DJ Smith > AJ Hawk ?

[El Guapo]

Getting rid of a big salary for a guy that's potentially been outplayed by a 6th round draft pick. It would be a steal. I certainly wouldn't give up much of anything for Hawk, if I was a GM.

This is where I think that some of us get caught up. Hawk is clearly past the point where you can have a logical argument regarding his draft position or anyone else's. It's a footnote but not a discussion point. You put the best talent on the field whether he's a 1st or 7th rounder. I agree that the Packers could conceivably trade or cut Hawk, and I'm not opposed to it, but everyone on here needs to forget that he was a #5 pick. Anyone who argues that another team would take that into account when considering a trade is a rube. They'll look purely at his production, potential (what's left in the tank), his salary, and potential compensation to the Pack. The guy is a legitimately decent ILB who could (and does) start for just about any team. He didn't live up to a #5 pick status but it's not his fault. Where the jackals of the NFL draft a dude is completely separate from how you play. You play your best. The Packers drafted him too high.

 

[bozz_2006]

The Packers drafted him too high.

When you say that it sounds like when they drafted him it was a reach. It wasn't. He was pretty much considered a can't miss prospect.

 

[slaughter25]

I don't think we will see a change at MLB this year whether or not it should happen. The packers organization has invested in him for at least one more year and barring injury I don't see anyone moving him out of the line up. I agree with everyone that says the sample size is sufficient, we can now make informed observations of his performance and in my eyes he has been just another guy, good enough but not really anything special. I also dont think there is anyone on the roster that has a much higher ceiling than hawk does, and honestly all those young guys need another year to truly master this complicated Dom Capers D. Give them another year to make some plays on special teams and maybe next year someone will be competing with Hawk for the starting gig.

 

[Aaron rodgers is god]

Here's the thing. There's something called intangibles. When Barnett got hurt in 2010, Hawk took over the signal calling on defense. When that happened, the defense improved noticeably. Regardless of whether one values statistics over intangibles or not, he has a very high football IQ and he's a leader on our defense, which showed in 2010. Last year the problem on defense was our pass rush, which I'm confident has been fixed. Another area in which he excels is in pass coverage, which is something Smith is going to have to improve upon if he wants Hawk's spot. There's a lot more to being a linebacker than just tackling running backs.

What it all boils down to is this: Capers and Moss told Ted that they wanted him back. They never would have done so without good cause. There's more to every single player than a stat line. TT wouldn't have paid him just for the heck of it.

Hawk is not that good in pass coverage. He did play a lot better during the superbowl year but really that was his best year of his career. He played terrible last year. I'm not ready to say DJ Smith should be the starter but if hawk plays like that again this year get his *** out of there.

 

[DoddPower]

This is where I think that some of us get caught up. Hawk is clearly past the point where you can have a logical argument regarding his draft position or anyone else's. It's a footnote but not a discussion point. You put the best talent on the field whether he's a 1st or 7th rounder. I agree that the Packers could conceivably trade or cut Hawk, and I'm not opposed to it, but everyone on here needs to forget that he was a #5 pick. Anyone who argues that another team would take that into account when considering a trade is a rube. They'll look purely at his production, potential (what's left in the tank), his salary, and potential compensation to the Pack. The guy is a legitimately decent ILB who could (and does) start for just about any team. He didn't live up to a #5 pick status but it's not his fault. Where the jackals of the NFL draft a dude is completely separate from how you play. You play your best. The Packers drafted him too high.

Well, the point of me mentioning the 6th round draft pick thing was just to illustrate that if the Packer's can get equal production (debatable) from someone who is younger and much cheaper, it would seem to make more sense. Unless we draft a MLB high next year, that is exactly what I see happening for the 2013 season.

 

[warhawk]

I would say things might be a little different this year. Capers and McCarthy have to do whatever is necessary to put a much better defense on the field this year. Hawk may very well begin as the starter but if he is not getting it done they will move somebody in there.
Last year they had too many players like Hawk out there on the D. AVERAGE. Nobody making big plays. We had too many AVERAGE Dlinemen in the rotation, Hawk, the ROLB, corners, and DB's, all AVERAGE performances.This equated to a lousy overall performance by the D.
I heard a quote from Peprah that really set me off. He felt like he was a scapegoat for a lot of the poor play on D last year and said something like "well, I didn't give up any more bad plays than the other DB's". WHAT? When a player rationalizes that they played no worse than equally as bad as the others you have a PROBLEM.
I see it this way. Hawk will start and as long as there is considerable improvement in the D overall that will continue to be the case. However, if he struggles and the D is struggling they have no choice but to put somebody else in there. Forget TT. He wont' have a say in it. Capers and McCarthy are going to get this thing turned around and if Hawk ain't helping them do it they will sit his *** down.
IMO Hawk has gotten too muscle bound. He's lost leverage, balance, and, agility, in the process. Not what he was in college. They say they can't keep the guy out of the weight room.

