Aj Hawk: To pay cut or not to pay cut?

DILLIGAFF

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
603
Reaction score
4
I have been a strong supporter of getting over Hawk since preseason last year. He had one or two promising years and has been in decline since. I think the older he gets the slower he is. His only redeeming quality is that he is a smart player and knows where to position himself so he doesn't look as bad as Bush. He seems to not have the speed and strength to finish.

I think Chillar can fill the position while we look to get a true replacement and maybe Bishop gets his act together going into the second year with Capers.

I think the stuff coming from the Packer organization can be expected, building Hawk's trade value to keep the Packer's options open. I think Hawk could still be used in a package deal to help the Packers in other positions of need.

If you have a used car that doesn't fit your needs do you talk bad about it?
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
GBPG/Dougherty = Fail On Hawk | Cheesehead TV

Back in October, Pete Dougherty wrote the following:
Regardless of his current role, linebacker A.J. Hawk says he would like to remain with the Packers beyond this season.
That decision, though, almost surely will come down to whether he’s willing to take a major pay cut from the $4.1 million he’s scheduled to make in base salary next year.
It’s a given the Packers won’t bring back Hawk next year at that pay. They presumably would ask him to take a pay cut before releasing him, and if they do, it will be up to Hawk to accept their new offer or force them to cut him so he can sign with another club.
I just remember saying on Packer Transplants at the time that there was no way the Packers would be asking Hawk to take a pay cut considering the fact that Thompson went into 2008 willing to pay Kabeer Gbaja Biamila north of 10 million to only play on 3rd downs. Also add in the fact that the last player Thompson asked to take a pay cut was Darren Sharper, and it just didn’t seem plausible.
So when told point blank by Hawk’s agent yesterday that the team would most certainly NOT be asking his client to take a pay cut, Dougherty gives us the following:
Hawk’s 2010 salary is $4.1 million after he reached playing-time escalators earlier in his career, and he’s also due a $500,000 workout bonus. Considering Chillar’s contract extension and the possibility that Desmond Bishop offers an alternative to share time at that position, the Packers had to think about whether Hawk was worth $4.6 million this year.
No, they didn’t Pete. YOU thought about it and chose to share your musing in a blog post for all to see. You said that it was “a given”. How about a follow up saying that you were wrong? Or maybe a post how you think the Packers are blowing it by hanging onto Hawk? Give me something, anything that shows me you take ownership of what you wrote back in October – unless it’s only low-life bloggers that have, you know, some sense of accountability…
 
OP
OP
N

NYPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
36
I think that it was better for them to keep him. Just give him one more year in the 3-4 and see what happens.
 

DILLIGAFF

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
603
Reaction score
4
We need to cut our loses with Hawk. He is a great guy, has the football mind and character you want in all your players, but he is slow. The only reason he does not look like Bush out there is because he knows where to position himself, he just does not have the speed to finish it. When Johnny Jolly and Hawk are on the field our pass rush and pass defense suffers greatly. They double team Mathews and the QB has plenty of time to throw the ball.

I believe our inside LBs are a greater need than secondary help, we can draft another Woodson, but if we do not get consistent pressure on the QB they will still pick us apart.
 
OP
OP
N

NYPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
36
We need to cut our loses with Hawk. He is a great guy, has the football mind and character you want in all your players, but he is slow. The only reason he does not look like Bush out there is because he knows where to position himself, he just does not have the speed to finish it. When Johnny Jolly and Hawk are on the field our pass rush and pass defense suffers greatly. They double team Mathews and the QB has plenty of time to throw the ball.

I believe our inside LBs are a greater need than secondary help, we can draft another Woodson, but if we do not get consistent pressure on the QB they will still pick us apart.

Dilligaff you're making it sound like it's easy when it comes to finding replacements. If we were to cut Jolly and Hawk, who would be their immediate replacements? Can you list specific names of players that we can bring in to replace them? And what if the guys that we bring in end up doing a worse job than either Jolly or Hawk, you end up creating bigger holes on the team which hurts the team even more in the long run.
 

AllouezPackerFan

Section 121 Row 47
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
1,597
Reaction score
164
Location
Green Bay, WI
We need to cut our loses with Hawk. He is a great guy, has the football mind and character you want in all your players, but he is slow. The only reason he does not look like Bush out there is because he knows where to position himself, he just does not have the speed to finish it. When Johnny Jolly and Hawk are on the field our pass rush and pass defense suffers greatly. They double team Mathews and the QB has plenty of time to throw the ball.

I believe our inside LBs are a greater need than secondary help, we can draft another Woodson, but if we do not get consistent pressure on the QB they will still pick us apart.


