Trade Lynch for Hawk?

[Fritz]

I've heard criticisms of TT leaving the team with too many players at one position (TE)and too few at others (LB).

Why would you trade a second or third for a guy who isn't the clear top guy on his own team and does not seem to have the talent to be that guy (unlike Al Harris, who did)? And then create a logjam next year? And thin out your thin linebacking corps?

Makes no sense. If you're hot to trade AJ Hawk because you feel he won't want to be with the team next year, don't trade him for Lynch. Trade him for another linebacker or something.

[Bossman641]

The Bills have rejected multiple previous offers, including a reported 3rd round pick and a player for Lynch. This despite the fact that they drafted his replacement.

Lynch is cheap for a starting caliber player, though not so cheap as a backup. Very manageable.

Lynch was in the doghouse with previous coaches (Jauron and Fewell) but has a new coach and relatively new GM (though that GM has been with the Buffalo org for Lynch's entire stay).

Lynch is 3rd on the RB depth chart for a bad team. Forget the Pro Bowl, he cannot find a way to start for a losing team that cannot run the ball.

The linebacker opening for the Bills will be open for 2-3 weeks. Does anyone think Thompson would trade for a RB if Grant was due back in 4 weeks?

Hawk is still the starter in the base defense. Think about the logic of trading a starter for a 3rd stringer. And that's a 3rd stringer is on a bad team.

Hawk is due $4 million this year and $10 million next year. What team will rent a player for 3 starts at that price? And what incentive does Hawk have to renegotiate either year? He would not be going to Buffalo to become a full-time starter, much less a 3 down player.

No other player mentioned is even the player that Hawk is. Donald Lee is expensive for a marginal starter. Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

Even if Thompson and McCarthy felt Lynch would fit the offense and be a clear upgrade, the Bills have no reason to want Hawk and he has no reason to make it easier to go to Buffalo.

The Bills either want Lynch at his relatively cheap price for insurance or they want a King's ransom for him. He is not the same back he was when he went to the Pro Bowl and his numbers weren't fantastic then either. The Packers should not pay a ransom for a marginal upgrade.

Why not just give them a second? I mean you want a starter with teh second pick. ML would be a starter.

A marginal starter for a 2nd round pick with 2 years left is a steep price. He is also on the bench next year.

So he must be worth a second round pick this year, that is, be that much on improvement over Jackson to justify the price. And the Bills have to agree to a second rounder. We have no reason to believe they will.

While I agree with you PB, is it even a given that Grant will be back next year? I haven't seen this point mentioned on this forum yet, but doesn't his salary jump considerably next year? I know his contract was structured around incentives, but I don't know how exactly they were spelled out.

[mraynrand]

The Bills have rejected multiple previous offers, including a reported 3rd round pick and a player for Lynch. This despite the fact that they drafted his replacement.

Lynch is cheap for a starting caliber player, though not so cheap as a backup. Very manageable.

Lynch was in the doghouse with previous coaches (Jauron and Fewell) but has a new coach and relatively new GM (though that GM has been with the Buffalo org for Lynch's entire stay).

Lynch is 3rd on the RB depth chart for a bad team. Forget the Pro Bowl, he cannot find a way to start for a losing team that cannot run the ball.

The linebacker opening for the Bills will be open for 2-3 weeks. Does anyone think Thompson would trade for a RB if Grant was due back in 4 weeks?

Hawk is still the starter in the base defense. Think about the logic of trading a starter for a 3rd stringer. And that's a 3rd stringer is on a bad team.

Hawk is due $4 million this year and $10 million next year. What team will rent a player for 3 starts at that price? And what incentive does Hawk have to renegotiate either year? He would not be going to Buffalo to become a full-time starter, much less a 3 down player.

No other player mentioned is even the player that Hawk is. Donald Lee is expensive for a marginal starter. Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

Even if Thompson and McCarthy felt Lynch would fit the offense and be a clear upgrade, the Bills have no reason to want Hawk and he has no reason to make it easier to go to Buffalo.

The Bills either want Lynch at his relatively cheap price for insurance or they want a King's ransom for him. He is not the same back he was when he went to the Pro Bowl and his numbers weren't fantastic then either. The Packers should not pay a ransom for a marginal upgrade.

Logical. Flawlessly logical.