 

[El Guapo]

When you say that it sounds like when they drafted him it was a reach. It wasn't. He was pretty much considered a can't miss prospect.

And there is your flaw. Who pretty much considered him a can't miss prospect? Outsiders. Each organization evaluates players themselves and in the end, the truth is in production. He didn't produce as much as the Packers expected so it was a reach. It happens to teams every year.

However, my main point was that at this point in the game it's not fair to Hawk or the Packers to evaluate his worth based on his draft position all the way back in 2006.

 

[AmishMafia]

And there is your flaw. Who pretty much considered him a can't miss prospect? Outsiders. Each organization evaluates players themselves and in the end, the truth is in production. He didn't produce as much as the Packers expected so it was a reach. It happens to teams every year.

However, my main point was that at this point in the game it's not fair to Hawk or the Packers to evaluate his worth based on his draft position all the way back in 2006.

Draft evaluation in hindsight, everyone would make a great GM. Nobody can say with 100% certainty how a player will do in the NFL. Go back to that draft and ask yourself: A player bigger and more athletic that Clay Matthews III, who loves the game, and has the rare desire to succeed. What was not to like? The most pre-draft critical reviews I heard of Hawk was that he has topped out and wouldn't get better than a borderline probowl LB. Why it hasn't worked out for AJ, I cannot imagine. My theory is that he was driven by ****** frustration. Upon getting married just before becoming a Packer, he lost the drive.

There was little difference in the rating of Von Miller, Aaron Curry, and Patrick Willis. Taking a stab at it I think they were rated in about this order (but very close) :

Miller
Hawk
Curry
Willis

Look like a 50/50 shot at hitting a LB. Theres a few other high pick LBs: Rivers, Mayo, McClain of the top of my head whom I think were below these 4 guys.

 

[bozz_2006]

He didn't produce as much as the Packers expected so it was a reach.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think talking about a player being a reach has any place in a conversation about their NFL production. It's about drafting someone higher than their draft grade. At the time, people called Hawk a great value pick. You can't go back and look at what was considered a "good value pick" and later decide it was a "reach".

 

[DoddPower]

And there is your flaw. Who pretty much considered him a can't miss prospect? Outsiders. Each organization evaluates players themselves and in the end, the truth is in production. He didn't produce as much as the Packers expected so it was a reach. It happens to teams every year.

To be fair, this is complete hindsight. Are you aware of or have any references that state Hawk was a reach with the 5th pick? I was under the impression that the general consensus was he was a top prospect. Sure, it looks like a reach now, but I would bet the vast majority thought otherwise at the time. Just because a player seems like a reach several years down the line doesn't mean anyone thought that at the time, necessarily.

However, my main point was that at this point in the game it's not fair to Hawk or the Packers to evaluate his worth based on his draft position all the way back in 2006.

I agree with you here, but it's still the reality. Players drafted so high come with high expectations. When they fail to deliver, they are judged more harshly. It's just one of those cruel realities, I suppose. Kind of like the cliche' of quarterbacks get too much credit when a team is doing well and too much blame when they're not. It may not be fair, but it happens and is going to continue to happen. But hey, the pick still could have been worse. Hawk has been a starter for several years and started on a Super Bowl winning team. It was a lot better pick than say, Justin Harrell. That's not saying much though, because a team SHOULD be able to get a solid at worst player with the 5th overall pick. It doesn't always work out like that, I suppose.

 

[Vltrophy]

Even though A.J. Hawk makes more than D.J. Smith if DJ Smith is the better player you start him & not AJ.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?lw0hru

 

[GreenBlood]

Hawk has rarely been anything more than average (except for maybe his rookie season and his contract year), even with a good defensive line. Sure, he has played better at times than others, but still not much better than average. The sample size in which to judge Hawk by is not limited anymore. He has thoroughly proven that he is an average MLB that makes few to no impact plays. Yeah, a team can win with him in the starting lineup, but I think that has more to do with having play makers around him than Hawk himself. As I said, a team could have a worse MLB, but they definitely could have a much better one, also.

True. He's average, or maybe marginally above average even. True. He doesn't make game changing plays aside from the occasional sack or fumble recovery. Not a lot of tackles for loss. But he also doesn't give up a lot of game changing plays. It's hard to find a game where you can say he won it for us, but at the same time, it's just as hard to find a game where you can say he lost it for us.

 

[GreenBlood]

It doesn't always work out like that, I suppose.

Mandarich?

