merlin's article on hawk

[FritzDontBlitz]

first of all, i don't see the point in bashing you for having a conflicting viewpoint. we disagree on hawk's worth, but not to the point where i intend to start trashing you and your family.

having said that, i will just suggest you look at the negatives for both players - hawk and the player in question. assuming the other player is barnett, then just comparing their negatives alone makes hawk the better lb in my opinion. hesitancy and inefficiency are not things you want to see in your best linebacker. i agree that barnett will remain on the field on passing downs but only due to his 3 years experience in the league, not necessarily because of ability. we have already seen barnett's coverage flaws and hesitancy in key situations that may have cost us games in the past - 4th and 26 vs philly in '03, dropping coverage to chase daunte culpepper and allowing his man to catch an easy lob pass in the flat and score unmolested in the 2004 playoff game are just two examples.

hawk to me is already the better player. as far as contracts go, barnett's will be up soon so hopefully he will be rewarded accordingly for his contributions....

[Tarlam!]

Re: merlin's article on hawk

first of all, i don't see the point in bashing you for having a conflicting viewpoint. ....

I do, I say we beat the proverbial outta him, then throw him a pool filled with kool-aid.

If he's still babbling Hawk-is-average sentiments, I say we sell him to the Bears fans for 2 kegs of brew!

[Merlin]

Re: merlin's article on hawk

first of all, i don't see the point in bashing you for having a conflicting viewpoint. we disagree on hawk's worth, but not to the point where i intend to start trashing you and your family.

having said that, i will just suggest you look at the negatives for both players - hawk and the player in question. assuming the other player is barnett, then just comparing their negatives alone makes hawk the better lb in my opinion. hesitancy and inefficiency are not things you want to see in your best linebacker. i agree that barnett will remain on the field on passing downs but only due to his 3 years experience in the league, not necessarily because of ability. we have already seen barnett's coverage flaws and hesitancy in key situations that may have cost us games in the past - 4th and 26 vs philly in '03, dropping coverage to chase daunte culpepper and allowing his man to catch an easy lob pass in the flat and score unmolested in the 2004 playoff game are just two examples.

hawk to me is already the better player. as far as contracts go, barnett's will be up soon so hopefully he will be rewarded accordingly for his contributions....

I think you are taking two words out of an analysis that is 4 years old of Barnett and not completely grasping how the media hype thing has grown. The analysts were so high on Hawk that they wouldn't dare use those two words when listing the negatives. I think you have some serious blinders on because 99% of what was said, their analysis and their statistics are THE SAME. FYI, the 4th and 26, Barnett WAS NOT out of position, if anything he was too deep. You do know that we picked up Barnett for one reason right? Daunte Cullpepper, Michael Vick and Donivan McNabb. We needed a speedy agreesive LB to deal with running QB's. The Vikings designed plays around making the Linebackers decide: Is the QB going to run, or throw? It's a no win situation for the LB, he has to make the decision based on who the QB is. If you think Hawk would have reacted any differently, then you have some serious blinders on. Any more "Examples" where you didn't think them through?

[Merlin]

Re: merlin's article on hawk

first of all, i don't see the point in bashing you for having a conflicting viewpoint. ....

I do, I say we beat the proverbial outta him, then throw him a pool filled with kool-aid.

If he's still babbling Hawk-is-average sentiments, I say we sell him to the Bears fans for 2 kegs of brew!

Don't recall saying he was average. I do recall saying we have the same player already and with Cullpepper out of the division, did we really need another LB that can chase down a QB who runs? Hawk was taken too high in the draft. He was over-hyped by the media and you all bought into it. People balked at us taking Barnett at 29 because he was slated as a seond rounder. With the same stats comming out of their senior year in college (and those of you who swore up and down he was faster and quicker than Barnett), it sure seems to me that when we got a good LB at #29 4 years ago, that drafting someone with similar abilites at #5 was not smart. Could it be that outisde of two players this draft was not as strong as 4 years ago? Maybe...