[3irty1]

Hawk is due $4 million this year and $10 million next year. What team will rent a player for 3 starts at that price? And what incentive does Hawk have to renegotiate either year? He would not be going to Buffalo to become a full-time starter, much less a 3 down player.

Are you suggesting Hawk wouldn't be a three down player for Buffalo? He should easily win that job and start wherever he wants. He might win the starting QB position on that team. Hawk might actually want to go there. As I said before, Bob Sanders is there, and maybe he's looking to reconnect with the coach that gave him virtually all of his success as a pro.

No other player mentioned is even the player that Hawk is. Donald Lee is expensive for a marginal starter. Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

Look at the TE's on their roster. Donald Lee is a nice step up and only looks like a borderline starter next to Finley. Pat Lee was drafted by Sanders who left before he could play with his new toy. Pat Lee was a system fit and then we changed the system. Buffalo might be asking for him just to sweeten the pot.

Even if Thompson and McCarthy felt Lynch would fit the offense and be a clear upgrade, the Bills have no reason to want Hawk and he has no reason to make it easier to go to Buffalo.

The Bills either want Lynch at his relatively cheap price for insurance or they want a King's ransom for him. He is not the same back he was when he went to the Pro Bowl and his numbers weren't fantastic then either. The Packers should not pay a ransom for a marginal upgrade.

I don't buy that it would take a ransom. Personally I suspect that the Bills are declining offers for Lynch because he's already been traded but the transaction can't take place until after we play the Bills this week. We'll see in the news on Tuesday.

[retailguy]

Why not just give them a second? I mean you want a starter with teh second pick. ML would be a starter.

Lynch the college player would've started in GB. Lynch the NFL player? I don't agree he'd start, and I will personally drive to GB and run Ted Thompson over with my car if he gives up a 2nd round pick.

[Guiness]

I agree with 3irty1 here. I'm not saying the trade will happen, but don't agree with the reasons you give for that.

Lynch was in the doghouse with previous coaches (Jauron and Fewell) but has a new coach and relatively new GM (though that GM has been with the Buffalo org for Lynch's entire stay).

He can't exactly be in the current administrations good books, given that the rookie had more carries than him week 1, despite seemingly being less effective than ML (7att for 6yds vs 3 att for 13yds).
I know that stat line is out of context, but still interesting.

Lynch is 3rd on the RB depth chart for a bad team. Forget the Pro Bowl, he cannot find a way to start for a losing team that cannot run the ball.

This is a bit of not seeing the forest for the trees. Sure, he's 3rd string on a terrible team that can't run the ball, but from what I've seen OL is the problem. Sunday the RB corps had 5 runs for losses - in 14 rushing attempts!

If ML isn't the back he was his first two years in the league, fine, but I don't think the fact he's 3rd string for the Bills proves that.

The linebacker opening for the Bills will be open for 2-3 weeks. Does anyone think Thompson would trade for a RB if Grant was due back in 4 weeks?

Quite valid - in a year a team has a chance, a trade like this makes sense. For the Bills, looking at a top 5 pick, it doesn't.

Hawk is still the starter in the base defense. Think about the logic of trading a starter for a 3rd stringer. And that's a 3rd stringer is on a bad team.

Again, this feels like the forest for the trees. Calling Hawk a starter is a reach. ML is a first round pick, who has shown first round talent, and the RB's are the best unit on that Bills team.

Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

That UFA is Tramon, the darling of these boards, and a very good player! That's like saying Joe Johnson sucked because he couldn't beat out Kabeer. No, he sucked because he sucked. Pat Lee may or may not, but playing behind Tramon has no bearing on that.

[Fritz]

Why not just give them a second? I mean you want a starter with teh second pick. ML would be a starter.

Lynch the college player would've started in GB. Lynch the NFL player? I don't agree he'd start, and I will personally drive to GB and run Ted Thompson over with my car if he gives up a 2nd round pick.

And I will put your car in reverse when you're done so you can finish him off! I agree with you!

[ThunderDan]

Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

That UFA is Tramon, the darling of these boards, and a very good player! That's like saying Joe Johnson sucked because he couldn't beat out Kabeer. No, he sucked because he sucked. Pat Lee may or may not, but playing behind Tramon has no bearing on that.

I think he means Sam Shields our current nickleback until Al gets back. Then he wouldn't have beat out our dime backer.

