Hawk taking heat in Green Bay

[Smidgeon]

Once again proving that Hawk is a divisive figure amongst the Packers fan base.

And that's why McGinn wrote the article. Reader response.

[Smidgeon]

I think GB was hoping for a similar tandem with Q and Fin.

I think you're right. And I'm still hoping for that. Hopefully Quarless heals well and benefits from studying in the offseason.

[Smidgeon]

Well, not to go too far bashing Bob today, but one of his scout sources was just fired by Irsay in Indianapolis for failing as a GM. So, even Bob's scouts get it wrong occasionally.

Much of the NFL is not simply picking winners in the draft, but players that work in a system that the coach can reach and can work with their teammates.

Finley may be the second most feared TE for DCs, but he is dead last among receivers in having a rapport with his QB on the team. Neither seemed on the same page this year. It has happened to other WRs and Rodgers before (Jennings comes to mind at the beginning of last year) but none of the other dry spells have lasted as long as Finley's has.

Excellent point. Why do you think that happened? They were completely on the same page in 2010 and the end of 2009.

[pbmax]

Why not? 15-1, an offense that was rolling. Take away the stupid drops and fumbles, and they're likely still playing. Whose to say they won't come back and win it all next year? Plus, McGinn doesn't get paid to write weasely boring articles: "Packers will play extremely well next year, but fall short" That's compelling! It was a reasonable prediction.

Mainly, because predicting a dynasty is a tricky business. Especially because this year's team had a new hurdle of its own making to overcome. And it had never proved it could do that (though 15-1 through the regular season is a good start). Had they stumbled and faced road games, then predicting playoff success would make more sense based on experience.

The Packers may come back and win it all next year. They probably will be one of the top three favorites. But if they do, it won't be because Thompson solved the Hawk problem. I think it more likely he patches elsewhere.

[sharpe1027]

This is true, but the problem is the guy has a great sense of pride and I'm not sure he can be trusted to be healthy for the team as a backup. The play of Francois and DJ Smith was about equal with Hawk, worse against the run, but better against the pass. However, those guys are young and have upside. They should be seeing more snaps next season and Hawk should be seeing less.

The same argument could be made to get rid of Rodgers and go with Flynn. The main difference is that Rodgers and Flynn both played outstanding, while Hawk, Francois and Smith were each average. Why dump Hawk (or Rodgers) in favor of unproven guys (a couple games is a pretty small sample size)? If they outplay Hawk and he is pissed about not getting enough playing time, that's still a good thing since the team will have improved on the field. Hawk can always be moved/cut the following year (with less of an immediate cap hit).

[Pugger]

But Flynn is no where near as good as Rodgers or he'd be our starter and Rodgers would be the FA in a few weeks.

[sharpe1027]

But Flynn is no where near as good as Rodgers or he'd be our starter and Rodgers would be the FA in a few weeks.

But Francois is no where near as good as Hawk or he'd be our starter and Hawk would be the FA in a few weeks.

[Fritz]

The bigger picture, which PB mentions, is the picture of whether the secondary went AWOL because it got selfish or because it was trying to compensate for the lack of pass rush by creating turnovers. If it's the former, then the coaching staff needs to be called out. It's their job to stop players from being selfish. If it's because they felt the pressure to get a turnover because they knew offenses could march down the field against their (lack of) pass rush, then it's just a question of fixing the pass rush.

Neither is easy to resolve, but I hope it's the latter. As hard as it is to find good pass rushing linemen and linebackers, it's still easier than firing a defensive coach who's lost control of his defense and then finding a new guy to come in and take charge.

Hawk's Hawk. Not nearly as important as the above dilemma.

[red]

question to think about

if hawk was a 3rd round pick, you people still feel the same way about him?

no ones bitching about pat lee being a wasted pick . and he's next to worthless

[Fritz]

question to think about

if hawk was a 3rd round pick, you people still feel the same way about him?

no ones bitching about pat lee being a wasted pick . and he's next to worthless

Pat Lee's a wasted pick! He's useless! He's worthless!

Frickin' Pat Lee!

[Cheesehead Craig]

no ones bitching about pat lee being a wasted pick . and he's next to worthless

Is he standing next to Bush?

[red]

Is he standing next to Bush?

LOL

now that was clever

[mraynrand]

if hawk was a 3rd round pick, you people still feel the same way about him?

Of course not. It's exactly the point that he was a #5 that kills you. You have to suck pretty bad to get the #5 pick, so you want that guy to be a pro bowler, if not an all pro. Packers have been getting a top 10 pick about once every five years over the past two decades. That guy should be one of the best 5 guys on your team.

[sharpe1027]

I disagree with the premise that a player needs to be judged on his draft number. In the aggregate, higher picks will tend to be better players. Still, it is like judging an employees by comparing the schools they went to. In the aggregate, you would expect some from MIT to be a WAY better scientist than a high school drop out. Still, in the end all you should really care about is which is better regardless of school.

Same with players and their draft order. In the end, I don't care that much if Hawk is only marginally better than Francois despite that difference in draft status. I care that Hawk is better. I don't blame Hawk for other's decisions on his value at draft day. He tries just as hard as the long shot free agents, which tend to get publicity just for not falling down.

On the other hand, the high value of his contract is pertinent to the extent that the Packers had to sacrifice by not signing other players.

[Upnorth]

FWIW ill take hawk at 5 over harrell at 16 everyday of the week. Hawk is okay and better than most in our lb corp. I say we draft at least 2 lb's, but I don't see hawk being cut. He may not be the starter but still depth on the team.