Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Compensatory Picks Announced
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 604839"><p>Clearly, I did address Hawk's replacement in base...a pick below the 1st. round under an OLB preference scenario. </p><p></p><p>As for the rest, there's no question Hawk's play was not pretty.</p><p></p><p>It's not like I have a Hawk jersey hanging the closet. I was in the very small minority after 2011 saying that he went in the deep tank of business decision making after getting that excessive Super Bowl reward contract. I was as fit to be tied after his play in 2011 as with Raji's in 2013, and thought the Packers should be making plans then. McGuin's statement that he was a "durable contributing part of the defense for 8 years", while intending to be a point of contrast to 2014, is actually damning with faint praise. But as a fan you come to understand the implications of dead cap as in Hawk's contract (and Jones' for that matter), accept the deficiencies, and turn attention to other matters, just as the coaches must do.</p><p></p><p>If you closely parse McGuin's critique, the main criticisms are that he couldn't cover, he couldn't blitz and he was slow in pursuit. Guilty as charged. That's a lot. Then there's the "when he did make it to the right gap" comment. Well, Barrington hit the wrong gap with more frequency thereby depriving the opponent of the opportunity to try to bowl him over, and somehow in all this the Packers run D sharply improved after the bye with Hawk in base.</p><p></p><p>By McGuin's account you'd think we were giving up 6 yards per carry after the bye because Hawk's deficiencies were so overwhelming. Well, for all his faults, Hawk did know where the ball was going and got there if the play was in the box, regardless of what you think of what happened afterward.</p><p></p><p>Can you say the same of the unknown, unplayed players on the bench, all with undistinguished resumes, some having never played the position? Those are the kinds of guys most likely to use their better speed going in the wrong direction.</p><p></p><p>So, yeah, it could be worse; "highly likely" to be better is just an assumption at this point given who is on the roster. I'd give Hawk a C- in run defense and F in all other aspects of play. There may not be a D run defender in this current bunch. It takes more than loading up with bodies and seeing what falls out. I believe it was last season, or maybe the year before, where the Packers had 12 WRs in camp. What did that yield besides Adams, a high pick?</p><p></p><p>Thompson is a risk averse guy who covers his bases unless dead cap or high contract demands get in the way. Loading up with bodies and seeing what falls out is fine at WR when you're looking for a #4 or #5 or #6.</p><p></p><p>None of those considerations apply in this case. Look for a draft pick to quickly pass up the guys currently on the roster. Those guys are far from a "highly likely" improvement.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 604839"] Clearly, I did address Hawk's replacement in base...a pick below the 1st. round under an OLB preference scenario. As for the rest, there's no question Hawk's play was not pretty. It's not like I have a Hawk jersey hanging the closet. I was in the very small minority after 2011 saying that he went in the deep tank of business decision making after getting that excessive Super Bowl reward contract. I was as fit to be tied after his play in 2011 as with Raji's in 2013, and thought the Packers should be making plans then. McGuin's statement that he was a "durable contributing part of the defense for 8 years", while intending to be a point of contrast to 2014, is actually damning with faint praise. But as a fan you come to understand the implications of dead cap as in Hawk's contract (and Jones' for that matter), accept the deficiencies, and turn attention to other matters, just as the coaches must do. If you closely parse McGuin's critique, the main criticisms are that he couldn't cover, he couldn't blitz and he was slow in pursuit. Guilty as charged. That's a lot. Then there's the "when he did make it to the right gap" comment. Well, Barrington hit the wrong gap with more frequency thereby depriving the opponent of the opportunity to try to bowl him over, and somehow in all this the Packers run D sharply improved after the bye with Hawk in base. By McGuin's account you'd think we were giving up 6 yards per carry after the bye because Hawk's deficiencies were so overwhelming. Well, for all his faults, Hawk did know where the ball was going and got there if the play was in the box, regardless of what you think of what happened afterward. Can you say the same of the unknown, unplayed players on the bench, all with undistinguished resumes, some having never played the position? Those are the kinds of guys most likely to use their better speed going in the wrong direction. So, yeah, it could be worse; "highly likely" to be better is just an assumption at this point given who is on the roster. I'd give Hawk a C- in run defense and F in all other aspects of play. There may not be a D run defender in this current bunch. It takes more than loading up with bodies and seeing what falls out. I believe it was last season, or maybe the year before, where the Packers had 12 WRs in camp. What did that yield besides Adams, a high pick? Thompson is a risk averse guy who covers his bases unless dead cap or high contract demands get in the way. Loading up with bodies and seeing what falls out is fine at WR when you're looking for a #4 or #5 or #6. None of those considerations apply in this case. Look for a draft pick to quickly pass up the guys currently on the roster. Those guys are far from a "highly likely" improvement. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Firethorn1001
Latest posts
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: Thirteen Below
34 minutes ago
Draft Talk
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: DoURant
Yesterday at 11:10 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd round #88 MarShawn Lloyd RB
Latest: DoURant
Yesterday at 11:01 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
I had This Nightmare
Latest: Poppa San
Yesterday at 10:58 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
S
2024 Draft Prospect Discussions
Latest: Schultz
Yesterday at 10:41 PM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Compensatory Picks Announced
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top