Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 657935">That's a long story that gets into Packer defensive history, the differences between 4-3 and 3-4, along with the player profiles, but I'll try to keep in succinct...or maybe not.  <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" data-shortname=";)" />First, you have to remember both Hawk and Barnett were drafted pre-Capers into 4-3 defenses.Let's start with Hawk.  He was drafted as a 4-3 OLB, his natural position.  People forget how outstanding his  measurables were coming out:  4.47 at his Pro Day at 248 lbs. doing 24 reps at the Combine at the same weight!  40 inch vertical!  That's crazy.  6.82 3-cone, almost as crazy for a man this size.  6'1", again more acceptable in the OLB profile than in the ILB bias.  He was never a downhill run banger by any means, just as we saw when he moved inside; he was never pegged as a possible 3-4 edge rusher despite the measurables, simply lacking the knack...just a classic 4-3 pursuit-and-cover OLB.  And he proved to be a tackling machine those first 3 years.  Not too may guys rack up 100+ tackles from that spot.Opinion was mixed on those early seasons because Hawk wasn't a splash play guy who would blow up runners or rack up tackles for loss, while he collected only 3 picks and 7.5 sacks over the first 3 years.  Again...pursuit and cover was his game and he was pretty darn good at both, if not a big time impact player.Now lets look at the 3-4 switch.  The classic pairing at the ILB position is the downhill run enforcer with a  read/flow/cover backer.  Usually they're called "strong side" and "weak side" respectively, or "Mike" vs. "Will" respectively.  That's a little deceptive since the better of the coverage backers, i.e., the weak side guy, will line up on the strong side over the TE on passing downs or in other looks.Hawk was the weak side or Will, fitting the finesse-over-physicality profile.  Fans did not like Hawk making all those tackles 4, 5, 6 yards past the LOS, but to large degree that was his job.  Look at 2010, Hawk's best season, with Bishop crashing the line together with an impressive D-Line group...the Hawk tackles were closer to the line with his compatriots doing a good job of slowing runners into the 2nd. level.  After that, the tackles were further from the LOS as Hawk's athleticism went into serious decline and the complementary players were not of the same caliber.  And in the last couple of years, after Hawk had slowed considerably, he was a liability in the Will coverage role.Throughout, Hawk displayed a good football mind and was in tune with Capers array of play calls, no mean feat.  And if he was getting too many snaps well past his sell date, at least a small part of that was his selflessness in going along with a position change early in his career away from his natural spot.  We can surely call him a "Packer guy".Let's look at Barnett.  He was drafted to play 4-3 ILB and was pretty fair at it.  The athletic measureables were mediocre, but his sideline-to-sideline speed looked better than his 4.69 time.  In fact, when he took on Westbrook one-on-one all over the field during that one remarkable game, it made you think he really had developed SS speed and may have missed his true calling.  In any event, the guy had 32 reps on the bench at the Combine at 236 lbs.  No doubt he packed a wallop and racked up a lot of tackles in the 4-3 where the job was a lot simpler than what was to come.I don't know whether it was the change in scheme per se or not being able to grasp Capers' complexities, but the guy looked like a fish out of water in the 3-4.  Despite racking up a fair number of tackles in his one year at 3-4 strong side, there were more plays than I wish to recall where Barnett was going one way and the play was going the other.There may have been just too much swimming around in his head in the more complex Capers scheme.  I'm reminded of Mike Krzyzewski's brilliant insights into the athlete's mind, which on one occasion he compared to a water glass.  Over-talking, pouring too much into the glass, dulls the athletic instincts.  You can pour in a little water but it's up to to the athlete to top off the glass.  My chief complaint about the Capers methodology is he seems to dispense too much from an oversized pitcher, especially with a draft and develop philosophy in place.  Long overdue, the simplified play call terminology implemented last season was a welcome accommodation to realities on the ground.  But I digress, the point being that Barnett's instincts looked to have been dulled in the more complex 3-4, with the mistake count going up noticeably.The other thing about Barnett, something I read after he departed, was that he was known to be quite chatty in the position room, sucking out the air.  That's not hard to believe given his chattiness in interviews.  As a less than cerebral player, I can't help but think that was not very helpful, with the quantity and quality of water he was trying to pour into his fellow LB's glasses being of dubious value.</blockquote>

Verification

Members online

No members online now.

Total: 104 (members: 0, guests: 104)

Latest posts

Mediocre punters from da past and other things....
- Latest: gopkrs
- Yesterday at 10:07 PM
NFL Discussions
NFC North Predictions
- Latest: Pkrjones
- Yesterday at 10:01 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Da Bears new head coach!!!!!
- Latest: Calebs Revenge
- Yesterday at 9:55 PM
NFL Discussions
First Round Pick #23 - Matthew Golden WR - Texas
- Latest: DoURant
- Yesterday at 6:12 PM
Draft Talk
S
Away Stadium You Would Like to Visit
- Latest: shockerx
- Yesterday at 4:27 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum