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.

    Sign Up 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!

Is anyone else worried about Hawk?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by TOPackerFan, Aug 7, 2006.

  1. IndiPack

    IndiPack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thank God somebody can see it.
    It's a pic (won't upload, tried everything) of Henderson crushing Hawk in practice. Great pic. Honest.
     
  2. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    It is, but I wonder why you can't see it.
     
  3. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    its just 2 guys banging hard(relax,aadp). Hawk will win some, and lose some of those matchups.
     
  4. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    944
    Ratings:
    +62
    In Chris Havel's chat, he said that he wouldn't be concerned about Hawk unless he doesn't show much during the exhibition games.

    I'm not ready to call him A. J. Mandarich quite yet.
     
  5. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    yeah AJ is stil good until he proves to everybody he cant handle it....then its Mannings lucky day
     
  6. NDPackerFan

    NDPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,253
    Ratings:
    +4
    Reading that last name instantly made me wanna puke... :puke:

    I wish we could go back in time....with the second pick in the '89 NFL Draft, the Green Bay Packers select Barry Sanders, running back, Oklahoma State!
     
  7. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm not saying he's TM yet (don't want to write his full name for fear of jinxing AJ), but simply that he didn't show too much. He was rarely around the ball and seemed to have difficulty getting off blocks (which was the one criticism I heard about AJ prior to the draft). He also looked pretty thin in the lower body to me.
     
  8. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I know what you mean..........I always wondered what would have happened if we had taken Sanders instead of "Steroid boy". Who knows.......maybe Sanders would still be playing! And maybe we would have had 3 or 4 more Super Bowl titles.
    Then again, maybe we wouldn't have got Favre, and Reggie.....who knows? It's all "what if!"
     
  9. Vikeman

    Vikeman Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    least your first round LB will start
     
  10. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    Green Way is going to start isn't he?
     
  11. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'd really like to be wrong about this, but it seems like Cliff Christl agrees with my impressions of Hawk thus far (especially being skinny in the lower body).

    From jsonline.com

    If linebacker coach Winston Moss has been at all disappointed in rookie A.J. Hawk’s play to this point, he isn’t willing to admit it, at least not publicly. Moss said he sees a “very talented playerâ€
     
  12. wpr

    wpr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,517
    Ratings:
    +0
    Most Excellent! :rotflmao:
    Just pound on your "Packer team mate" :hammer:
    What if this gives him a complex?
     
  13. shiftysdad

    shiftysdad Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    342
    Ratings:
    +0
    One word: wait.

    He's a bloody rookie, give him time, he'll do it eventually.

    The leap between NCAA and NFL is... awkward.

    New rules, new style.

    But he should catch on and eventually do good.

    Just give him time.
     
  14. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    Yeah I think he will leap into his NFL shoes eventually.....better be soon cause its almost football season
     
  15. shiftysdad

    shiftysdad Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    342
    Ratings:
    +0
    Bah, we mightaswell wait for next season come, this season won't be 'tacular.

    Better than last year, but that's not sayuing much.
     
  16. flapackfan

    flapackfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    379
    Ratings:
    +0
    Dont be upset that Hodge outshined Hawk. This should be a happy thing. We know what we have in A.J., a guy who is going to be very good once he learns the system and gets some reps. We werent sure about Hodge but i think its safe to say now that (as i thought ) Hodge is going to be a starter sooner or later. The clips of him in college were awesome. The guy is a football magnet and he will prove to be a steal. Also, Hodge probably realizes that he has something to prove and maybe he is a better preparer or quicker learner than A.J.
     
  17. retiredgrampa

    retiredgrampa Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +0
    I've felt that Hodge was very disappointed by going in the 3rd round. He also probably felt he was a bit "disrespected" by getting only 3rd round money. It gave him more motivation than most. He has an attitude as a MLB should.
     
  18. Philtration

    Philtration Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,247
    Ratings:
    +9
    He is a rookie...
    Give him time...
    He has to get his feet wet...
    He just got married...
    He had to go to school….
    His tux didn’t come back from the cleaners....

    Can this be the same bunch that ripped Kyle Orton and Cedric Benson last season?
     
  19. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Anyone watch the game over?

    Hawk was great Saturday. He played just like he did at Ohio State. Always around the ball. He made a couple of nice hits as well.

    Hodge played pretty good. He played like a 3rd round pick with potential to be a starter in this league.

    GB has a nice future at LB's that for sure.
     
  20. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    bothb Hodge and Hawk played great so I'm not worried at all about the defense
     
  21. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Not sure why you wouldn't worry. Hodge didn't have a great game, he did nothing that was worth getting all excited about. I agree with porky, Hawk actually showed the ability to be around the ball.

