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!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Why this draft made no sense at all

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

  1. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Lance Briggs emerged as a very good player(which is what Hawk is) in 2004 with 126 tackles. Urlacher hurt that year playing 9 games had 70 tackles. Thats a pace of 124 tackles. Urlacher then had 121 tackles in 2005 with Briggs at 107. Urlacher had a very good year last year as did Briggs. They've also had three years together(which barnett and hawk have not). Again when in this system has the WLB EVER been the focus of the defense? If anything with all of the nickle packages the Packers ran last year it was both linebackers that were the focus.

    You're putting words in peoples mouths. It is not the majority's belief that Hawk was "more impactful" but rather comparable.
     
  2. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Tommy Maddox was HORRIBLE... He wouldn't be good with any team.

    How'd the Cutler for Plummer move work out for Denver? Not good.

    The odds favor Brady Quinn and the poor Cleveland team struggling mightily in 2008. I have a strong opinion on what is going to happen. What is yours? Or is it just more fun to mock someone who stands up and takes a strong stand.

    Go on record. Let's hear what you think of Clevelands Win/Loss prospects in '08.

    What is your problem with me. Nobody else seems to have the issues you do. Is it because I don't have any Packer helmets yellowed next to my moniker and am just a Waterboy and you're a 2nd round pick?
     
  3. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Ha, waterboy.

    ...ive got nothin.
     
  4. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm glad we have Hawk, but I'd prefer Urlacher. If both guys were the same age I'm sure all 32 teams would rather have Urlacher.

    I don't want to continue arguing. I'll let it go with your comparable argument without getting too specific as to what you might mean.
     
  5. Aytumious

    Aytumious Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    182
    Ratings:
    +0
    The Bates scheme is set up for the MLB to make plays:

    In Bates' last five seasons as the Dolphins' coordinator, middle linebacker Zach Thomas never failed to finish among the top five in tackles, topping the NFL in 2002. Green Bay middle linebacker Nick Barnett ranked sixth with a career-high 139 tackles during his lone season with Bates in 2005.

    "The mike linebacker in our scheme has to have a lot of mobility and speed, because we put a lot pressure on them," Bates said.

    According to the Packers own stats, Barnett broke a 24-year-old Packers record with 194 tackles under Bates.

    The MLB is much more of the playmaking position in Bates' style defense, which is what we are still running. You basically play two NT's to disrupt the interior blocking which allows the MLB to run more freely than he normally might. Every single team where Bates has been the DC, the MLB has been the main playmaker. Watch what happens in Denver this year.

    It is a huge credit to Hawk that he made so many tackles at WLB. I'd like to see what he could do as the MLB to be honest.
     
  6. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes... and who was the Defensive Coordinator in Hawk's rookie season? It wasn't Bates.

    Bob Sanders said he was going to "tweak" Bates system.

    I guess you're now saying Barnett is a worse player because of AJ's arrival? That's what we were going for when we added Hawk?

    I wish Hawk would go to middle as well. Barnett would make more plays a t the Will. Imo.

    Before Hawk's arrival there was always talk of moving Barnett to Will to take advantage of his athleticism and speed. Why would we think of doing that? We don't have to do it now because Hawk and Barnett are comparable.
     
  7. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    sounds like oannes is a pee wee football coach too.


    dont choke on those crazy pills.
     
  8. Aytumious

    Aytumious Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    182
    Ratings:
    +0
    What the hell makes you think that?
     
  9. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    its the crazy pills
     
  10. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Please, for some balance post the role of the weakside backer in Bates scheme.

    Crazy pills? Pee wee football? One post that appears to have "gotten" me and it's time to pile on. Just post the role of the weakside guy in Bates/Sander system. Then, all who have piled on will get off and go back to watching.

    Hawk is the playmaker on this defense... not Barnett. As I said, Barnett was always on the verge of being moved to weakside to take advantage of his skill set. He never moved because we had no one else to take over the middle.

    Hawk has a strong skill set and was put on the weak side to make plays. He made more than Barnett. Barnett should've gotten better with a stronger Weakside linebacker next to him but his numbers went down. Why?
     
  11. MassPackersFan

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings:
    +0
    Theoretically, I'd say if the whole defense improves, the leading tackler will drop in numbers, both because of less plays on the field (as someone already pointed out) and because, as the skills of each player increase, you would expect a more balanced distribution of tackles across the team. This is if you don't change the system of defense.
     
  12. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is where you are arrogant. You ask others for balance, but offer none in your posts. Why don't you try and justify some of your arguments as well? Btw, when did Sanders say he was going to "tweak" anything? And how does that now mean(conjured from thin air) that now the WLB is the focus?
     
