Watching AJ Hawk pass rush is painful

[mraynrand]

Hawk has more career sacks than Lance Briggs...just sayin.

Sure, sure, but how many times was Lance being blocked by a center AND a running back, answer me THAT!!!

[George Cumby]

Hawk has more career sacks than Lance Briggs...just sayin.

Are those the fax? I kneed to no.

[CaptainKickass]

Kickass! Stop being a no-it-all. Substitution of "dominate" for "dominant" is a Finley related meme. Just role with it.

They're their capt'n know knee'd two over react.

your just trying to get a ryes out of hymn.

Are those the fax? I kneed to no.

Eye knew eye kood cownt awn yoo awl two nawt cee thee hewmor inn migh kahntext.

[SnakeLH2006]

To title of thread....yep. I thought the same. AJ is overpaid about by 10x. He'd be a star by in the 1950-1960's. Nowadays he's best as a backup. He's smart, but his Ohio State "skills" NEVER materialized..but his paycheck sure did.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Sure, sure, but how many times was Lance being blocked by a center AND a running back, answer me THAT!!!

I wish I could answer that, but they don't keep stats on it.

Seriously, am I the only one here who is going to defend Hawk?

First of all, you're right that Hawk is no pass rusher. That's why they got Matthews and drafted Perry and converted Neal. Hawk's job is to be steady, run the defense and hold things together when the sledding gets tough which he does.

You want to know Hawk's value to the team? Read this: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...222025131.html

Ryan Pickett says any criticism of Hawk is "crazy." Pickett says Hawk is in so "much control of the defense" having someone else in there would be like "changing quarterbacks."

And this:

One player who tried reaching this "quarterback" level understands, too. Since-cut linebacker Terrell Manning learned the defense through the same prism this summer. He says the Packers depend on Hawk matching wits with a quarterback, swapping disguised looks before each snap.

"Whenever people are critical of A.J., I sit back and laugh," Manning said. "I hate to say it, but they don't know what they're talking about."

Hawk is smart and durable. He's played every game but two in his eight-year career. How many other Packers can say that?

And all the whining here about "hammies" doesn't apply to Hawk cause he ain't got any.

[pbmax]

Criticism of Hawk is centered around two facts:

He is essentially a 2 down LB. He is not a tire fire on third down, but not close to a playmaker on it. Either in coverage or pass rush.

The other is draft status. The bar for him will always be higher, probably until he retires a Packer.

I do buy that fans don't get what he means to the team in terms of calls, but that effect has been mitigated by the fact that when he went out, the D hasn't slipped noticeably. It would probably help if he got hurt when they were playing good rather than terrible like in 2011. There is also the fact that saying you are calm and rational and can get everyone lined up sounds like faint praise.

[Upnorth]

I wish I could answer that, but they don't keep stats on it.

Seriously, am I the only one here who is going to defend Hawk?

First of all, you're right that Hawk is no pass rusher. That's why they got Matthews and drafted Perry and converted Neal. Hawk's job is to be steady, run the defense and hold things together when the sledding gets tough which he does.

You want to know Hawk's value to the team? Read this: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...222025131.html

Ryan Pickett says any criticism of Hawk is "crazy." Pickett says Hawk is in so "much control of the defense" having someone else in there would be like "changing quarterbacks."

And this:


Hawk is smart and durable. He's played every game but two in his eight-year career. How many other Packers can say that?

And all the whining here about "hammies" doesn't apply to Hawk cause he ain't got any.

Hawk is probably our best tackler, solid in contain, and smart. I like him, but statheads will never see his value. Q

[Maxie the Taxi]

Criticism of Hawk is centered around two facts:

He is essentially a 2 down LB. He is not a tire fire on third down, but not close to a playmaker on it. Either in coverage or pass rush.

The other is draft status. The bar for him will always be higher, probably until he retires a Packer.

I do buy that fans don't get what he means to the team in terms of calls, but that effect has been mitigated by the fact that when he went out, the D hasn't slipped noticeably. It would probably help if he got hurt when they were playing good rather than terrible like in 2011. There is also the fact that saying you are calm and rational and can get everyone lined up sounds like faint praise.

That's basically what Dunne says in his article. The draft status thing hurts most. Fans were expecting a Claymaker but what they got was a Steady Eddy. I think they undervalue Hawk's durability. I am probably going to regret saying this, but he's the Favre of the defense in terms of durability. Just pencil him in.

Also, what defines a "big play" these days. I think this qualifies...

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/All-22-view-AJ-Hawk-breaks-up-a-pass/8e63d89c-b9bb-456c-9a75-a47e56dc2469

[CaptainKickass]

Wait a minute -

I like Hawk. But now I'm confused.