 

[TJV]

All of the following is just my opinion:

As it is applied to the NFL draft, "reach" is a term that should be used without the benefit of "NFL career" hindsight while "bust" or "mistake" or similar terms which incorporate an analysis of the players NFL careers as it relates to where the player was drafted, must be used with the benefit of that hindsight. "Reach" is best applied to the selection of a player significantly earlier in the draft than the general - or better overwhelming -consensus of draft experts predicted. Or it can properly be used by fans before the player's worth in the NFL has been determined.

A reach can turn out to be a horrible pick or a fantastic pick, or anything in between. For example, I remember some draft experts and Packers fans called the selection of Nick Collins a reach when he was selected at #51 in the second round as some considered him a fourth rounder. In hindsight it's obvious Collins had first round talent so what many considered a reach turned out to be a brilliant pick. OTOH, the picks of Tony Mandarich and Ryan Leaf, for example, were not reaches but turned out to be busts. But I don't recall anyone yelling "reach" at the selection of either.

So IMO the pick of AJ Hawk was neither a reach at the time nor is he a bust in hindsight. Selecting him at #5 in the draft just turns out to be a mistake of one degree or another.

 

[AmishMafia]

True. He's average, or maybe marginally above average even. True. He doesn't make game changing plays aside from the occasional sack or fumble recovery. Not a lot of tackles for loss. But he also doesn't give up a lot of game changing plays. It's hard to find a game where you can say he won it for us, but at the same time, it's just as hard to find a game where you can say he lost it for us.

Thats fair.

And I think we can all agree that if that draft was held again, Hawk would not have been the pick. I think he would go in the mid 2nd.

All of the following is just my opinion:

As it is applied to the NFL draft, "reach" is a term that should be used without the benefit of "NFL career" hindsight while "bust" or "mistake" or similar terms which incorporate an analysis of the players NFL careers as it relates to where the player was drafted, must be used with the benefit of that hindsight. "Reach" is best applied to the selection of a player significantly earlier in the draft than the general - or better overwhelming -consensus of draft experts predicted. Or it can properly be used by fans before the player's worth in the NFL has been determined.

A reach can turn out to be a horrible pick or a fantastic pick, or anything in between. For example, I remember some draft experts and Packers fans called the selection of Nick Collins a reach when he was selected at #51 in the second round as some considered him a fourth rounder. In hindsight it's obvious Collins had first round talent so what many considered a reach turned out to be a brilliant pick. OTOH, the picks of Tony Mandarich and Ryan Leaf, for example, were not reaches but turned out to be busts. But I don't recall anyone yelling "reach" at the selection of either.

So IMO the pick of AJ Hawk was neither a reach at the time nor is he a bust in hindsight. Selecting him at #5 in the draft just turns out to be a mistake of one degree or another.

Once again you sum up my opinions perfectly in a fraction of the words.

 

[GreenBlood]

Thats fair.

And I think we can all agree that if that draft was held again, Hawk would not have been the pick. I think he would go in the mid 2nd.

I'd say late 2nd or early 3rd even. But players don't draft themselves, so I never hold that against a guy. It's not their fault the scouts and talking heads over rate them prior to the draft. Happens every year.

 

[60six]

I'll take your word for it. But as of now, I'd believe it when I see it. He doesn't hold anywhere near that value to me. Even if he restructured, I couldn't imagine it being much less than 3-4 million, especially with a 3rd round grade. If you are correct, however, and Ted doesn't pull the trigger, I'd be pretty disappointed. I'm not convinced that DJ Smith is better than Hawk at this point, but the difference isn't huge (and perhaps he will be as good or better late in the season). Getting that kind of return on a player that also provided several years of serviceable play would be a great advantage and could really help the team down the road.

If I had to predict what would happen, though, I would say Hawk continues to start for most of this upcoming season (as always, pending injuries). Beyond that, he will be likely to be released in 2013, as his salary becomes even higher. It would give him more freedom to choose his next team and I'm not sure what incentive he would have to restructure his contract unless the team the Packer's were trading him to was somewhere he really wanted to go.

Here's some contract information I found on him (hopefully it's correct. Go to link for a better view. Table didn't paste very well):

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/green-bay-packers/a.j.-hawk/


CURRENT SALARY INFORMATION

• Contract:​
• 5 yr(s) / $33,750,000​
• Signing Bonus​
• $8,000,000​
• Average Salary​
• $6,750,000​
• End Year:​
• 2015​
• Free Agent:​
• 2016 / Unrestricted​

BASE SALARY​

S. BONUS​

MISC. BONUS​

CAP HIT​

2011​

1,150,000​

1,600,000​

1,800,000​

4,550,000​

2012​

4,400,000​

1,600,000​

550,000​

6,550,000​

2013​

4,900,000​

1,600,000​

550,000​

7,050,000​

2014​

4,900,000​

1,600,000​

1,050,000​

7,550,000​

2015​

5,400,000​

1,600,000​

1,050,000​

8,050,000​

2016​

UFA​

​

• Signing Bonus: $8 million
• Workout Bonus: $250,000
• Roster Bonus (2011): $1.8 million
• Roster Bonus (2012-2013): $300,000
• Roster Bonus: (2014-2015): $800,000

If they cut him after June 1st and before the start of the season, his cap hit would only be 1.85M instead of 6.550M and they would be off the hook for his 2012 base of 4.4M and roster bonus of 300K. They already paid his workout bonus.