  13. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8

    Gee where to start with this ...
    Well, first I don't much give a rats booty about the Browns, this is a Packers site, hence the green dominance. Oh what the hell, I'll say the Browns go 6 - 10 (thats jus a open guess without looking at their roster or schedule, it jus sounds Brown'ish to me.)

    I don't have much of a problem with you. You remind me how much I've learned in the NFL over the years and how far you have to go. (whoa that wreaked of arrogance)

    2nd round pick? HALL OF FAMER baby! :) heh



    So lets get this straight. You are comparing a guy coming into his second year with a guy who's entering his seventh?

    I guess that's getting to specific for ya huh?
     
  14. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hawk and Barnett are one of the best young duos at LB in the league. When you look at their age, production and potential, GB should feel very fortunate. Now, will they end up being on the level that Urlacher+Briggs or Quarles+Brooks or Lewis+Hartwell were in their prime? Who knows, but I like what I see so far and think this tandem will be a great strength on the team for a while.
     
  15. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Your Hall of Famer-ness.... I compared Hawk to Urlacher in their ROOKIE years. Cripes. How many times do I need to say that?

    I've given plenty of stuff to this argument. I've gotten called names. I've had people call me names and use "facts" that weren't facts at all to defend their wrong stances ala Briggs and Urlacher.

    The Weakside LB is the PLAYMAKING position. I don't care if the middle backer makes 200 tackles. Weakside is where the playmaker is lined up in our scheme. As I said, who knows how many times, that the debate raged between fans and coaching staff alike about whether to move Barnett to weakside. Why would that be? It was to take more advantage of his skills. He's light in the shorts and would be able to make more plays if he wasn't dealing with olineman running at him. Hawk is freer at Weak to make plays. I'm not disparaging Hawk because of his position. Maybe, they'll decide to move Barnett to Weak and put Hawk in the middle.... I'm not the fortune teller I've been accused of being.

    A person comes here and posts Bates thoughts on the middle backer position and you all assume the role of the weakside guy is somehow less? Again, I ask why the thought of moving Barnett to weak all those years? SO HE COULD MAKE MORE PLAYS. Man. Just because Zach Thomas led the Dolphins all those years means what? Who did the Dolphins have playing weakside? Anyone?

    Hawk and Barnett are a nice duo. Both are extremely important.

    Would it make you feel better if I found a story talking about Sanders tweaking Bates scheme?

    Here ya go...

    Packers | Sanders will use same 4-3 defense
    Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:39:52 -0800

    Jeff Fedotin, of Packers.com, reports Green Bay Packers defensive coordinator Bob Sanders will use a similar 4-3 defense, but will tweak former defensive coordinator Jim Bates' scheme. Sanders did not elaborate but said they could include some different coverages.

    Here's more from Nick Barnett himself from a Tom Oates article...

    And, as Barnett admitted Tuesday, the Packers aren't going to move the high-profile Hawk to the lowest-profile linebacker position.

    "They need A.J. at will. When you draft somebody that high, you want to put him at the mike or the will so they'll have productive numbers," Barnett said. "And I understand the reasoning of wanting to move me to the sam, because I can cover and I'm a smart player, but I think Abdul's smart enough to play that position, too.

    ---They always talked of Barnett to the Will and then Hawk comes and they're talking Hodge at Mike...Hawk at Will and Barnett at Sam. Why?

    Hawk is expected to be the playmaker.
     
  16. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

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

    Does this **** ever stop. It must really bother you.
     
  17. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

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

    Oannes what you say is correct. People read what he is saying! He is no way knocking Hawk. They won't ever get it. You must understand that these people are on the defense at any mention of this teams flaws.

    Poor guy is trying to have a debate and create conversation and you guys can't do anything but instantly defend. Sad, real sad
     
  18. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    can't compare them, they are at two different levels of their career.
     
  19. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Their rookie years are comparable as many have mentioned. You turned it into people saying Hawk was "more impactful" than Urlacher.

    What "facts" have you given to this argument?

    The conversation firs started about production. No one has said the WLB isn't the guy that makes the plays, but it's a fact that the MLB is more productive. The whole statement was that Hawk from the WLB position leading the team in tackles in his first year no less was a great accomplishment. Since we are in the discussion of the two positions WLB and MLB why are you comparing Urlacher and Hawk as far as "impact" anyways? Are they not different roles? Btw, the "freeness" of a linebacker depends on the linemen in front of them. Hawk having KGB in front of vs the run certainly doesn't help Hawk any.

