A little on A.J. Hawk's future...

[Guiness]

In this vein of 3-4 defense, the middle LBs shift according to the offense's power. Like strong and weak safety. If I remember KYPack's nomenclature, those positions in this 3-4 are called Jack and Buck. Buck is the LB who lines up on the O's strong side and is manned by Hawk. He is the one taking on the free guard or FB so the Jack can run free to make a tackle.

In preseason, Hawk and Simpkins (I think it was him, or possibly Francois) were the only two Bucks getting regular work in the base 3-4. It was slightly different in nickel. Simpkins was let go and only Hawk remained. Bishop spent no time there and Francois only marginal time.

In nickel with Chillar, he seems to follow the TE but not for run stopping purposes, its for coverage. If I had to guess he would still be the Buck, but the role is much different.

Agreed, that's how I see Chillar's role. And as you pointed out, he might be supplanted by Woodson or a safety.

I'm not sure, but I think you got the 'Buck' designation wrong? I remember the thread you're talking about, but can't find it (the search feature on this forum SUCKS!). The Jack or Buck position is the weakside OLB. You seem to have the role right though? Hawk plays strong side ILB, and often occupies the extra blocker while the speeder ILB makes the tackle. Not at all sure what you call that position though...I'd probably refer to it as the Mike but that's more of a 4-3 term.

[pbmax]

Answer found: http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...l=1#post414124

Rob Demovsky had them as Mack-weakside ILB, Buck-strongside ILB.

[Guiness]

Answer found: http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...l=1#post414124

Rob Demovsky had them as Mack-weakside ILB, Buck-strongside ILB.

Nice.

Did you honestly find that with the search feature on this board? If so, I bow to your kung-fu skills.

[ThunderDan]

Nice.

Did you honestly find that with the search feature on this board? If so, I bow to your kung-fu skills.

No doubt. I am still trying to find the "Chew on this Hawk Lovers" thread from some time ago.

[pbmax]

Nice.

Did you honestly find that with the search feature on this board? If so, I bow to your kung-fu skills.

Not exactly. The search feature doesn't seem to include anything in the archive. For instance, I searched all of KYPack's posts with no other parameters and 4 posts came back.

So taking a tip from Easy Cheesey, I went right to the archive (front page, bottom right) and promptly got lost. Then I went to Google, did an Advanced Search there on packerrats.com and that narrowed down the date range and got an estimated post/thread number for that date. Then I went back to the archive and read through post titles until I hit something promising.

[denverYooper]

No doubt. I am still trying to find the "Chew on this Hawk Lovers" thread from some time ago.

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...is-Hawk-Lovers!

[denverYooper]

Not exactly. The search feature doesn't seem to include anything in the archive. For instance, I searched all of KYPack's posts with no other parameters and 4 posts came back.

So taking a tip from Easy Cheesey, I went right to the archive (front page, bottom right) and promptly got lost. Then I went to Google, did an Advanced Search there on packerrats.com and that narrowed down the date range and got an estimated post/thread number for that date. Then I went back to the archive and read through post titles until I hit something promising.

When you do a google search, you can type in siteackerrats.com in the box after your search terms to search only packerrats.

Edit: colon-p makes a smiley, so site colon packerrats.com is what I was trying to write

[Iron Mike]

He looks more intimidating without the girl hair, IMHO...

[bobblehead]

I think the coverage of Hawk as the signal caller might also be damning with faint praise. If that is the most positive thing an article about him can point to, then there may be nothing exceptional that the reporting revealed. McGinn has been tallying Hawk's blitzing and the numbers are mostly horrendous. Its not uncommon for him to be 0 for 10 by McGinn's count. Now some of that might be to occupy lineman to shake someone else free. It is hard to draw a conclusion just from that number and without knowing the call and design of the blitz, but the description solid yet unexceptional comes to mind.

The defense has had fewer breakdowns this year, but that is natural in Year 2. Most of the breakdowns last year were in coverage and those weren't necessarily the calls from Barnett. And the defense seemed to be fine in Year 2 for the 3.5 games Barnett was in. That includes more designed free lancing from Woodson and less improvisational free lancing. The secondary has clearly gotten its act together on communication and we cannot forget Shields makes a huge difference. Being solid and dependable on the outside means Caper is free to go nuts with the other bodies. It is also a role Woodson free lanced with last year and got burned several times.

And I don't recall many (read: none) front seven alignment problems last year in the number 1 rated run defense with Barnett calling signals.

I don't know a team that has paid handsomely for great signal calling and alignment. This is an issue newspapers love to fret about when that guy leaves and is replaced by someone more athletic and less experienced, but teams somehow find a way to struggle through. If Barnett is expendable at his age and price, it is because of Bishop, who plays the same position and not Hawk's signal calling.

But the main concern here at ILB now, is that they still lack someone who can contend with TEs, who are the only offensive personnel to give the passing game fits this year. Neither Hawk not Bishop cover as well as Chillar or Barnett, who both have issues of their own in coverage. The best TE coverage this year has been Woodson (or on rare occasions, Collins). And for that reason plus newer contracts, Chillar is the most entrenched starter/regular contributor heading to next season with Bishop second, each above Hawk and Barnett.

And because they play different positions and have different strengths, Hawk or Barnett might be let go not because of fundamentals or athleticism, but because neither solves the TE problem at ILB. This may be one of the reasons Capers went to nickel so often this year. So it might be up to the draft to find a rare ILB who can stand in against run blockers and cover the TE better than Chillar.

Absent finding that rare player, Hawk stands to be back for the simple reason that he is the only LB on the roster who has proven he can play his Buck position.

As usual, you NAILED it.

[Patler]

I think the coverage of Hawk as the signal caller might also be damning with faint praise. If that is the most positive thing an article about him can point to, then there may be nothing exceptional that the reporting revealed. .......

But its not. The articles have also pointed out that Hawk is tied for the lead in interceptions by inside linebackers and is 9th in so called "impact plays" (interceptions + passes defensed + sacks + fumbles forced + fumbles recovered), while leading the team in tackles and doing this all in 15 games, since he didn't play on defense in game #1.

If it was a writer praising Hawk for improved communications on defense, I would not give it much significance. But it came directly from the players, with very positive comments about the clarity, certainty and calmness by which Hawk handles the job. Then, when the coaches mention that Hawk gets it right almost every time when he is forced to make the calls on his own, after the headsets shutoff automatically, it leads me to believe that there is more to it than might first appear.