    Other than that, there isn't anything which shouldn't be a cause for concern.

    - D-Line struggled to get a rush. Simply put, a rush is essential.

    - KGB looked alright, but still is a weak point against the run.

    - There were passing lanes open all night long, and the D showed a lack of discipline.

    - CB Charles Woodson..... did nothing.

    - Culver is now our top backup, right behind a guy who just now is starting to take the field again in practice.

    Above all else:

    - Bob Sanders is a rookie DC, who has NO track record. He is getting a unit that overachieved, and lacks play makers. Bates may have worked his magic, but Sanders is no Bates.
     
  22. arrowgargantuan

    arrowgargantuan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,645
    Ratings:
    +4
    far too early to make this statement!

    Sanders could be better for all we know..
     
  23. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have debated this internally within many times.

    Before last season began, I had so much confidence in Bates, I expected alot from the D, and I wasn't dissapointed. I just don't get the same vibe with Sanders.

    However, that is a personal feeling, and to base my statement on this entirely would be foolish. Sanders is actually more laid back, and I feel this group players on D need someone who is energetic, who can run around with them, who can get them excited to do the drills. Sanders is physically limited in this area.

    Secondly, Sanders is too passive, IMO. I haven't read reports of Sanders blowing up at anyone yet, or calling someone out like Jags. Passive isn't the best thing with this group IMO, they need to know they are on a short leash with a coach who is a mad man.

    Also, IMO Sanders wants to run a bit more aggresive style of D. IMO, Sanders doesn't have the players to do this. Hawk isn't great at coverage yet. Woodson hasn't proven a thing yet in terms of staying healthy, Carroll is still Carroll, Manuel isn't known for his pass D, Barnett seems to struggle getting to the QB in good time when asked to blitz, Taylor isn't a blitzer, and Collins is the one potential play maker we have on this D, and I'd rather he be set up to get INT's as opposed to sacks, because that means Marquand will be the guy to help on pass D. I just don't think there is adequate personel to blitz.

    Finally, IMO the D over achieved last year. Bates came here with the luxury of trying to improve an abysmal unit under Slo. The expectations were quite low, and when the D did what they did, it was a great surprise. However, Sanders is getting a D that overachieved, and a D people expect to be near the top of the league. That is too high of an expectation, and I think Sanders will get some major heat from fans and newspapers alike when he doesn't perform to the high platform set by Bates. Ultimately add this to Sanders needing time to find his comfort zone as DC, finding out how his players respond best to which of his coaching methods, and understanding the art of adjusting in-game all equate to a regression in the play of our D, IMHO.
     
  24. arrowgargantuan

    arrowgargantuan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,645
    Ratings:
    +4
    you're basing an awful lot of this on pure assumptions my friend!

    who said Sanders was a passive coach?

    and who said Sanders wants to run a more agressive D?

    im asking because i've never read anything to support that, not because i know any differently. everything i've read states he is keeping the same scheme..i'm sure he'll put his touch on it, but i haven't read a thing that stated he plans to be more agressive. fill me in pretty please...
     
  25. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Passive came from actually the lack of Sanders being vocal/wringing someone tot he cleaners yet. For the main part though, I remember reading a player, Corey Williams I think, saying something along the lines that Sanders stood back in practice, and he was calm in explaining things/telling players what they didn't do correct.

    As for running an agressive scheme, I seemed to have read somewhere that Sanders was in the Bates mold, that he didn't favour a ton of blitzing, but did favor a more aggressive style of D. Oddly enough, I think it may have been Christl soon after Sanders was hired that said something along the lines of Sanders wanting to run a more agressive D compared to Bates. Then again, 'compared to Bates' might mean a scheme which still blitzes well below the average, but still higher than Bates tended too.

    Looking back, I do agree that I am basing my POV on assumptions. Furthermore, can't look too much into the preseason, because Sanders will run a very basic concept of his scheme. I just can't seem to get over my feeling that Sanders won't be able to do a lot to further this D.

    Another specific thing is the "let em have it" incident in the OTAs. I can't figure out for the life of me why he would do that. The confidence gained from shutting down the O would be greater than any other "positive" that came from that, IMHO.

    One of the major problems I actually have, and this should have been mentioned before, is that I don't think Sanders has been given full authority to choose the type of coaches who would fit his scheme. By that I mean I would have liked to see Sanders choose his position coaches, instead of McCarthy hiring his lapdog to be the DB coach. (IMO, I think Washington was screwed)

    BTW - if my points sound as if they are in no order, it is because they aren't. I'm typing in the order that I think, and it is 5 am here, and I just got another mouse in the trap. So if my points don't make the most of sense, I don't mean to be rude or anything bro, I'm just damn tired and paranoid.
     

Share This Page