[Merlin]

What I probably should have done was not mention any names and then ask you to choose between the two. I would be willing to bet that a poll would be split right down the middle. That would have taken all bias out of it and kept people objectively looking at the facts. I would have course excluded the grade because I think it's biased based on over-hype continuing to grow every year. Last year it was Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers. We all know that Smith was thrown to the wolves in a shitty offense and Rodgers has not impressed anyone, including the Green Bay coaching staff. That's why if Vince Young was there at #5, we very well may have taken him.

[SkinBasket]

Re: merlin's article on hawk

I think you have some serious blinders on because 99% of what was said, their analysis and their statistics are THE SAME... If you think Hawk would have reacted any differently, then you have some serious blinders on.

The only problem I have with your thoughts, and what is emphasized above, is that comparing the measurables and stats of two players and trying to use that as a basis of future predictors is absurd. If we scrolled through the NCAA ranks, we could probably find dozens of LBs who had stats almost identical to Hawk's. Comparing stats is about as useful as trying to figure out who has the biggest man sausage and declaring that will make them an awesome NFL player, and for all I know, maybe it does.

Having watched the players ON THE FIELD, and comparing how they react, tackle, move, and think vs their scores in the shuttle run, cone drill, and vert jump and having a reasonable idea that Hawk will be better than Barnett is not "having blinders on."

Just because people expected more out of Barnett and didn't necessarily get it does not mean we should all lower our expectations for Hawk just because their combine scores or stats are similar.

[Merlin]

I agree that we shouldn't lower our expectations of Hawk. There were two points to the article:

#1 - Hawk wasn't worth a #5 (I Believe Urlacher was a #9, Lewis a #6 and Barnett #29).

#2 - Having watched both Players, Hawk isn't any better then Barnett was comming out of college. People were so enamored with Hawk that I thought it was worth pointing out that we have a very good linebacker with similar (almost the same) qualities. All I heard (not necessarily just on this board but others) was that Hawk is faster than Barnett, quicker, better, blah blah blah. Comming out of college at least, that isn't the case.

I like the fact we have Hawk. But we still need a big dominante middle linnebacker so we can move Barnett and Hawk to the outside where they can make a bigger impact. Maybe Hodge can step up, although he is the tallest at 6'2", he is only 3 pounds heavier then Barnett and 9 pounders lighter then Hawk. Arrignton would have been a perfect fit with those two on the outside. Hopefully there will be some June 1st casualties (I hear Ray Lewis isn't happen in Baltimore) so we can pick up a good MLB.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I had a problem with the way you fudged the time for Hawk to match up with Barnett more. Hawk ran a 4.59 at the combine (same as Brian Urlacher), but you have him at 4.67. Just like Urlacher, Hawk ran much better at his Pro Day also. He ran a 4.45. This happens with most players, and guys aren't given 4.67 on a 40 when they do 4.59 at the combine and 4.45 on campus.

[Deputy Nutz]

I have to agree with Harvey. I read almost every analysis of AJ Hawk and I never heard 4.67 as a forty time. The above mentioned by Harvey are his recorded forty times.

I would also like to mention that several scouts at the Ohio St Pro Day had Hawk running a sub 4.4 forty on one of his attempts, and never one higher than 4.5.

[Rivers Rutherford]

40-time schmorty-time. Hopefully our linebackers will never have to run 40-yards unless it's into the opposing teams endzone with the ball. I like how Merlin fails to mention (well I assume he didn't I didn't read his sacreligious put down on Hawk) that Hawk had the fastest damn short shuttle of all players at the combine! Would you rather have a fast straight-line guy (which Hawk is posting a top 6 or 7 time at the combine out of 38 linebackers) or a guy that accelerates fast, moves laterally well, and has great closing speed--you know, the things a linebacker needs to be effective.