Next year the cap hit would be 4.8M which would be 650K less then if they kept him(5.450M). Plus they would be off the hook for his 2013 base, roster and workout bonus of 5.450M.

So they would save 11.750M of cash in 2 years and would take cap hits of 1.85M in 2012 and 4.8M in 2013. The only way this scenario doesnt work is if some or all of his bases are guaranteed.

Not saying any of this will happen, its just to clairfy things.

 

[DoddPower]

True. He's average, or maybe marginally above average even. True. He doesn't make game changing plays aside from the occasional sack or fumble recovery. Not a lot of tackles for loss. But he also doesn't give up a lot of game changing plays. It's hard to find a game where you can say he won it for us, but at the same time, it's just as hard to find a game where you can say he lost it for us.

Well, the defense as a whole certainly gave up plenty of "game changing plays" last year. Fortunately for the Packer's, the offense was usually able to pull out the win. As one of the "leaders" of the Defense, Hawk definitely gets some of the responsibility of allowing so many big plays, along with everyone else on the defense. It's pretty hard to single out any one player on the defense that I would say single handedly lost a game for the Packer's. Maybe something like Al Harris in the 2007 NFC Champ. game. But even then, I blame Bob Sanders (the defensive coordinator) more for not adjusting. A few big plays are never the reasons why a team lose, because they shouldn't have been in a position where one or two plays could have such an impact (I know, I know, but most of us still view those big plays like that).

Either way, the same conclusion is reached: AJ Hawk is just an average MLB. At least he's usually available though, which McCarthy preaches often. That has to count for something.

 

[GeeDogWarrior]

AJ Hawk is the main reason I want a time machine and a code word that allows the Packer's Personnal staff to take me seriously...
That way, I can barge into the 2006 Packer's draft war room and scream "MJD, pick MJD with that 5th pick homies!...Pac Man is racist against Ghosts! ....M-J-D!"

 

[Einstein McFly]

Finally some stats to back up what I've thought since Smith hit the field last year. I like Hawk just like I like Driver, but if they're not the best player that could be out there then they need to be on the sidelines or elsewhere.

 

[ivo610]

AJ Hawk is the main reason I want a time machine and a code word that allows the Packer's Personnal staff to take me seriously...
That way, I can barge into the 2006 Packer's draft war room and scream "MJD, pick MJD with that 5th pick homies!...Pac Man is racist against Ghosts! ....M-J-D!"

If you have a time machine you would go to 2006? I can think of a few drafts more deserving. ****, can I just hand them a list of must sign undrafted free agents from the past decade?

 

[TJV]

I think the biggest news out of OTAs and minicamp so far, other than the “pad-less” ascension up the depth chart of UDFA OLB Dezman Moses (who lined up with the ones at ROLB in the absence of Clay and Zombo) is McCarthy and Capers statements that they plan to play dime a lot more this season. That will mean the progress of players like House (who’s stronger), Shields, Hayward, Jennings, Levine and McMillian becomes even more important. It would also mean less playing time for Hawk and that makes his salary and cap hit make even less sense considering their cheaper depth at ILB.

 

[bozz_2006]

Jack, what do you think will happen with Hawk?

 

[TJV]

Jack, what do you think will happen with Hawk?

bozz, since Thompson, McCarthy, and their staffs continue to act as if they know more than I do about what’s best for the Packers () I expect Hawk will start at ILB in the base D. And although I expect he will be significantly overpaid for his production, I expect him to play better this year: In the recent pressgazette article he said after reviewing his play last year he’s going to work on improving his hands so he can get off blockers better. He’s also lost weight and plans on losing more to increase his quickness. I know, I know, many reading this will have the same reaction I did: ‘Well duh!!’ But at least he realizes he has to improve his play. IMO the Packers would be better off cap wise and money-wise (particularly regarding upcoming paydays for core players) and would benefit by freeing up roster spots for youngsters by going forward without Hawk and Driver. But one thing I am certain of is Thompson, McCarthy, and their staffs do indeed know more than I…

 

[tynimiller]

I'd say if TT and the organization have even an inkling they may be releasing Hawk or starting Smith instead they should trade Hawk. Even getting a 6th rounder is better than an outright cut.