If you followed Nick Barnett on Twitter then you would know that he is working really hard this offseason. Clearly we don't need help at lineback now!!! LOL
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
Personally I believe Hawk has more trade value than positional value, considering we have Chillar playing better pass D than him, and an up-and-coming Desmond Bishop.

But Hawk is far from a bad player. Cutting him would be a dumb, dumb decision IMO.
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
If you followed Nick Barnett on Twitter then you would know that he is working really hard this offseason. Clearly we don't need help at lineback now!!! LOL
The late season Barnett deserved Pro Bowl honors. We need someone besides him. Not someone to replace him.

The early Barnett, that was beaten by Shiancoe in an in route in the end zone, that one was a liability. But the one that blitzed the hell out of Hasselback, and consistantly sniffed screens, that one can be a pro bowler.
 

DILLIGAFF

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
603
Reaction score
4
Dilligaff you're making it sound like it's easy when it comes to finding replacements. If we were to cut Jolly and Hawk, who would be their immediate replacements? Can you list specific names of players that we can bring in to replace them? And what if the guys that we bring in end up doing a worse job than either Jolly or Hawk, you end up creating bigger holes on the team which hurts the team even more in the long run.

I never said that both players need to be cut together, but the combination of the 2 players do not compliment each other well. IMO we have enough talent at the LB position right now to fill the position, the only thing Hawk brings is depth at a very high price. However I feel Johnny Jolly is very good against the run where as Hawk is average at best against the run combined with his lack of pass rushing and pass defensive skills in the 3-4 defense.

When Jolly and Hawk are in together they are a liability against the pass. IMO we need another player to compliment Jolly.

Hawk is just not a 3-4 LB. Other teams feel they get the same skill sets and abilities of Hawk in the 3rd rounds and lower in the draft at a fraction of the costs. I believe Chillar/Bishop/3rd rookie can fill the position next year.

As far as the long run Hawk will defiantly not be around the following year unless he renegotiates his contract. Unless Hawk has a big break out year how does keeping Hawk now help this defense in the long run?
 

Cardsmc25

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
212
Reaction score
7
Dilligaff you're making it sound like it's easy when it comes to finding replacements. If we were to cut Jolly and Hawk, who would be their immediate replacements? Can you list specific names of players that we can bring in to replace them? And what if the guys that we bring in end up doing a worse job than either Jolly or Hawk, you end up creating bigger holes on the team which hurts the team even more in the long run.

I honestly don't know how keeping Hawk is even an option. He was a glaring hole in our defense. It is kind like Dilligaff was saying, a thrid rounder could probably fill that spot to the same level that Hawk plays it at. I think Hawk is perfect for trade bait... pull the trigger now while he still has value.
 

AlDay31

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 30, 2009
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Austria
I never said that both players need to be cut together, but the combination of the 2 players do not compliment each other well. IMO we have enough talent at the LB position right now to fill the position, the only thing Hawk brings is depth at a very high price. However I feel Johnny Jolly is very good against the run where as Hawk is average at best against the run combined with his lack of pass rushing and pass defensive skills in the 3-4 defense.

When Jolly and Hawk are in together they are a liability against the pass. IMO we need another player to compliment Jolly.
Wait, wait, wait... I mean, okay, defensive linemen have to drop into coverage sometimes in Capers' system, but that's a) very seldom and b) by far not that often, that you could call one of 'em a liability in the passing game., even more so, it is pretty obvious that DLiners are pretty slow.
Additionally Johnny Jolly specifically had a heckuva a year in knocking passes down at the LOS.
I can't see your point on Jolly at all, unless you didn't confuse him with Nick Barnett.

Oh and btw, draft Angerer, who sould perfectly complement Barnett speed and coveragewise, and trade Hawk.
 

Jess

Movement!
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,112
Reaction score
467
Location
Killing the buzz.
Jolly had a fantastic year. A 3-4 end doesn't get a lot of sacks, if that's what you're looking for out of him. We were awesome against the run this year, too.

Jolly was one of the biggest surprises of the year for me.
 
OP
OP
N

NYPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
36
I never said that both players need to be cut together, but the combination of the 2 players do not compliment each other well. IMO we have enough talent at the LB position right now to fill the position, the only thing Hawk brings is depth at a very high price. However I feel Johnny Jolly is very good against the run where as Hawk is average at best against the run combined with his lack of pass rushing and pass defensive skills in the 3-4 defense.

When Jolly and Hawk are in together they are a liability against the pass. IMO we need another player to compliment Jolly.

Hawk is just not a 3-4 LB. Other teams feel they get the same skill sets and abilities of Hawk in the 3rd rounds and lower in the draft at a fraction of the costs. I believe Chillar/Bishop/3rd rookie can fill the position next year.

