Hawk Cut

[Fritz]

I think Nick Barnett provides more stability and team leadership. Little less flamboyant than Hawk.

[Lurker64]

I think Nick Barnett provides more stability and team leadership. Little less flamboyant than Hawk.

Barnett's samurai dance is also much better than Hawk's.

[channtheman]

Well, it's specifically because "regardless" is a negative ("without regard"), yet people frequently use "irregardless" which is a double negative ("Not without regard") to mean the same thing as "regardless", so the solution is clearly to generate a triple negative so as to preserve the original meaning.

Yes I realized after I posted that "regardless" generally has a more negative tone. Very clever way to outdo the wrong with that triple negative.

[Fritz]

Barnett's samurai dance is also much better than Hawk's.

Hawk would still be a Packer if he'd taken my suggestion and started "The Thrust" after every tackle.

[Brandon494]

Wow this year just better and better.

[Lurker64]

Wow this year just better and better.

I, for one, am looking forward to the impending lockout. "Which players run out of money first" has tremendous comedy potential.

[ThunderDan]

I love the physicality that AJ brings and the players obviously rallied around him. I don't love the fact that he only had one great year and it was in a contract year. I don't love the fact that his market value may be inflated by a Super Bowl ring or an owner that throws money around to make a name signing to sell season tickets.

AJ was still under contract to the Packers. The Packers cut his contract. It may be that Hawk played very well this year but the Packers had to do nothing to retain his services if they wanted to.

[ThunderDan]

Kind of ironic don't you think? Year after year it was, Hawk was not living up to his contract and is going to get cut. Finally, he has an excellent season and he is sent packing (at least for now).

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Sounds like the making of a reality tv show Lurker. If the masses will watch drivel like Dancing with the Stars then that show would be a smash hit.

[packerbacker1234]

Big gamble. Hawk could sign with another team.

IMO Barnett is not a suitable replacement due to injury history. Chillar is not an every down backer.

TT is always good at finding linebackers. Bet TT finds another Bishop in the late rounds.

He's had two major injuries in his career, one of which is arguably on it's seriousness. He had the knee injury two years ago. This year it was a wrist - same injury that IR'd Urlacher a couple seasons ago. The wrist injury isn't even remotely considered a serious injury or a hard one to come back from - it's just a "play with it before it heals, risk crippling your hand the rest of your life". It has little to do with his body's condition or his ability to play the LB position in 2011. It's essentially just a year off, a year off that was definitely to the benefit of any additional rehabiliation he was still doing on his knee, They say the knee injury he had takes a bit longer than a year to be 100%, and with the extra season off it;s like his knee is back to being what it was pre injury.

The wrist is of little concern and none of us should even consider it as an ongoing problem.

Barnett has had 2 "season ending" injuries the last two years. Does that suddenly erase all his years prior to that of being great? Does Rodgers 2nd and possibly 3rd concussion magically mean Rodgers can no longer take a hit anymore? His injury last season was a choice to not cripple his hand, not a choice of being physically unable to perform.

Why is everyone quick to call Barnett an injury waiting ot happen? He isn't Juston Harrel folks, or even Will Blackmon. He got VERY unlucky last year. Urlacher lost two seasons in a row as well to fluke injuries, yet he was just fine last season. I'm not fetting over barnett getting hurt again - the chances of him getting hurt are no greater than say Tramon Williams getting hurt at this point. It's just a matter of who is the better LB for this team, and right now it's hard to say. Barnett was better than hawk in the previous years leading into last year. Hawk got better last year, but did he get better than Barnett or did he simply just have "one of those years" like his rookie season? WHo knows.

Barnett will be fine. His status as a starter is still debatable unless Hawk signs elsewhere.

[ThunderDan]

Hawk and Barnett don't play the same position. What you will see is Bishop and Barnett fighting for playing time.

[Lurker64]

Hawk and Barnett don't play the same position. What you will see is Bishop and Barnett fighting for playing time.

McCarthy said at the Combine that Bishop is one of the starters. So I guess it's either "Hawk gets resigned and Barnett gets shown the door" or "Bishop gets moved to Buck LB" since Barnett simply can't play it.

[get louder at lambeau]

McCarthy said at the Combine that Bishop is one of the starters. So I guess it's either "Hawk gets resigned and Barnett gets shown the door" or "Bishop gets moved to Buck LB" since Barnett simply can't play it.

Can Bishop play it? Hawk has 10 pounds on either of them.

[Lurker64]

Can Bishop play it? Hawk has 10 pounds on either of them.

I think he can play it, he's definitely physical enough (Barnett is not nearly physical enough), it's just a matter of teaching him the position. I'm not how quick he'd pick it up, or how much of an offseason he would have to learn it.

We kind of need to have either Hawk or Barnett on the field, since those are the guys who can make the calls on the defense. Maybe they stealth-taught Bishop that responsibility during last season, but I'm not sure.

[RashanGary]

McCarthy said at the Combine that Bishop is one of the starters. So I guess it's either "Hawk gets resigned and Barnett gets shown the door" or "Bishop gets moved to Buck LB" since Barnett simply can't play it.

Right. It's not like we're talking about penises and vaginas here. In this situation one can do the role of another. I agree with you that Barnett cannot play the Buck, but to say Bishop can't. . . . . There's no reason to think that. Bishop plays big. James Harrison is too short and too light for OLB, but he's amazing at it. Bishop is no James Harrison, but he does play big and strong. I don't know if it's a leverage thing, attitude thing or what.