This stuff all says that he's expected to match wits with opposing QB's and react and call out plays/formations and stuff as if he were the defensive QB.

But isn't that the Safety's job? Collins, now Burnett or I guess McMillan and/or Jennings?

I need a refreshed on the mechanics of the GB Defense.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Wait a minute -

I like Hawk. But now I'm confused.

This stuff all says that he's expected to match wits with opposing QB's and react and call out plays/formations and stuff as if he were the defensive QB.

But isn't that the Safety's job? Collins, now Burnett or I guess McMillan and/or Jennings?

I need a refreshed on the mechanics of the GB Defense.

No, no, no. The article says Hawk listens to the Safety chatter then adjusts...or something. He also watches which direction the opposition's shoes are pointed...or something.

You're right. I need a refresher too. LOL

[red]

That's basically what Dunne says in his article. The draft status thing hurts most. Fans were expecting a Claymaker but what they got was a Steady Eddy. I think they undervalue Hawk's durability. I am probably going to regret saying this, but he's the Favre of the defense in terms of durability. Just pencil him in.

Also, what defines a "big play" these days. I think this qualifies...

http://www.packers.com/media-center/...5-a47e56dc2469

honestly, i think these days a big play is either a sack or an INT. if you aren't doing those two things people won't consider you a big play guy

[mraynrand]

The other is draft status. The bar for him will always be higher, probably until he retires a Packer.

Absolutely. If he had been picked in the 4th or 5th people would say "Hey that guy was great value. a decent starter on the cheap." How often do you get a top pick though? Hopefully never. But the Packers don't seem to do so well with picks above 15-20 or so. Buckley? (remarkably similar to Hawk - a decent corner/safety, but played like a mid round pick), Reynolds (BUST), Harrell (INJURED), Walker (MONEY), Raji (PROBABLY THE BEST, but has settled down into just decent)

[RashanGary]

I also get frustrated with Hawk, even more so when I was looking to him to be a playmaker. Since I gave up on that and he cut his salary, I'm feeling much happier with him tho.

I would have liked more with the 5th pick, but I appreciate Hawk for what he brings. He's not a very natural player, just little things like prying under a guy or finding a creative way to make something happen. But in a league where most players do have spatial creativity and rely on instincts, it's nice to have a guy who does it exactly as he's supposed to every time. If nothing else, it's an example for other players to follow. Most players don't need to be told to loosen up and play their game. Most players need to be told to hone it in for the most part, but let loose from time to time when everything makes sense to do it.

So much of defense depends on players knowing where each other are going to be. Hawks 100% accountability helps build trust. I think he makes the players around him better because they know where he's going to be and play with more confidence because of it.

As we transition into a team that mixes zone and man defense, having Hawk and Burnett in the middle (two guys who are very reliable) will help everyone else be more sure and comfortable with what they'er doing. I think he's a really nice piece for how our defense is growing. If we end up with really reliable/assignement sure corners and safeties, I'll start to appreciate him less, but for right now, in this puzzle, he's a really nice piece.

[Guiness]

It's pretty hard to hate on Hawk, even more so in light of the recent trade of Richardson. Not to mention look at what was on the board at the time. The rest of the top 10 was not great...Vernon Davis would have been nice, Whitner as well but he's not great and the Pack already had Collins who'd started from game 1. The next player player taken after Hawk that would be awful nice is Ngata, but no one had him ranked anywhere near where the Pack was drafting. So you could argue there was one player in consideration that would have been a much better choice.

They did as well as they could with the pick.

[Maxie the Taxi]

It's pretty hard to hate on Hawk, even more so in light of the recent trade of Richardson. Not to mention look at what was on the board at the time. The rest of the top 10 was not great...Vernon Davis would have been nice, Whitner as well but he's not great and the Pack already had Collins who'd started from game 1. The next player player taken after Hawk that would be awful nice is Ngata, but no one had him ranked anywhere near where the Pack was drafting. So you could argue there was one player in consideration that would have been a much better choice.

They did as well as they could with the pick.

As I recall there was a huge debate back then (and on this board) between those who wanted to draft Hawk and those who were high on Mario Williams. Hawk was the consensus favorite. The debate ended when Houston with its number one pick offered Williams a huge contract.

If you go back and read the comments of those favoring Hawk, it was like he was some kind of god. It's definitely unfair to Hawk to saddle him with those kind of over-hyped expectations. He is what he is and many of us saw that at the time. When Mario became unavailable, I was glad we drafted him. We could have done a lot worse.