As far as the long run Hawk will defiantly not be around the following year unless he renegotiates his contract. Unless Hawk has a big break out year how does keeping Hawk now help this defense in the long run?

I honestly don't know how keeping Hawk is even an option. He was a glaring hole in our defense. It is kind like Dilligaff was saying, a thrid rounder could probably fill that spot to the same level that Hawk plays it at. I think Hawk is perfect for trade bait... pull the trigger now while he still has value.

Who is this magical 3rd rookie that we are talking about? Spikes? Angerer? Edds? I'm not saying that these will be bad players next year but you can't rely on them to contribute right away. Even though Matthews had a breakout season it took him at least 3-4 games into the season to finally start making an impact. Nonetheless whoever we draft to possibly "replace" Hawk has to play at a level like Hawk or a little better. But how will you know that if you cut Hawk now? How will you compare this rookie to Hawk without hawk ever playing for this defense for one more year? I think this is the reasoning that TT and the Packers staff are trying to get accross to people, that it's a new defense and they might learn it eventually. This is why I'm not decrying Kampman as a failure just yet. Kampman showed in the 49ers game that he was "getting" what this defense was all about. Instead of runnning into a lineman you have to swing by them, which is what Kampman was doing the whole game and it worked. I'd rather see what he does once he tries this out from the beginning of the season. Same with hawk, let him learn first. THEN you cut/trade either of them.
 

Jess

Movement!
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,112
Reaction score
467
Location
Killing the buzz.
I think Spikes could replace Hawk rather easily.

But i'm biased, because I love the Gators.
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 
OP
OP
N

NYPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
36
I think Spikes could replace Hawk rather easily.

But i'm biased, because I love the Gators.
You must be logged in to see this image or video!

lol I would love to get Spikes but the possibilities of drafting him with our current picks are very slim. He might be available at 23 but a lot of people would consider that to be a reach. Plus he won't slide down farther than pick 15 of the second round. The giants are also in the hunt to get him.
 

DILLIGAFF

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
603
Reaction score
4
Wait, wait, wait... I mean, okay, defensive linemen have to drop into coverage sometimes in Capers' system, but that's a) very seldom and b) by far not that often, that you could call one of 'em a liability in the passing game., even more so, it is pretty obvious that DLiners are pretty slow.
Additionally Johnny Jolly specifically had a heckuva a year in knocking passes down at the LOS.
I can't see your point on Jolly at all, unless you didn't confuse him with Nick Barnett.

Oh and btw, draft Angerer, who sould perfectly complement Barnett speed and coveragewise, and trade Hawk.

I am not talking about Jolly's ability to drop back in coverage (thats crazy), but Jolly's ability to put pressure on the QB in terms of SACKS. It is widely known that Jolly lacks the burst and speed to get to the QB.

The reason he knocks down passes is because he can't get to the QB. Jolly is not the problem, but Hawk's ineffectiveness in the pass rush and pass coverage skills is.
 

Cardsmc25

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
212
Reaction score
7
Who is this magical 3rd rookie that we are talking about? Spikes? Angerer? Edds? I'm not saying that these will be bad players next year but you can't rely on them to contribute right away. Even though Matthews had a breakout season it took him at least 3-4 games into the season to finally start making an impact. Nonetheless whoever we draft to possibly "replace" Hawk has to play at a level like Hawk or a little better. But how will you know that if you cut Hawk now? How will you compare this rookie to Hawk without hawk ever playing for this defense for one more year? I think this is the reasoning that TT and the Packers staff are trying to get accross to people, that it's a new defense and they might learn it eventually. This is why I'm not decrying Kampman as a failure just yet. Kampman showed in the 49ers game that he was "getting" what this defense was all about. Instead of runnning into a lineman you have to swing by them, which is what Kampman was doing the whole game and it worked. I'd rather see what he does once he tries this out from the beginning of the season. Same with hawk, let him learn first. THEN you cut/trade either of them.

I was being facetious about the third rounder. I don't know if you could replace Hawk in the draft. I just think that by giving him another year, we are going to be delaying a run at the superbowl. He can learn all he wants, but he just isn't a 3-4 player. Can't we get rid of him yet... please?
 

PackersRS

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
8,450
Reaction score
969
Location
Porto Alegre, Brazil
I totally agree with Dilligaff on this one. Hawk + Jolly is great against the run but a liability against the pass.

That doesn't mean we need to get rid of anyone, though. What we need is soemone in nickel that can put more pressure on the QB.

Because on the base package, we face much more the run. The problem is our nickel and dime packages, really.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top