Trade Lynch for Hawk?

[3irty1]

Why this trade is going to happen

I'm sold on this trade.

There is the complication of Hawks contract. Hawk will make around 4 million this year which is reasonable but next year his contract will be on the order of 10 million which means he'll have to restructure or whatever team owns him will be forced to cut him. This essentially means that any team that were to trade for Hawk could merely be renting him for 14 games. For this reason its critical that Hawk must actually want to play for the Bills. But why would anyone want to play for the Bills? For one Hawk has made it clear through his agent that he'd welcome a trade to a team that would give him the chance at being a 3 down linebacker. After all, this is essentially a contract year for Hawk and if he continues to play in Green Bay his stock won't be too high by the end of the season. Remember how Hawk looked playing on a bad defense? He has the chance to be a star again in Buffalo. He'd no doubt like to go there this year but he might even want to stay there. This trade is good for Hawk

Lynch is about as frustrated as one can get. A former first round pick who, despite good play, has fallen to the depths of the Bills roster. His problems are off the field. He was in the dog house with the teams previous front office and is barely contributing under the current regime. Aaron Rodgers and Desmond Bishop played with him at Cal so there are some friendly ties to our team. Most importantly, Lynch is in a similar position to Hawk. He's a total bargain for the next two years, is a former probowler, and is only 24. In other words his trade value will never be higher. His value, value however has never been lower. Lynch is unhappy with everything in Buffalo and has skipped offseason activities presumingly out of protest. He needs to find a way to get on a football field so he can earn himself a new contract. For these reasons this trade is good for Lynch.

The Packers are in running back trouble after losing Grant and have playoff aspirations. Lynch would be a major upgrade in the running game and if not all they'd lose is a player they'd have to cut next year anyways. Thompson was reportedly high on Lynch in the draft and he'd probably already be in Green Bay had the Bills not snatched him up. Thompson might have a chance to go back in time and erase the Harrell pick by getting Lynch now. Even once Grant returns Lynch could either stay the starter or back up Grant. Seems like having two solid running backs has been a league trend for a few years now. I'm not sure Lynch will cost a kings ransom in trade if ones is to believe the Maroney-to-Denver trade has set the market value. This trade is good for the Pack. Its also worth noting that the Packers just released Robert Francois (who plays Hawks position) from the PS. This was slightly strange because by all reports the Packers really liked Francois. Perhaps he was cut only to be signed in a few days to the 53 man roster in Hawk's place.

The Bills just lost their star ILB Poz, but he'll be back shortly. Their defense is similar to ours so Hawk could potentially contribute before Poz gets back but even once Poz has returned, Hawk would likely start next to him. The Bills like to get pressure with the middle linebackers even more than Capers. They even converted rookie Arthur Moats from DE to ILB this year. Hawk could help open up their scheme. Former Packers defensive coordinator Bob Sanders is currently on the Bills coaching staff as an outside linebackers coach. Hawk had the two best seasons of his career with Sanders and so this connection could also be oiling the trigger for a trade. The money isn't a huge issue if Hawk is happy in Buffalo and they didn't give away their RB to rent Hawk, although Lynch may have fully held out next year anyways. Why wouldn't the Bills just ask for draft picks? After all player for a player trades are rare. Well the answer to that is because its only week two and selling is a bad PR move for a team that's likely to have trouble making money. Trading a player for a player, maybe also with conditional picks sprinkled in, doesn't scream: "We give up on the shitty 2010 Bills!" AJ Hawk is a fairly well known player in the league and fans would likely applaud the move. Especially when they play the Jets and Phins this year. This trade is good for the Bills.

[Guiness]

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!

I heard he punched a coach.

[Patler]

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.

I'm not sure what you meant by "Thanks for the insight."??? Were you being sarcastic? From the tone of the remainder of your response, I suspect it was intended facetiously. If so, am I not allowed to have and express an opinion that is different from yours?

Is Hawk going to make 100 tackles playing as little as he is in line to play this year? When did Bishop give up 40 big runs and will he do that playing only 20-25 snaps per game?