Oh and how dare you use the "forest for the trees" statement after what happened last time.

[Tony Oday]

Why not just give them a second? I mean you want a starter with teh second pick. ML would be a starter.

Lynch the college player would've started in GB. Lynch the NFL player? I don't agree he'd start, and I will personally drive to GB and run Ted Thompson over with my car if he gives up a 2nd round pick.

SEASON TEAM G GS ATT YDS AVG LNG TD REC YDS AVG TD FUM LOST
2007 Bills 13 13 280 1115 4.0 56 7 18 184 10.2 0 2 1
2008 Bills 15 15 250 1036 4.1 50 8 47 300 6.4 1 2 1
2009 Bills 13 6 120 450 3.8 47 2 28 179 6.4 0 3 1
Career 41 34 650 2601 4.0 56 17 93 663 7.1 1 7 3

Not terrible numbers

[Guiness]

Pat Lee couldn't beat out a Undrafted Free Agent for the nickel slot.

That UFA is Tramon, the darling of these boards, and a very good player! That's like saying Joe Johnson sucked because he couldn't beat out Kabeer. No, he sucked because he sucked. Pat Lee may or may not, but playing behind Tramon has no bearing on that.

I think he means Sam Shields our current nickleback until Al gets back. Then he wouldn't have beat out our dime backer.

Oh and how dare you use the "forest for the trees" statement after what happened last time.

Burning down the house, eh?

You're right, Shields beating out P.Lee looks bad for Lee - he's had 2 years to spend learning, and if nothing else should've gotten the spot based on knowing the system better.

One more argument in favour of getting a back like ML - we're certainly a rarity in the league having a single feature back. MM hasn't seemed willing to let Jackson share carries with Grant, despite letting Green have some of them at the end of last year. ML might be more capable of being part of a split backfield on running downs.

[3irty1]

Lee probably has more value to the Bills, he was a system fit with our old D. Now Sanders is a coach with the Bills. He probably covets Lee.

That said I don't think its going to be Lee unless he's just a throw-in.

[Patler]

In some ways, Hawk is a starter in name only. Don't forget, last Sunday wasn't the first time that he wouldn't have been missed if he had stayed at home. Last year he played something like 5 snaps in one game, and they ran an article similar to the one this week about it being "unusual". However, it has now happened twice in 18 games under Capers, and I suspect there will be a few more this year when he plays very few snaps.

Several articles have mentioned that the Packers use their nickel sub-packages 65% of the time. Apparently Hawk is in none of those sub-packages right now. So Hawk is a starter who will play only 20-25 plays per game, 5 or 6 plays per quarter. Unless there is a huge drop off between Hawk and the guy who will play those 20-25 plays (probably Bishop), trading Hawk would not be that much of a loss.

Bishop can come up with big hits and has caused more fumbles in his very limited playing time than Hawk has even though for a couple seasons Hawk was on the field most of the time. Bishop's problems on defense have been most noticeable in pass coverage, but if he plays only the snaps that Hawk plays now it shouldn't be as big of a problem. For those 20-25 plays in base defense, Bishop may make a mistake that Hawk might not have, but also could make a dynamic play or force a turnover that Hawk wouldn't.

It can be argued that for 20-25 plays a game, Bishop would not be a noticeable downgrade overall. Obviously, he wouldn't have been a downgrade at all last Sunday!

[ThunderDan]

In some ways, Hawk is a starter in name only. Don't forget, last Sunday wasn't the first time that he wouldn't have been missed if he had stayed at home. Last year he played something like 5 snaps in one game, and they ran an article similar to the one this week about it being "unusual". However, it has now happened twice in 18 games under Capers, and I suspect there will be a few more this year when he plays very few snaps.

Several articles have mentioned that the Packers use their nickel sub-packages 65% of the time. Apparently Hawk is in none of those sub-packages right now. So Hawk is a starter who will play only 20-25 plays per game, 5 or 6 plays per quarter. Unless there is a huge drop off between Hawk and the guy who will play those 20-25 plays (probably Bishop), trading Hawk would not be that much of a loss.

Bishop can come up with big hits and has caused more fumbles in his very limited playing time than Hawk has even though for a couple seasons Hawk was on the field most of the time. Bishop's problems on defense have been most noticeable in pass coverage, but if he plays only the snaps that Hawk plays now it shouldn't be as big of a problem. For those 20-25 plays in base defense, Bishop may make a mistake that Hawk might not have, but also could make a dynamic play or force a turnover that Hawk wouldn't.

