which is where Matthews is so effective. AND, our blitz's were very noticeable and predictable.

The Browns weren't stupid either. We sat in a cover 2 most of the night, they would run someone at a safety, then release a WR up the sideline leaving it wide open....that's High School level stuff.

I was rather disappointed with our entire defensive planning game 1. I sure hope it improves, cause it was U-G-L-Y.

[packers11]

I didn't get to watch the game because I live in New England (and NFL ticket doesn't start until Sept) but isn't preseason supposed to showcase the 'vanilla defenses'

I thought in most preseason games the teams go very vanilla not to give anything away for the regular season...

[Brandon494]

I didn't get to watch the game because I live in New England (and NFL ticket doesn't start until Sept) but isn't preseason supposed to showcase the 'vanilla defenses'

I thought in most preseason games the teams go very vanilla not to give anything away for the regular season...

Yea thats what I saw, we were just running a basic vanilla defense.

On the Hawk TD he bit on a move by the TE bad.

[rbaloha1]

Hawk needs to improve pass coverage. Over committed on the Browns te resulting in a td.

Generally Hawk is overly aggressive in pass coverage and passive during run plays. Blitzing has improved though.

So does Barnett. He sucked in coverage yesterday.

I think Capers needs to work on his pass coverage schemes....The TD Hawk gave up had ZERO help over the middle, everyone was man up with no safety deep or anyone in the middle.

As I sat in Lambeau last night studying the game, I really started to wonder what we are doing defensively. Our blitz's looked rather blah, and our blitzing techniques were rather blah. Chillar would run full speed and then as he got to the Tackle on his blitz, he would square up to the blocker...that's crappy. A LB needs to give as little as possible to be blocked, which is where Matthews is so effective. AND, our blitz's were very noticeable and predictable.

The Browns weren't stupid either. We sat in a cover 2 most of the night, they would run someone at a safety, then release a WR up the sideline leaving it wide open....that's High School level stuff.

I was rather disappointed with our entire defensive planning game 1. I sure hope it improves, cause it was U-G-L-Y.

Nice assessment. Confusion in pass coverage still remains. The top end qbs exploit this confusion.

Nonetheless this is correctable once the proper personnel is determined and with repetition. Bush is still confused.