Merlin--you could've just written this: I have a hard-on for Huff and we didn't take him, boo hoo. Hell, that's what I'd say if we didn't take Hawk.

[mraynrand]

I watched the Hawk for four years here in Ohio. I would say the greatest strengths that Hawk has in order are:

1) Ability to move quickly in confined spaces - extremely quick within a 10 yard range.
2) Instinct for the ball. What I mean by this is that ability to decide, and decide correctly whether you should take a chance at a narrow gap - perhaps go for the shoe-string tackle, or string the play out and make the tackle closer to the sidelines. LeRoy Butler had this, Barnett suffers from a lack of it.
3) Sure tackling - this guy doesn't miss often at all. Barnett has a tendancy to get there and slip off too frequently.

[Merlin]

I had a problem with the way you fudged the time for Hawk to match up with Barnett more. Hawk ran a 4.59 at the combine (same as Brian Urlacher), but you have him at 4.67. Just like Urlacher, Hawk ran much better at his Pro Day also. He ran a 4.45. This happens with most players, and guys aren't given 4.67 on a 40 when they do 4.59 at the combine and 4.45 on campus.

Go look on SI.com. I used the same source for everything. I didn't "fudge" the numbers. Barnett was timed lower as well but the final combine number was higher. Don't ask me why, ask SI. Both players ran in the 4.4's, 4.5's but their number posted for their analysis is what it is. Try looking up the source next time.

[Merlin]

Merlin--you could've just written this: I have a hard-on for Huff and we didn't take him, boo hoo. Hell, that's what I'd say if we didn't take Hawk.

I would have it there was even the slightess truth to it. The fact is I didn't want Huff either. It doesn't really matter what I thought, I don't make those decisions. As for the "Hard On" you so eloquintly refered to, maybe if you quit playing with yours and actually tried reading your I.Q. might raise from the double digit range.

[RashanGary]

Hawk's measurables are similar to Barnetts. The one important one that isn't mentioned is that Hawk does all the same things mobility wise while carrying 10 extra lbs muscle.

So we've determined that Barnett and Hawk move at about the same rate when asked to run in a strait line or follow a rehearsed drill. What about how they play football? The thing about playing LB in college or the NFL is that it isn't a string of rehearsed drills with one path to follow. The game is constantly changing and the ability to quickly respond and react to developing plays is as important if not more important than the speed that gets them there. Hawk reads and reacts much better than Barnett based the games and tape that I've watched. Hawk is tough and agressive. He has a knack for forcing fumbles and knocking defenders back where as Barnett never causes TO's.

They may have similar mobility #'s but lets not confuse that with how they play the game. When everything is on the line and plays need to be made, Hawk is there sacking teh QB or forcing a fumble. Barnett is gettting driven back 3 yards as the other team moves the chains. Barnett is a pretty good player but on the football field he has never been and will probably never be A.J. Hawk.

[Merlin]

I had a problem with the way you fudged the time for Hawk to match up with Barnett more. Hawk ran a 4.59 at the combine (same as Brian Urlacher), but you have him at 4.67. Just like Urlacher, Hawk ran much better at his Pro Day also. He ran a 4.45. This happens with most players, and guys aren't given 4.67 on a 40 when they do 4.59 at the combine and 4.45 on campus.

Go look on SI.com. I used the same source for everything. I didn't "fudge" the numbers. Barnett was timed lower as well but the final combine number was higher. Don't ask me why, ask SI. Both players ran in the 4.4's, 4.5's but their number posted for their analysis is what it is. Try looking up the source next time.

Better Yet, here are your direct links.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2003/draft/players/8030.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2006/draft/players/1831.html

Remember when you compare apples to apples, you don't use oranges. That's why I used the same site for comparision. It wouldn't be fair to use ESPN to Fox Sport, etc. SI had the draft information in the same format for both players.

I will accept apologies for being accused of playing number games now...