It can be argued that for 20-25 plays a game, Bishop would not be a noticeable downgrade overall. Obviously, he wouldn't have been a downgrade at all last Sunday!

Patler-

You did watch Bishop in the preseason, right?? The time of the year that Bishop usually shines in 2010 he looked like poop. I think there is a tremendous drop off between Hawk and Bishop even for 5 snaps a game.

I just don't see a 3-4 team with 8 LBs on the roster, who just cut a LB off of the practice squad, trading away any of their LBs.

[Patler]

In some ways, Hawk is a starter in name only. Don't forget, last Sunday wasn't the first time that he wouldn't have been missed if he had stayed at home. Last year he played something like 5 snaps in one game, and they ran an article similar to the one this week about it being "unusual". However, it has now happened twice in 18 games under Capers, and I suspect there will be a few more this year when he plays very few snaps.

Several articles have mentioned that the Packers use their nickel sub-packages 65% of the time. Apparently Hawk is in none of those sub-packages right now. So Hawk is a starter who will play only 20-25 plays per game, 5 or 6 plays per quarter. Unless there is a huge drop off between Hawk and the guy who will play those 20-25 plays (probably Bishop), trading Hawk would not be that much of a loss.

Bishop can come up with big hits and has caused more fumbles in his very limited playing time than Hawk has even though for a couple seasons Hawk was on the field most of the time. Bishop's problems on defense have been most noticeable in pass coverage, but if he plays only the snaps that Hawk plays now it shouldn't be as big of a problem. For those 20-25 plays in base defense, Bishop may make a mistake that Hawk might not have, but also could make a dynamic play or force a turnover that Hawk wouldn't.

It can be argued that for 20-25 plays a game, Bishop would not be a noticeable downgrade overall. Obviously, he wouldn't have been a downgrade at all last Sunday!

Patler-

You did watch Bishop in the preseason, right?? The time of the year that Bishop usually shines in 2010 he looked like poop. I think there is a tremendous drop off between Hawk and Bishop even for 5 snaps a game.

I just don't see a 3-4 team with 8 LBs on the roster, who just cut a LB off of the practice squad, trading away any of their LBs.

Maybe Bishop is a big drop off, I don't know. I did say:

Unless there is a huge drop off between Hawk and the guy who will play those 20-25 plays (probably Bishop), trading Hawk would not be that much of a loss.

So, obviously, if you are correct and there is a big dropoff, then trading Hawk is a loss. However, the question is not about overall performance as a linebacker, it would be performance in only those limited situations in which Hawk is currently asked to perform. Which was none last week and even in a typical game is very limited. Would Bishop be that much worse in those limited situations?

I find it impossible to "grade" any player based on what I see on the television screen. Even when a player seems to be wrong, the view shown is seldom wide enough to evaluate the play, so I don't. However, it is clear from past performances that Bishop offers what Hawk does not, and what the coaches have been pleading with Hawk for, creating turnovers.

I said in another post I would be very surprised if they traded Hawk because depth would be a huge problem since they kept only 8 linebackers. This post was not about the depth issue. That is a separate question. This post was intended to discuss the issue of a "starter". Would Hawk be missed as a starter?

If Bishop is dog-crap compared to Hawk, then yes he would be missed. But if he is only somewhat worse, for 20-25 plays per game I think it can be argued the difference is not significant, especially if Bishop will end up forcing some fumbles that Hawk never does.

I'm not a Bishop supporter at all. However, in the current scheme of things, when Hawk will have games where he hardly even plays, I think some are over estimating Hawk's value to the team on a whole.

Side note: I was surprised that they cut Francois earlier this week because of their numbers at LB. It was especially surprising since they didn't replace him, and are carrying an opening on PS. Kind of unusual, all things considered. Almost seems like Francois must have irked someone!

[ThunderDan]

Patler-

Thanks for the insight.

I guess I will take a guy who averages 100 tackles a year and 1 turnover verses a guy who makes 6 take-aways but gives up 40 big runs because of missed assignments per year.

Bishop to me is a total liability. You can't trust him to be where he is supposed to be. He seems to have the physical tools but can't get the mental side of the game right.