Maybe Bishop is a total liability, I don't know. However, in the current scheme of things, the Packers seem to be using Hawk less and less each year. As a rookie they talked about using him and sitting Barnett on passing downs. Barnett was pissed, and expressed it. For a time, they seemed to alternate some. When Chiller came, Hawk's snaps went down. Now Hawk plays in no sub-packages at all, at least for some games.

Hawk has become a bit of a mystery to me. I liked the pick a lot when he was drafted. The first year, everyone raved about his speed and quickness as a rookie. In a couple games that first year, Larry MaCarren talked about the quickness he showed on some plays, beyond what other Packer LBs had. I remember one goal line play when he adjusted quickly and barely deflected a pass. McCarren said no one else on the Packers could have made that play, it would have been a sure TD. He called Hawk "special". As a rookie they talked about the Packers finally having someone who could stay with TEs and/or blitz effectively. Now it seems the Packers think that potential is gone, to the point where they don't want Hawk on the field in passing situations. I don't understand it at all.

Either Hawk isn't the player they thought he was, or they are misusing him horribly. Either way, his overall value to the team seems to have diminished significantly, rightly or wrongly.

I can't imagine a scenario under which he will be with the Packers next year, although he and his agent have said they are open to discussions about a salary reduction to stay in GB. I now suspect that won't be in the cards, and that he will want to go somewhere that he can play in more situations. Maybe it needs to be a 4-3 and not a 3-4. I can't see much that will keep him in GB.

[Patler]

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!

I heard he punched a coach.

OH NO...Not that again!!!

By the way, the Packers DID sign another PS player. I missed it earlier in the week. A cornerback - Josh Gordy.

[Smidgeon]

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!

I guess my question would be (out of honest ignorance): how important is it for Hawk's position in the 3-4 to be a playmaking one instead of a reliable one? If he's the player who's the first through the hole, taking on the center or a guard, aren't the playmakers the other ILB and both OLBs? I think in this defense, Hawk's position is the one that can most afford to be a non-playmaker as long as he is reliable and assignment sure. Am I wrong?

[ThunderDan]

[quote="Patler"]
I'm not sure what you meant by "Thanks for the insight."??? Were you being sarcastic? From the tone of the remainder of your response, I suspect it was intended facetiously. If so, am I not allowed to have and express an opinion that is different from yours?
[\quote]

Just what I said it means. I appreciate your thoughts on the position.

Let's look at Hawk's 2009 production. He was also pulled out of the nickle packages and only played base after the Detroit game.

In the last 11 games of the season playing base only he average 6 tackles a game and some how had 2 interceptions. In 20-25, plays game he was make about 20% of the tackles on the downs he was in. I remember reading somewhere that he made the tackle on 18% of the plays he was in in 2009. I think that is a very acceptible rate considering he is taking on the FB or free OL on most plays.

Now what the hell is happening in 2010, I have no idea. I guess we will see this week against Buffalo.

[Smidgeon]

Addendum: I'm neutral on Hawk. Starting to doubt, but still neutral. But I'm specifically a Biship un-fan. So to me, Hawk is a better option than Bishop. Now, if TT finds a gem in the next draft in the late rounds, then we're talking...

[Patler]

I guess my question would be (out of honest ignorance): how important is it for Hawk's position in the 3-4 to be a playmaking one instead of a reliable one? If he's the player who's the first through the hole, taking on the center or a guard, aren't the playmakers the other ILB and both OLBs? I think in this defense, Hawk's position is the one that can most afford to be a non-playmaker as long as he is reliable and assignment sure. Am I wrong?

I sure don't know, and I don't pretend to. All I do know is that the coaches keep commenting in articles about wanting Hawk to be "more impactful" by trusting his instincts in making big plays and causing turnovers.

How important that really is to the Packers staff only they can answer. I guess we will see how important it is over the off season, and whether they bring Hawk back next year or not.

[Patler]

Addendum: I'm neutral on Hawk. Starting to doubt, but still neutral. But I'm specifically a Biship un-fan. So to me, Hawk is a better option than Bishop. Now, if TT finds a gem in the next draft in the late rounds, then we're talking...

