Just Who Is AJ Hawk's Competition for Buck ILB?

[Guiness]

Then you proabaly have a prablem with must of my posits.

I'm watching your grammar too! That sentence showed proper use of both subject and object pronouns, but consider yourself on notice.

[wist43]

I'm not a big Hawk fan, but as I said in another thread - the guys who we think belong in the rotation, but seemingly played like shit last year, have to be given a pass for circumstances beyond their control, i.e. the mess that was Green Bay's front seven in positions 6 thru 13.

Assume Raji, Pickett, Matthews, Bishop, and Hawk are players - who else contributed anything?? Not only could the Packers not field 7 NFL calibur starters, they got no benefit from any rotation, nor any boost from sub packages. Walden, Wynn, Wilson, Neal, Jones, Francios, and Zombo - combined!!! contributed nothing.

Hence TT's reaction in the 2012 draft.

Whether Hawk hangs on to a starting gig or not is irrelevent; what matters is that whoever is manning that starting spot is making plays. The days of slow reads, false steps, missed tackles, and no impact plays have to come to an end.

[Joemailman]

I'm not a big Hawk fan, but as I said in another thread - the guys who we think belong in the rotation, but seemingly played like shit last year, have to be given a pass for circumstances beyond their control, i.e. the mess that was Green Bay's front seven in positions 6 thru 13.

Assume Raji, Pickett, Matthews, Bishop, and Hawk are players - who else contributed anything?? Not only could the Packers not field 7 NFL calibur starters, they got no benefit from any rotation, nor any boost from sub packages. Walden, Wynn, Wilson, Neal, Jones, Francios, and Zombo - combined!!! contributed nothing.

Hence TT's reaction in the 2012 draft.

Whether Hawk hangs on to a starting gig or not is irrelevent; what matters is that whoever is manning that starting spot is making plays. The days of slow reads, false steps, missed tackles, and no impact plays have to come to an end.

As in Terrell Manning?

[pbmax]

I'm not a big Hawk fan, but as I said in another thread - the guys who we think belong in the rotation, but seemingly played like shit last year, have to be given a pass for circumstances beyond their control, i.e. the mess that was Green Bay's front seven in positions 6 thru 13.

Assume Raji, Pickett, Matthews, Bishop, and Hawk are players - who else contributed anything?? Not only could the Packers not field 7 NFL calibur starters, they got no benefit from any rotation, nor any boost from sub packages. Walden, Wynn, Wilson, Neal, Jones, Francios, and Zombo - combined!!! contributed nothing.

Hence TT's reaction in the 2012 draft.

Whether Hawk hangs on to a starting gig or not is irrelevent; what matters is that whoever is manning that starting spot is making plays. The days of slow reads, false steps, missed tackles, and no impact plays have to come to an end.

Well, there is this nugget picked up this offseason. CJ Wilson was given a high grade as a run defender by Pro Football Focus. That's both surprising and shocking. His strength is obviously in run D, but the poor play of the right side last year seemed to start with him. Several posters (including you and Nutz) commented on it. We must remember that Thompson went all out on pass rush, not Run D.

Now PFF has no idea who has what responsibility on each call (though DE in a 3-4 on a run down might be among the easier reads) but he clearly showed something during the broadcasts they re-watch.

So while I believe they have overestimated Wilson's impact, by almost the same token, I am not willing to give Hawk a pass for last year either. He needs to be better than a well positioned body or they should be seeking to replace him sooner rather than later.

[Lurker64]

I'm not a big Hawk fan, but as I said in another thread - the guys who we think belong in the rotation, but seemingly played like shit last year, have to be given a pass for circumstances beyond their control, i.e. the mess that was Green Bay's front seven in positions 6 thru 13.

I think the operative point is: It doesn't matter what happened last year, give everybody a pass for last year, what matters is what guys do this year.

[RashanGary]

I'm not a big Hawk fan, but as I said in another thread - the guys who we think belong in the rotation, but seemingly played like shit last year, have to be given a pass for circumstances beyond their control, i.e. the mess that was Green Bay's front seven in positions 6 thru 13.

Assume Raji, Pickett, Matthews, Bishop, and Hawk are players - who else contributed anything?? Not only could the Packers not field 7 NFL calibur starters, they got no benefit from any rotation, nor any boost from sub packages. Walden, Wynn, Wilson, Neal, Jones, Francios, and Zombo - combined!!! contributed nothing.

Hence TT's reaction in the 2012 draft.

Whether Hawk hangs on to a starting gig or not is irrelevent; what matters is that whoever is manning that starting spot is making plays. The days of slow reads, false steps, missed tackles, and no impact plays have to come to an end.

Good post!!

[Guiness]

I think the operative point is: It doesn't matter what happened last year, give everybody a pass for last year, what matters is what guys do this year.

