1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Why this draft made no sense at all

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Oannes, May 5, 2007.

  1. pyledriver80
    Offline

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No this is NOT TRUE. Don't go around talking down to people when you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
  2. pyledriver80
    Offline

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I second this Oannes. I to don't share your opinion on Hawk but your other points are spot on. I hope you stay around and post more. I am limited in people who are really interested in duiscussing the Packers objectively on this site.
  3. Oannes
    Offline

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Pyle... I'll look forward to it. I appreciate the warm welcome from you, 93z and Lare.

    Just one last time for crystal clarity. I am not down on AJ Hawk. I look forward to what he may become. I agreed with taking him and love all that he brings to the table.

    His first year wasn't dynamic and that is all I'm trying to say. I think the well meaning fans of this club have him elevated to a level he's not yet attained. Take his name out of it and call him "Player X" and I don't think anyone who watched "Player X" would be all that excited about his first season. Now, call him AJ Hawk and run some of those college highlights through your mind, and listen to the spin on his speed and take a look at his herculean body and all of a sudden he's something in your mind that he just quite isn't yet. There's a reason commercials work. I think the same principle applies to why so many think AJ Hawk is some sort of phenom. He's not...yet...and that's the point I'm trying to make.
  4. Zombieslayer
    Offline

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Location:
    CA
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I think the reason we're high on Hawk is because his expectations are exactly what we expected. For a rookie, he's pretty d*** good. Didn't he finish the season #1 on the Packers in tackles when every past year it's been Nick Barnett?

    Plus, considering that was his rookie season, we just expect him to get better.
  5. pyledriver80
    Offline

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I agree with this.
  6. Oannes
    Offline

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Below, you'll find a list of tackling leaders for 2006. AJ Hawk is 18th. Look at some of the other names on this list. If Hawk is somehow amazing because of his numbers, then wouldn't it follow that those higher on this list are "better" than him? Many of these guys, while making tons of tackles, are not game changing players. Look through the list and honestly tell me that because AJ led the Pack in tackles he had an amazing season. He didn't.

    Do the names Antonio Pierce and Kirk Morrison make you shudder? How about Chris Hope and Gary Brackett??? Are these guys just animalistic stud players who change games? Nope. The same applies to AJ Hawk. I'll grant you he had nice numbers, but that isn't the point. He wasn't a big impact player last season.


    1 Zach Thomas MIA 165 103.0 62 10
    2 DeMeco Ryans HOU 155 125.0 30 6
    3 London Fletcher-Baker BUF 146 104.0 42 11
    4 Keith Bulluck TEN 143 99.0 44 7
    5 Cato June IND 142 96.0 46 4
    6 Donnie Edwards SD 141 97.0 44 7
    7 Brian Urlacher CHI 141 92.0 49 9
    8 Antonio Pierce NYG 137 107.0 30 9
    9 Keith Brooking ATL 136 95.0 41 1
    10 Lance Briggs CHI 130 109.0 21 10
    11 Kirk Morrison OAK 127 101.0 26 5
    12 James Farrior PIT 126 83.0 43 6
    13 Ernie Sims DET 124 81.0 43 1
    14 Lofa Tatupu SEA 122 91.0 31 7
    15 Chris Hope TEN 121 89.0 32 15
    16 Derrick Brooks TB 121 96.0 25 5
    17 Gary Brackett IND 120 85.0 35 2
    18 A.J. Hawk GB 119 82.0 37 8
  7. pyledriver80
    Offline

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It's commonplace for GB fans to make out players statistics and accomplishments to be bigger than what they are. Hawk had a great year for a rookie IMO but the jury is still out on him. I like Hawk and think he will be a force.

    However, you will find on this forum that average guys are somehow stars. See Greg Jennings and Nick Collins.
  8. Arles
    Offline

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I said it was comparable, not better. And, to the sacks comment, you obviously missed the part on Urlacher blitzing a ton more. As to "all over the field making big plays", that's a hair subjective. I look at big plays from a standpoint of forcing turnovers and making big stops. Urlacher forced 1 fewer turnover than Hawk and was on a team that was 4-12 - giving up almost the exact same defensive numbers as GB did in 06.

