Packers expected to cut Hawk when CBA done

[RashanGary]

I think I'd prefer letting him go. That money can be put back into Matthews or Raji. Barnett is almost as good as Hawk. But I see your point too. For right now, one year, keeping Hawk and letting Barnett go would be better move. If the season starts, you can always work on an extension with Hawk too, before he hits UFA next year. I'd go wtih Barnett and Chillar though and put that money toward a guy who's really worth the 10M. Then keep drafting and developing.

[Fritz]

So it's really an eight million dollar swing - keep Hawk and cut Barnett, and you basically pay Hawk 4 mill a year. Keep Barnett and cut Hawk, and you save four million a year. Is that correct?

[get louder at lambeau]

I don't really disagree with most of what you're saying there, Justin. It wouldn't shock me if it played out that way.

The reason I think it won't is those guys nearly as good as him behind Hawk are not team leaders, and have not been durable at all. McCarthy preaches availability and accountability, and Hawk wins hands down by those criteria over both of them.

I think Hawk is likely to play as many games as the two of them combined over the rest of their careers. Both have missed a significant amount of time over the last few years, will be coming back from significant injuries, and are older than Hawk. Both are undersized too. Hawk is not.

I don't think you let a team leader walk at 27 years old, healthy. His best days are probably ahead of him. I'd rather see both Chillar and Barnett gone than Hawk, personally. Get some young guns in behind Hawk and Bishop in the draft. Then we can pay Hawk and still not have a crazy amount tied up on ILBs.

[Patler]

I think I'd prefer letting him go. That money can be put back into Matthews or Raji. Barnett is almost as good as Hawk. But I see your point too. For right now, one year, keeping Hawk and letting Barnett go would be better move. If the season starts, you can always work on an extension with Hawk too, before he hits UFA next year. I'd go wtih Barnett and Chillar though and put that money toward a guy who's really worth the 10M. Then keep drafting and developing.

There is an extra draft pick there, too, by keeping Hawk:
- If they keep Hawk, they can likely trade Barnett for something.
- If they keep Barnett, they will have to release Hawk because of timing.

Keeping Hawk will also buy some injury protection. If they release Hawk and Barnett or Bishop is injured in camp, they will be scrambling for another ILB. If the keep Hawk, they can hang on to Barnett at least until the final cutdown when his salary would guarantee, or for as long as they want to before the trade deadline.

Best case scenario - The lockout lasts at least until after the draft so the Packers can postpone any decision on Hawk until after they see if they get anyone they like at ILB in the draft.

[Smidgeon]

My only real concern should Hawk walk (I know he wouldn't be walking, but I wanted it to rhyme) would be: who would play his position? Bishop was called by M3 "the most instinctive player in the front 7." If that's the case, you don't want him "thumping with the O-Line". You want him reading the plays develop behind the guy thumping with the OL. And I truly believe neither Barnett nor Chillar can do what Hawk does.

So who could step up into that position? Francois? A player who spent most of the year on the practice squad? In my opinion, not likely. They'd have to find someone in the draft to do that, I think.

[Patler]

So it's really an eight million dollar swing - keep Hawk and cut Barnett, and you basically pay Hawk 4 mill a year. Keep Barnett and cut Hawk, and you save four million a year. Is that correct?

Don't confuse yourself, the difference is just $4 million.

Keep Hawk, team salaries are "X" + 10 million.
Keep Barnett and salaries are "x" + 6 million.

Where "x" = salaries for all other players.

The difference is 4 million.

[Smidgeon]

Well, Hawk was cut. There goes that part of the debate.

[get louder at lambeau]

Here's my prediction- Packers sign Hawk this offseason to a 5 year, $35 million contract. Barnett is traded. Chillar is the 3rd ILB. A rookie or Francois fills it out.

EDIT- Just saw that he got cut. I stand by my prediction.

[RashanGary]

Here's my prediction- Packers sign Hawk this offseason to a 5 year, $35 million contract. Barnett is traded. Chillar is the 3rd ILB. A rookie or Francois fills it out.

EDIT- Just saw that he got cut. I stand by my prediction.

That reads more like a wish. Scott got 8M a year or two ago as a role playing Buck in the Ravens scheme. Now He's a high paid dude. Hawk has a bigger name and all the production of Scott. He'll get sick $$ and it won't be from us.

[pbmax]

New contract is definitely a wish now. Hawk has been released.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/02/packers-cut-a-j-hawk/

Well, the cap casualty chorus finally got one right.

[Smidgeon]

Say Hawk doesn't come back? I'm still curious who will replace him since I think Bishop would be wasted there and Barnett/Chillar can't do it.

[Cheesehead Craig]

We might have different defintions of Jag. Jag's are guys you can replace with another guy easily. Hawk can be replaced by Barnett (already has been), Chillar (already has been) and Bishop (definitly can be). He's not hard ot replace, there-for he shouldn't get paid a lot of money.

Barnett (Hawk's proven to be a better leader and defensive playcaller and he's far more physical than Barnett)
Chillar (Can't stay on the field)
Bishop (No basis for your argument)

Hawk's leadership and and playcalling are very difficult to replace, that alone makes him more than JAG.

[SkinBasket]

According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "negotiations have gotten nowhere."

Top notch stuff.

[swede]

Top notch stuff.

[Fritz]

So he remains unsigned?