Um, if we give everybody a pass for last year, don't we end up with the same problem?

[Lurker64]

Um, if we give everybody a pass for last year, don't we end up with the same problem?

You're assuming that players are only interested in self-correcting if it saves their jobs. Moreover, you bench people (or promote them) based on what they're doing this year, not what they did last year.

[Fritz]

There are many ways and formation isn't as important as players. But neither extreme works. You can't just pick the highest rated talent regardless of where he fits in a defense either. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of Jeremy Thompson's and nowhere to put him. The other end is a bunch of try hard guys who are productive but can't win any battle on talent or dominate the opponent. See every Marty Schottenheimer team.

The Packers have clearly deviated from the standard Pittsburgh 3-4 model with this draft and plan to spend a lot of time rushing the passer with various groups and alignments. Given three years of data and their offense, that makes sense. Whether that works or not will be determined partly by how well the pieces fit together to make an entire unit. The Packers aren't drafting "real talent" and then picking a defensive scheme, they clearly intend to run something different out there a good portion of the time.

PB, I'm not too schooled in this sort of thing, so I'd be interested in hearing you explain, if you care to, what the "Pittsburgh model" is and how GB seems to be deviating from it. I'm guessing the Pittsburgh model features a few designated mostly-pass rushers, and uses a limited number of alignments? Is that so, or is it different or more complicated than that, or both?

[pbmax]

PB, I'm not too schooled in this sort of thing, so I'd be interested in hearing you explain, if you care to, what the "Pittsburgh model" is and how GB seems to be deviating from it. I'm guessing the Pittsburgh model features a few designated mostly-pass rushers, and uses a limited number of alignments? Is that so, or is it different or more complicated than that, or both?

Pittsburgh (and other 3-4 teams) tend to have the type of DEs that lurker talks about looking for in the draft. Ideal DE in a 3-4 would be 6-4/5 and around 300 lbs. Space eaters, who even if they can't rush the passer, just take up an enormous amount of space (mostly vertical) and can clog passing lanes. Check the Steelers roster:

--	Mike Blanc	DE	25	6-4	297	R	Auburn
95	Corbin Bryant	DE	24	6-4	300	1	Northwestern
65	Miguel Chavis	DE	23	6-5	285	R	Clemson
97	Cameron Heyward	DE	23	6-5	288	2	Ohio State
96	Ziggy Hood	DE	25	6-3	300	4	Missouri
99	Brett Keisel	DE	33	6-5	285	11	Brigham Young
--	Adrian Robinson	DE	22	6-2	250	R	Temple
--	Jake Stoller	DE	--	6-4	290	R	Yale

No one under 285 (2 players) or 6-3 (1 player). And Aaron Smith just retired and he was listed at 6-5 and 298. CJ Wilson is the closest the Packers have to this ideal. He is also an example of the problem as he can't rush the passer.

The Packers draft featured several players (Worthy, Daniels and Manning) who are small by the normal standards for a 3-4. But each has a capacity to rush the passer. The flip side in this draft was Perry, who is custom built for the role the Packers will put him in.

If you go back a bit further however, to the Tony Dungy era in Pittsburgh (and the beginning of the Cowher/Capers/LeBeau era) the Steelers 3-4 were small compared to the Parcells/Belicheck Pats and Jets 3-4. So its not unheard of. But the trend is taller with reach, rather than short and squat like Pickett and Raji.

Justin had a good point earlier, that its not a good idea to always take the less talented just to satisfy the body type requirement. And there is truth in that. But its also a catch 22. You also cannot be so small in the front seven that you cannot handle the opposing front or interfere with the QBs throwing lanes.

I suspect we have been reading McCarthy and Capers a little too closely this year and the defense will shake out close to the previous three years, with a lot of sub defense regardless of M3 wanting to get back to more base. If that happens, then this draft makes sense. They are not looking to change the defensive approach or even the front seven starters except for Walden. They want one or two other players who can apply heat to the QB on passing downs. The draft was about playing better in 4-2-5 or 4-1-6 on passing downs.

If correct, the only concern is depth of big bodies. But honestly, with as pedestrian as they played last year, there are waiver bodies who could fare as well.

[Fritz]

Ah, thank you. If you're not a teacher/professor/coach, you should be. That was clear and enlightening.

One possible issue I see with this approach - beyond potentially not being able to clog passing lanes - is that all this substitution can be wreaked havoc upon by a no-huddle offense. The defensive coaches have to make sure players know the packages, so they can hustle on and off the field. And no waddling 340 pounders five yards from the sideline when the ball is snapped - that's being called now, I think, as too many men on the field.