    In almost every measureable manner (individual and team), Hawk and Urlacher had similar rookie seasons. Again, if you account for the amount of blitzing Urlacher did (impacts the 4.5 more sacks), I just can't see how Urlacher had a measureable better season than Hawk. The inidividual and team numbers show this.

    But, hey, you *remember* Urlacher being all over the field on a 4-12 team, so he must have been much better, right?
  9. Oannes
    Offline

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I'd call AJ Hawk's rookie year...SOLID. Came out of the gate slow. Improved as things went along. This points to better things this year, especially if Harrell can team with Pickett to stymie O linemen from getting to his level. The Baltimore Raven (Sam Adams/Tony Siragusa) approach excites me.

    Sadly, the Packers are bereft of stars. Favre was one and is living on that reputation, but frankly we don't have one anymore.

    It's been fun watching Aarron Kampman and Cullen Jenkins grow into the cusp of elite status. Hopefully, this "grow slow" philosophy of TT pans out.

    I'm excited about Zac Alcorn's development. It's fun watching these no name players become really good players.

    If there's one thing the Packers have been good at it's finding good players late, or after, the draft. It'd be nice to really hit on a player in Round 1 though. I'm talking like a LaDainian Tomlinson type of impact player.
  10. Cory
    Offline

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Lol actually yes it IS true.

    London Fletcher Buf 146 tackles led team
    Zack Thomas Miami 165 tackles led team
    Teddy Bruschi NE 112 tackles led team
    John Vilma NY Jets 113 tackles led team
    Ray Lewis Balt 103 tackles tied for team lead
    Andra Davis 104 tackles (second on team behind a safety and third on team was the OTHER ILB D Jackson)
    James Farrior Pit 126 tackles led team
    Demeco Ryans Hou 155 tackles led team
    Daryl Smith Jax 88 tackles led team
    Al Wilson Den 101 tackles led team
    Kawika Mitchell KC 104 tackles led team
    Kirk Morrison Oak 127 tackles led team
    Donnie Edwards SD 141 tackles led team

    12 out of 16 teams in the AFC the MLB led the team in tackles(one being second to a safety). On to the NFC

    Bradie James Dal 101 tackles led team
    Antonio Pierce NYG 137 tackles led team
    Jeremiah Trotter PHI 112 tackles led team
    Lemar Marshall Wash 104 tackles second on team to a safety
    Brian Urlacher Chi 141 tackles led team
    Keith Brooking Atl 136 tackles led team
    Chris Draft(while filling in for Morgan) Car 107 tackles led team
    Gerald Hayes ARZ 93 tackles led team
    Will Witherspoon Stl 113 tackles led team
    Lofa Tatupu Sea 122 tackles led team

    9 out of 16 NFC mlb's led their teams in tackles with one being second to a safety. So that means 23 out of 32 teams MLB led their teams in tackles with two being second to safeties(since this is an argument of MLB tackle production vs WLB). Meaning a WLB leading their team in tackles in more the exception than the rule.
  11. Cory
    Offline

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Here is the problem with this and frankly I would LOOOOVVEEEE if we got a LT in the first round, but you're comparing LBers and RB's. Its not comparable IMO. For arguments sake if I had a choice between Urlacher and LT it's LT every single time hands down without question.
  12. Arles
    Offline

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I'm just curious as to what a player needs to do on defense to be "impact". It is just solely subjective? If that's the case, this argument is meaningless. I would say Hawk flashed signs of being a an impact player. But, as a rookie, was not as consistent as he should have been (not unlike Urlacher in his rookie season).

    Hawk in 8 wins:
    66 tackles, 3 sacks, 2 picks, 5 passes defensed and 1 forced fumble.

    Hawk in 8 losses:
    55 tackles, 0.5 sacks, 0 picks, 2 passes defensed and 0 forced fumbles.