    The debate was for Barnetts skillset yes, but not "for him to make more plays" it was because many thought he was too small for the MLB position. The Phins have had a relvolving door at WLB. Had they had a guy like Hawk then Thomas' numbers would go down not because Thomas would be "worse" or "not as good" with Hawk there, but because they would have added an excellent player.

    He "tweaked" the coverages a little bit. I'll ask again as I did in a previous post what does that have to do with the major role for the WLB in Bates system? Btw, MLB is HARDLY the low profile Lber position.

    Of course they expect AJ to be productive as Barnett said and he was very productive in his rookie year. I don't see how Barnett's quote concedes with whatever argument you're trying to make. Of course Hawk is expected to be a playmaker. Who is arguing that he isn't?
     
  20. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I confess, it's the first I've read of it. (doesnt mean you didnt say it though, i dont have time to read every single post) I still think its unjustified to say you'd take someone entering their second year vs someone entering their seventh. You've seen production year in year out for one and haven't seen anything but one year.

    If they'd both came out at the same time and you were saying that, I'd put more stock into it for ya.


    If you're just saying you'd rather have Urlacher over Hawk straight out of college. I think your nuts. In five years, I might say you were dead on. I don't know how Hawk is going to pan out. I hope Hawk can be as solid as Urlacher for twice the duration Urlacher has thus far.
     
  21. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Uh.....to "debate" you have to be allowed to give your side of the disscussion. If you do so though, you are labeled as "defending"? But when you or Oannes do it, it's NOT defending?
    He compares Hawk with Urlacher's first year. They are on DIFFERENT teams, with DIFFERENT other players on their teams. Maybe if Hawk would have been with the Chicago players at that time, maybe he would have been as good as Urlacher. Or had he been with the Packer team of last year, maybe he wouldn't have done as good as Hawk.Yes, they both play linebacker, but their situations make them very different.
    You can only compare numbers. Hawk was pretty good in my view. Thats all i'm saying. Urlacher was pretty good his rookie year too. No question about that.
    But I'm "defending" while Oannes and you are what?
    He agrees with you, so he is somehow not doing the same thing you accuse us of?
    How hypocritical.
     
  22. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    lol@Hall of Famer-ness i like that :p


    If you're not discrediting Hawk and just saying that Hawk is good, but you'd rather Urlacher. Okay. I can accept that. I just can't say I'd rather one over the other when one is starting his career an the other is towards the middle.

    Both are fine players though for sure.

    Now, if you want to say you'd rather Urlacher over Barnett, I'd be more in tune with that because its two players at the SAME position and you've seen both play for a few years.
     
  23. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just for reference, they were talking about the SAM here, not the mike or will.

    Again, they are saying the wil is in a position to make more plays than the sam - I don't see anyone arguing that. The sam is responsible for covering the TE and getting through more blockers than the will. It's a simple concept - since the sam plays on the "strong side", he needs to fight through the TE to make tackles on runs. The Wil does not have to fight through tackles, but he often has to cover more ground as most teams tend to run to the strong side. The Mike has the best of all worlds in that they can make a play on either side and rarely face outside blockers like TEs.

    So, to summarize, from a playmaking standpoint:

    Mike > Will
    Will > Sam

    And I think everyone but you has already agreed to this concept.
     
  24. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    The reason any point in your posts are lost is because they are pointless in the first place. Urlacher vs. Hawk's rookie year? WG'SAF.

    It's pointless. We picked Hawk at #5. He was a top five on EVERYBODYS board, we need LB"S badly, he had a great first year, and, will be great for years to come.

    End of Story.

    Jenning's vs. Boldin? Would you please just quit making comparisons of different players on different teams asked to do different things.

    Justin Harrell was a great pick for OUR SCHEME because he will occupy offensive lineman and allow the LB's to finish. Now Justin Harrell may end up doing a FANTASTIC JOB at this and our defense may benefit greatly from his play but watch. Some ******* will compare the number of tackles he had to Billy Bob Brown who was picked in the 4th round by some team.

    Of course this means NOTHING. It is totally irrelevant to anything. What in the hell sense does it make to compare a great player who had great numbers to another player who had good numbers as well.

    I am quite certain several CB's had more interceptions and more tackles than Al Harris and I am also quite certain that several of those CB's couldn't carry Al Harris' shoes to the lockeroom let alone play at his level.

    Can you find a topic other than irrelevant comparisons to discuss or would you like to be known around here as MR. IRRELEVANT? Because that's where your nonsense is going to get you.
     
  25. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Wow, warhawk, way to lay the smacketh downeth.

    I'd like to add that there were rumors days before the draft that the Saints were going to draft AJ Hawk at #2 if the Texans took Reggie Bush. Thank peaches the Texans signed Mario lol
     

Share This Page