So how can a defense do all this subbing if an offense goes no-huddle? Is that why AJ Hawk might have more value, because he can make defensive calls if the right sub package doesn't get on the field in time?

And would Johnny Jolly be a welcome (more traditional) addition to this DE group, then?

[ThunderDan]

Ah, thank you. If you're not a teacher/professor/coach, you should be. That was clear and enlightening.

One possible issue I see with this approach - beyond potentially not being able to clog passing lanes - is that all this substitution can be wreaked havoc upon by a no-huddle offense. The defensive coaches have to make sure players know the packages, so they can hustle on and off the field. And no waddling 340 pounders five yards from the sideline when the ball is snapped - that's being called now, I think, as too many men on the field.

So how can a defense do all this subbing if an offense goes no-huddle? Is that why AJ Hawk might have more value, because he can make defensive calls if the right sub package doesn't get on the field in time?

And would Johnny Jolly be a welcome (more traditional) addition to this DE group, then?

That is the issue will the no-huddle. You put in your D based on the O's personnel. If the O can find a match up to exploit you are in a world of hurt.

In the no huddle offense the O cannot substitute players without allowing the D time to make their own adjustments to the personnel change. This is when you see the referee standing over the football not allowing the center to snap the ball eventhough the O is at the line.

No switching WRs after the play no change in RBs. If the O substitutes any player the D is always allowed to change if they want.

[pbmax]

Jolly is more squat than ideal (6' 3", 320), but he is a more effective run stopper than Wynn, can handle the occasional double team and has more pass rush (but not much more) than Wilson. He would have a role if he is what he was. He would be an upgrade perhaps but not a solution to the pass rush issue.

No huddle is a danger if the opposition can run it. But most teams only do it when they can get a mismatch. Sub packages are called to avoid the mismatch.

One other point about Justin's take on the draft. The draft probably emphasizes the Packers belief that they will be facing a lot of passing again and a recognition that there is a pass rush hole on the D. Justin believes Thompson has selected players that will unearth a fix for that hole and Capers will need to find a spot for them even if it means giving up more 3-4 base. Or playing more 3-4 Eagle Oakie (which, by alignment, looks just like a 4-3 Under--the only difference is one of your DEs is an OLB). Essentially, don't be dogmatic about it and get the players who can succeed out on the field.

But there is a downside to running so much sub without altering the base D. You cannot predict what the offenses will do this year. Opponents will adjust and no one should be surprised if the Packers O comes down a little from astronomical. The Packers D could face more running this year than last. If you trade Base 3-4 roster spots for hybrid players or pass rushers, then you weaken your base D (at least in depth). Such a scenario could be problematic.

The roster is only 53 players and while Justin is right that you can't keep only the right body type and ignore talent, not every player has the same talent. And much off the pass rush talent is young. That young talent might not adapt well to a sudden emphasis on run stopping.

Of all the people on this board, I might be least impressed by running games as an Offensive attack. But it is still true that at some point you might need to stop such an attack, even if its simply in a close game on 4th and short. I would be happiest with 4 DEs at 6-4 who each weigh 295 lbs and can stop the run and collapse a pocket. But that is a rare thing. Even the Steelers D last year proved having such bodies doesn't automatically make an effective unit.

So you have to prioritize. And here I agree with Justin, the priority has to be pass D and pass rush first. Even if Capers playbook says his defense must start by first stopping the run.

[Upnorth]

Capers has never been shy of unortodox D in the past, but I do worry if we over commit to the pass that we will be eaten up (and tired out) by the run. IN 2009 and 2010 we were great run stoppers which forced teams to try to beat out CB's and Safties which were a strenght. While I hope he does increase his focus on the pass rush I still hope we can put a few good run defenders on the field.

[Fritz]

So Dan, if I understand you correctly, the no-huddle only works if the offense keeps the same unit on the field while running it. The minute they sub someone out, the defense then has the whole 30 seconds to sub in, too. Is that so? If it is, then the only time it works in terms of a mismatch is if the offense finds itself in a nice mismatch with a defense, then keeps that personnel on the field and runs the no-huddle. Yes?

And PB, to your point: I know Mike Neal is supposed to have some pass rush, and I know he's suspended, but wasn't he supposed to also be a bigger body that could handle the run? Also, while Jolly would seem to be a long shot to even be reinstated, is there any word as to whether Lawrence Guy has learned anything at all in the offseason? He could be the guy to push Wynn out of a job, perhaps. If they keep what, six defensive linemen?

Pickett
Raji
Worthy
Daniels (is that his name? The Iowa kid?)
Wynn
Wilson
Muir
Guy

Hargrove (suspended)
Neal (suspended)

Long, long shot: Jolly

I wonder, of that group, how many they keep, and how many run-stopping DE's, besides Pickett, they'd like to have on the roster. One other one?