Hawk or Barnett?

[retailguy]

I have read twice he is having a good year in Buffalo and seems a good fit. He is also probably more reliable in coverage.

That said, at the cost of the 4 LBs (Hawk, Chillar, Bishop and Barnett) Nick was the one who needed to go. Its too bad Chillar wasn't healthy, would have loved to see him on the field versus some of the offenses.

Overall, I've read the same thing. Though on Sunday, I watched the Buffalo game. Barnett gave up the 31-31 tying touchdown to Welker. Of course, everybody gave up a TD to Welker on Sunday, but nonetheless....

[Joemailman]

WTF?? Did you ever watch the NFCC 2007 game? Poppinga was a beast vs. the run. His problem was in coverage (and he was below average rushing the passer).

I was referring to the situation ever since the Packers switched to the 3-4. He was a major liability against the run in early 2009 before Matthews took over the starter role. He had a tendency to commit too far inside. If St. Louis plays a 4-3, I wouldn't be surprised if he's doing better. Or maybe he's just gotten better.

[pbmax]

Its probably indicative of the demands of the position that all the OLBs have been sucked inside on plays away from them. Zombo and Walden each exhibited the same tendency as Popp. But both Walden and Zombo seemed to unlearn the bad habit faster than Popp. Hell, Walden was doing it in preseason, but since the Chiefs game, seemed to learn his lesson.

To his credit, Popp got Wally Pipp'ed by Matthews pretty fast, so he might have adjusted.

[The Shadow]

Hawk or Barnett? Hawk is the superior player.
Right desicion to keep him & jettison Barnett.

[ThunderDan]

I was referring to the situation ever since the Packers switched to the 3-4. He was a major liability against the run in early 2009 before Matthews took over the starter role. He had a tendency to commit too far inside. If St. Louis plays a 4-3, I wouldn't be surprised if he's doing better. Or maybe he's just gotten better.

This. Popp was poop against the run in the 3-4, lost contain all the time.

[Smeefers]

Wow. I would go with Hawk as well, but I'm surprised how damn near everyone is on the band wagon here.

[Pugger]

The defense seemed to get magically better last year when Barnett went out, and Hawk took over the play calling. Impossible to tell for sure from where I am sitting, but it's possible he's a better defensive play caller. It's been said many times that he's a student of the game.

This.

[bobblehead]

I was referring to the situation ever since the Packers switched to the 3-4. He was a major liability against the run in early 2009 before Matthews took over the starter role. He had a tendency to commit too far inside. If St. Louis plays a 4-3, I wouldn't be surprised if he's doing better. Or maybe he's just gotten better.

Thats fair enough.

[vince]

Barnett is clearly quicker from sideline to sideline but his problem is he's a look-at-me-first guy. Hawk is a better leader for the defense, more reliable, younger and consistently healthier. Hawk is the better fit for this team.

[Deputy Nutz]

Hawk gets hammered by the media for his coverage skills but in reality is no better or worse than Chillar or Barnett. Neither of those two guys would be able to run with Sproles or Forte. Running backs have the edge on almost all linebackers when it comes to routes. Barnett lacks the ability to play within the scheme, especially in the 3-4. Sure he makes plays, but he also allows big plays to happen when he free lances because he doesn't want to take on lead blockers or fill his gap responsiblities.

Hawk does need to pull his pecker out of the sand and start getting into the flow of the game. He is a step slow right now and I haven't seen him make a single solo tackle at or around the line of scrimmage this year. Bishop is also playing more like a street free agent right now than a well payed starting veteran.

[Deputy Nutz]

Barnett is clearly quicker from sideline to sideline but his problem is he's a look-at-me-first guy. Hawk is a better leader for the defense, more reliable, younger and consistently healthier. Hawk is the better fit for this team.

Barnett seemed faster because he never engaged at the point of attack. He was always running sideline to sideline and that is not what you really want from an inside linebacker in a 3-4.

[vince]

Barnett seemed faster because he never engaged at the point of attack. He was always running sideline to sideline and that is not what you really want from an inside linebacker in a 3-4.

Totally agree on the point of attack. Barnett "seemed" faster because he was/is faster. Hawk ain't going to win many races with pass-catching TE's much less running backs. That said, Ted made the right choice for a number of reasons.

[rbaloha1]

Hey, where is the lost love for Poppinga? He looked pretty good for St. Louis last week. He might be better than Walden, or maybe it is a tossup.

Always felt BP was better at inside lb instead of the outside.

[rbaloha1]

Totally agree on the point of attack. Barnett "seemed" faster because he was/is faster. Hawk ain't going to win many races with pass-catching TE's much less running backs. That said, Ted made the right choice for a number of reasons.

What about Hawk's 40 time.

[rbaloha1]

At the time, Hawk was the right resigning due to Barnett's injury status.

With the benefit of hindsight, prefer Barnett. Barnett's fiery leadership is missing. Barnett is clearly better in coverage especially in space. Hawk has improved in this area -- best when chasing a te downfield and turning around at the right time.

Often times Hawk looks too stiff and still "thinking too much." Soar Hawk!