    If he can have 12-13 games like those 8 wins this season, he could grow into a serious impact player on D. I would expect in his second season to get that kind of improvement. Also, it helps to add a talented player to the DL to help his growth as well.
  13. pyledriver80
    Offline

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Omg, I'm sorry but I don't even know where to start without drawing you X's and O's.
  14. Arles
    Offline

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Translation - "I don't have any data to backup my oddball claim of MLBs not being in a better position to make more tackles over time than WLBs, so I am just going to call you ignorant in the game of football."
  15. Cory
    Offline

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    aaannnnd he cops out. Remember I'm talking strictly production not "big plays" because that seems to be subjective anymore. I know the WLB is meant to make "big plays" but in terms of strictly tackling production it's a FACT that the MLB is more productive than the WLB.
  16. Cory
    Offline

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I feel like I'm Matt Lauer talking to Tom Cruise.

    "I know and you don't...you don't know the history...you're being glib!!"
  17. pyledriver80
    Offline

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    No, that is true. MLB's are in a better position to make tackles however the Will is the primary benefactor in any most systems.


    The Mike is in the middle of the field in space. He's closest to the action without being covered up on every run play. Thus most Mikes will lead the team in tackles. However, with Barnett's overplaying tendency and Poppinga taking on the playside lead it's going to balloon Hawks numbers.
  18. Cory
    Offline

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    That's what I've been saying and the numbers prove it. Doesn't it say something for Hawk that he led the team in tackles his first season after Barnett had led the team 3 years straight, though?
  19. tromadz
    Offline

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    [​IMG]
  20. pyledriver80
    Offline

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Thats what I was saying. It doesn't actually mean Hawks a beast. He is no doubt above average by far and has some nice tools but because his numbers are better than Barnett's doesn't really mean much besides Barnetts not making the plays and leaving Hawk to clean em up.
  21. Arles
    Offline

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Barnett was 12th in the NFL in tackles in 04 and 6th in the NFL in 05. That seems like a guy who isn't going to "balloon" anyone else's tackle numbers. In fact, the fact that Hawk led the team with as productive a MLB than GB had in 05 shows that he has a nose for the ball and can make plays. And I doubt he suddenly gets worse in the next few seasons.
  22. Cory
    Offline

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I think it says alot for Hawk that he and about 2-3 other WLB in the league led their team in tackles and only one of them was a rookie(earnie sims). Now obviously we all want him to be successful and I guess we view him in different ways, but I think there were plenty of plays last year that Hawk made and had a significant impact. Now does that mean I want him to stay where he is and not improve? Of course not, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he didn't have an impact on last years D. JMO.
  23. Zero2Cool
    Offline

    Zero2Cool Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,902
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +7 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    Theres no debating it. Hawk played well last year and shows promise for the future. Even Bears/Vikings fans would admit that one.
  24. warhawk
    Offline

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Location:
    Gulf Shores, Al
    Ratings Received:
    +38 / 0 / -0
    Pyle Wrote:

    Thats what I was saying. It doesn't actually mean Hawks a beast. He is no doubt above average by far and has some nice tools but because his numbers are better than Barnett's doesn't really mean much besides Barnetts not making the plays and leaving Hawk to clean em up.[/quote]

    I think MM should game plan it so EVERYBODY else misses the tackles and Hawk get's them all but, and here's the challenge, we CONTINUE TO IMPROVE OUR RUSHING D STATS like we so dramatically did last year.

    Maybe, just maybe, TT was on to something when he figured maybe Digg's and Lenon had to go and we probably needed some real NFL linebackers since they play kind of a critical role in both the run and pass defense in our scheme.

    Did I not see somewhere that AFTER they decided to leave Hawk in there on passing downs that our whole pass defense began it's climb out of below dead bottom?

    I forgot. We're talking strickly total tackles here which equates to EVERYTHING good a player does.
  25. MassPackersFan
    Offline

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    We should also ignore the hard work and dedication to the game. That's not objective at all, and real stars of the game like Jerry Rice never worked harder than the other guys out there.

Share This Page