Hawk taking heat in Green Bay

[Brandon494]

Cut Hawk and spend the money on a pass rusher while drafting a pass rusher with each of our first three picks. Problem solved!

[ND72]

More so in a 3-4 defense is the DL a direct reflection on the ILB. Not a single DL player received much attention. If we are gonna start to lame might as well lay it all out there. Raji was horrible, and Bishop wasn't a ton better than Hawk either. Call a spade a spade across the board.

[mission]

More so in a 3-4 defense is the DL a direct reflection on the ILB. Not a single DL player received much attention. If we are gonna start to lame might as well lay it all out there. Raji was horrible, and Bishop wasn't a ton better than Hawk either. Call a spade a spade across the board.

Bishop was a ton better than Hawk by just about every metric.

[Brandon494]

Bishop wasn't a ton better than Hawk? Huh? Oh wait its the guy with the man crush on Hawk, didn't recognize you with the new avatar.

[Bretsky]

Cut Hawk and spend the money on a pass rusher while drafting a pass rusher with each of our first three picks. Problem solved!

BINGO
get three solid pass rushers and everybody in the secondary looks better.

[Bretsky]

More so in a 3-4 defense is the DL a direct reflection on the ILB. Not a single DL player received much attention. If we are gonna start to lame might as well lay it all out there. Raji was horrible, and Bishop wasn't a ton better than Hawk either. Call a spade a spade across the board.

I think when he was in Bishop's performance was superior to Hawk's. He also seemed to make more big plays. When Pickett was out Raji's play IMO suffered even more because teams only had two players on our front 7 to game plan for, Raji and Matthews. As disappointing as it is to say, Hawk is a J.A.G. and a great disappointment as a first round draft pick.

[pbmax]

Really makes you want to plunk down that $5/month, doesn't it?

I know that information in a short time frame is limited. But the failure to recognize past mistakes for what they are drives me mad. I think they really believe that people only ever read one piece of theirs ever, or, are too dumb to remember.

To be fair, McGinn ventured into that territory far less than the others, but last year he thought it looked like he had his best year even if the contract was high. So Bob is not above swaying with the wind either.

ND has a point, Hawk looks far less than he did last year due to failures around him. He is the same guy, but the results and the reporting have taken a turn.

[mraynrand]

ND has a point, Hawk looks far less than he did last year due to failures around him.

That's an incredible statement, once you start to look at it closely. I maintain that they HELPED Hawk, by not asking him to cover much. Sometimes they dropped Matthews (like on Pettigrew), but most of the time the hung Bishop out to dry, to the point that he would be covering elite TEs (like Gates) all the way across the field all by himself. If Hawk really looked WORSE because of those around him while at the same time they were protecting him by scheme, then holy christmas does he suck donkey balls.

[pbmax]

That's an incredible statement, once you start to look at it closely. I maintain that they HELPED Hawk, by not asking him to cover much. Sometimes they dropped Matthews (like on Pettigrew), but most of the time the hung Bishop out to dry, to the point that he would be covering elite TEs (like Gates) all the way across the field all by himself. If Hawk really looked WORSE because of those around him while at the same time they were protecting him by scheme, then holy christmas does he suck donkey balls.

Not sure about Matthews, but Bishop definitely saw more time in coverage on TEs and Hawk less.

I think McGinn underplays the difficulty of the ILBs job. It may not be glamorous, but it requires two very different skill sets. They must cover and be solid in inside run support. Elite ILBs can do this, but most others are good at one and adequate at the other. Hawk just seems to be in position, rather than excelling. And no combination of Hawk/Bishop/Barnett is a good match. Not matter which pair you take, you are either missing instinctual run support or coverage.

There just isn't much upside anywhere in his game. Which is where this equation got out of whack. Hawk is a fine player and play caller if he is not the centerpiece of the defense. But his contract seems to make it look like he is, though I am not sure that's the case. He doesn't kill the D by being there, but he can be replaced, probably for a lot less.

But I am not buying the Barnett argument. Maybe he helps in coverage but the run D would have been worse. I would not be surprised to see Hawk back, not because he is irreplaceable or because Thompson has a soft spot for him in his heart, but because there are too many other holes to fill.

[mraynrand]

Not sure about Matthews, but Bishop definitely saw more time in coverage on TEs and Hawk less.

I think McGinn underplays the difficulty of the ILBs job. It may not be glamorous, but it requires two very different skill sets. They must cover and be solid in inside run support. Elite ILBs can do this, but most others are good at one and adequate at the other. Hawk just seems to be in position, rather than excelling. And no combination of Hawk/Bishop/Barnett is a good match. Not matter which pair you take, you are either missing instinctual run support or coverage.

There just isn't much upside anywhere in his game. Which is where this equation got out of whack. Hawk is a fine player and play caller if he is not the centerpiece of the defense. But his contract seems to make it look like he is, though I am not sure that's the case. He doesn't kill the D by being there, but he can be replaced, probably for a lot less.

But I am not buying the Barnett argument. Maybe he helps in coverage but the run D would have been worse. I would not be surprised to see Hawk back, not because he is irreplaceable or because Thompson has a soft spot for him in his heart, but because there are too many other holes to fill.

Barnett = speed, athleticism, false steps.

Hawk would be serviceable in a very good defense. That's why he's a JAG. And as a #5, that makes him a turd.

[Joemailman]

With the extra comp picks TT has, I could see an ILB getting drafted in Rounds 4-5. Hawk could be vulnerable to a rookie or D.J. Smith having a good camp.

[packrulz]

For the money he's making he should be better than this: http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/3629/aj-hawk

[Bretsky]

I know that information in a short time frame is limited. But the failure to recognize past mistakes for what they are drives me mad. I think they really believe that people only ever read one piece of theirs ever, or, are too dumb to remember.

To be fair, McGinn ventured into that territory far less than the others, but last year he thought it looked like he had his best year even if the contract was high. So Bob is not above swaying with the wind either.

ND has a point, Hawk looks far less than he did last year due to failures around him. He is the same guy, but the results and the reporting have taken a turn.

Hawk missed Cullen Jenkins

[George Cumby]

Cut Hawk and spend the money on a pass rusher while drafting a pass rusher with each of our first three picks. Problem solved!

+1. On the band wagon until this year. Huge disappointment.

[red]

what does hawks numbers do to our cap if we cut him?

i mean, he just signed a fairly big contract

i've always been a hawk supporter, but he was a JAG this year and has been most of his career. his blitzes have proven for years to be worthless