Ya, I'm not a Bishop fan by any means either. My only question is, if they are going to use Hawk so little, does it really matter if Bishop plays instead? Some obviously think it does matter, a lot. Perhaps they are correct I really don't know, just wanted to offer another line of thought to discuss.

[Lurker64]

Addendum: I'm neutral on Hawk. Starting to doubt, but still neutral. But I'm specifically a Biship un-fan. So to me, Hawk is a better option than Bishop. Now, if TT finds a gem in the next draft in the late rounds, then we're talking...

Ya, I'm not a Bishop fan by any means either. My only question is, if they are going to use Hawk so little, does it really matter if Bishop plays instead? Some obviously think it does matter, a lot. Perhaps they are correct I really don't know, just wanted to offer another line of thought to discuss.

Well, it's not every week that we'll play against a team with as lopsided a pass-run ratio as an Andy Reid team. Playing in the nickel all the time against the Eagles is far from unwise, since Reid throws the ball a lot (and runs mostly as an afterthought). Other teams are going to command other defensive strategies.

[Patler]

Now what the hell is happening in 2010, I have no idea. I guess we will see this week against Buffalo.

The most confusing part to me is that almost to a man the involved coaches commented positively about Hawks TC performance this year.

Do you recall the game last year when Hawk hardly played? They wrote the same articles then, and the coaches said the same things, about Hawk not being in the sub-packages they wanted to run. I vaguely recall Moss saying it would make him want to do more to show the coaches he deserved to play in more situations. I wondered then if it had been a motivational type thing, because they often talk about Hawk being reliable to a fault and sometimes not taking the opportunity to "make a play" when it is there to be made.

Hawk said all of the right "team first" stuff, just as he did now. I would never question his commitment to the team, but he has to be wondering in the back of his mind whether GB is the place for him now or not. To be virtually written out of two game plans in just over a year would make anyone question whether to stay or push for an alternative.

[ThunderDan]

Now what the hell is happening in 2010, I have no idea. I guess we will see this week against Buffalo.

The most confusing part to me is that almost to a man the involved coaches commented positively about Hawks TC performance this year.

Do you recall the game last year when Hawk hardly played? They wrote the same articles then, and the coaches said the same things, about Hawk not being in the sub-packages they wanted to run. I vaguely recall Moss saying it would make him want to do more to show the coaches he deserved to play in more situations. I wondered then if it had been a motivational type thing, because they often talk about Hawk being reliable to a fault and sometimes not taking the opportunity to "make a play" when it is there to be made.

Hawk said all of the right "team first" stuff, just as he did now. I would never question his commitment to the team, but he has to be wondering in the back of his mind whether GB is the place for him now or not. To be virtually written out of two game plans in just over a year would make anyone question whether to stay or push for an alternative.

Yes, that was the first Detroit game last year. I just don't see Hawk staying with the Packers in 2011 unless something changes. The Packers can't pay him $10,000,000 or whatever he will make and I can't see Hawk saying he will renegotiate knowing he is going to be on the bench a lot. For a player who had excelled at every level before the pro level, sitting on the bench much less not starting is probably hard to take. I think it says a lot about Hawk's character that he is keeping the issue internal instead of pulling a Randy Moss or Logan Mankins.

[Patler]

I just don't see Hawk staying with the Packers in 2011 unless something changes. The Packers can't pay him $10,000,000 or whatever he will make and I can't see Hawk saying he will renegotiate knowing he is going to be on the bench a lot. For a player who had excelled at every level before the pro level, sitting on the bench much less not starting is probably hard to take. I think it says a lot about Hawk's character that he is keeping the issue internal instead of pulling a Randy Moss or Logan Mankins.

That's why I wouldn't mind a trade now, unless the defense would fall off a cliff with Bishop or Chiller taking Hawk's snaps. Maybe it would, I guess the question is "How high is the cliff?"

What happened to Hawk? The very things that he was seen to be good at as a rookie are the things for which they yank him off the field now. It's not like he is being replaced by an all-pro.

[gbgary]

Well...if neither player gets in the game, when the opportunity is there, then i bet it's done deal.