Why this draft made no sense at all

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
Oannes said:
Yes... Nice job AJ. How many huge plays did he make? Few. I recall Brian Urlacher completely changing the face of the Bears when he took the field as a rookie. That is the type of impact you expect when you take a guy at 5.

AJ Hawk plays weakside LB. He SHOULD lead the team in tackles. What other position on the field would you expect to do so?

I don't dislike AJ Hawk. He was not a difference maker as a rookie. Perhaps, in time, he will be.

Another mistake. It is usually the MLB that has the advantage in production over the WLB. The fact that AJ as a rook led the team in tackles from the weakside when it was dominated by Barnett for the previous three years from the middle says alot.


No this is NOT TRUE. Don't go around talking down to people when you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
Oannes.... Albeit that I do not share your opinion on Hawk, you make many a good point through your debates. As you are finding out, you can be a huge Packer fan for years upon years, but if you challenge to have an opinion of Ted other than positive, you will find it tough sledding here.

In my opinion he has made many a good move since comming to the Packers and was needed. He like any other first time GM would has made his share of mistakes and in many of opinion lacks the "eye" of the tiger type makeup to take the next step. IMO he is too dependant on the draft and young players, hence being very conservative.

On current topic, I agree that it is hard to see is "plan" for this team. Last year he signed a few free agents to strenghten the team and provide experience in needed positions, althought to date the Manuel experiment hasn't came through. Then goes into this year set to make another round of moves, and nope, now we go total youth.

But welcome to the forum and good luck debating an opinionated Ted stance.


I second this Oannes. I to don't share your opinion on Hawk but your other points are spot on. I hope you stay around and post more. I am limited in people who are really interested in duiscussing the Packers objectively on this site.
 
OP
OP
O

Oannes

Cheesehead
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Pyle... I'll look forward to it. I appreciate the warm welcome from you, 93z and Lare.

Just one last time for crystal clarity. I am not down on AJ Hawk. I look forward to what he may become. I agreed with taking him and love all that he brings to the table.

His first year wasn't dynamic and that is all I'm trying to say. I think the well meaning fans of this club have him elevated to a level he's not yet attained. Take his name out of it and call him "Player X" and I don't think anyone who watched "Player X" would be all that excited about his first season. Now, call him AJ Hawk and run some of those college highlights through your mind, and listen to the spin on his speed and take a look at his herculean body and all of a sudden he's something in your mind that he just quite isn't yet. There's a reason commercials work. I think the same principle applies to why so many think AJ Hawk is some sort of phenom. He's not...yet...and that's the point I'm trying to make.
 

Zombieslayer

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
4,338
Reaction score
0
Location
CA
Pyle... I'll look forward to it.

Just one last time for crystal clarity. I am not down on AJ Hawk. I look forward to what he may become. I agreed with taking him and love all that he brings to the table.

His first year wasn't dynamic and that is all I'm trying to say. I think the well meaning fans of this club have him elevated to a level he's not yet attained. Take his name out of it and call him "Player X" and I don't think anyone who watched "Player X" would be all that excited about his first season. Now, call him AJ Hawk and run some of those college highlights through your mind, and listen to the spin on his speed and take a look at his herculean body and all of a sudden he's something in your mind that he just quite isn't yet. There's a reason commercials work. I think the same principle applies to why so many think AJ Hawk is some sort of phenom. He's not...yet...and that's the point I'm trying to make.

I think the reason we're high on Hawk is because his expectations are exactly what we expected. For a rookie, he's pretty d*** good. Didn't he finish the season #1 on the Packers in tackles when every past year it's been Nick Barnett?

Plus, considering that was his rookie season, we just expect him to get better.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
Pyle... I'll look forward to it. I appreciate the warm welcome from you, 93z and Lare.

Just one last time for crystal clarity. I am not down on AJ Hawk. I look forward to what he may become. I agreed with taking him and love all that he brings to the table.

His first year wasn't dynamic and that is all I'm trying to say. I think the well meaning fans of this club have him elevated to a level he's not yet attained. Take his name out of it and call him "Player X" and I don't think anyone who watched "Player X" would be all that excited about his first season. Now, call him AJ Hawk and run some of those college highlights through your mind, and listen to the spin on his speed and take a look at his herculean body and all of a sudden he's something in your mind that he just quite isn't yet. There's a reason commercials work. I think the same principle applies to why so many think AJ Hawk is some sort of phenom. He's not...yet...and that's the point I'm trying to make.


I agree with this.
 
OP
OP
O

Oannes

Cheesehead
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
Below, you'll find a list of tackling leaders for 2006. AJ Hawk is 18th. Look at some of the other names on this list. If Hawk is somehow amazing because of his numbers, then wouldn't it follow that those higher on this list are "better" than him? Many of these guys, while making tons of tackles, are not game changing players. Look through the list and honestly tell me that because AJ led the Pack in tackles he had an amazing season. He didn't.

Do the names Antonio Pierce and Kirk Morrison make you shudder? How about Chris Hope and Gary Brackett??? Are these guys just animalistic stud players who change games? Nope. The same applies to AJ Hawk. I'll grant you he had nice numbers, but that isn't the point. He wasn't a big impact player last season.


1 Zach Thomas MIA 165 103.0 62 10
2 DeMeco Ryans HOU 155 125.0 30 6
3 London Fletcher-Baker BUF 146 104.0 42 11
4 Keith Bulluck TEN 143 99.0 44 7
5 Cato June IND 142 96.0 46 4
6 Donnie Edwards SD 141 97.0 44 7
7 Brian Urlacher CHI 141 92.0 49 9
8 Antonio Pierce NYG 137 107.0 30 9
9 Keith Brooking ATL 136 95.0 41 1
10 Lance Briggs CHI 130 109.0 21 10
11 Kirk Morrison OAK 127 101.0 26 5
12 James Farrior PIT 126 83.0 43 6
13 Ernie Sims DET 124 81.0 43 1
14 Lofa Tatupu SEA 122 91.0 31 7
15 Chris Hope TEN 121 89.0 32 15
16 Derrick Brooks TB 121 96.0 25 5
17 Gary Brackett IND 120 85.0 35 2
18 A.J. Hawk GB 119 82.0 37 8
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
Below, you'll find a list of tackling leaders for 2006. AJ Hawk is 18th. Look at some of the other names on this list. If Hawk is somehow amazing because of his numbers, then wouldn't it follow that those higher on this list are "better" than him? Many of these guys, while making tons of tackles, are not game changing players. Look through the list and honestly tell me that because AJ led the Pack in tackles he had an amazing season. He didn't.

Do the names Antonio Pierce and Kirk Morrison make you shudder? How about Chris Hope and Gary Brackett??? Are these guys just animalistic stud players who change games? Nope. The same applies to AJ Hawk. I'll grant you he had nice numbers, but that isn't the point. He wasn't a big impact player last season.


1 Zach Thomas MIA 165 103.0 62 10
2 DeMeco Ryans HOU 155 125.0 30 6
3 London Fletcher-Baker BUF 146 104.0 42 11
4 Keith Bulluck TEN 143 99.0 44 7
5 Cato June IND 142 96.0 46 4
6 Donnie Edwards SD 141 97.0 44 7
7 Brian Urlacher CHI 141 92.0 49 9
8 Antonio Pierce NYG 137 107.0 30 9
9 Keith Brooking ATL 136 95.0 41 1
10 Lance Briggs CHI 130 109.0 21 10
11 Kirk Morrison OAK 127 101.0 26 5
12 James Farrior PIT 126 83.0 43 6
13 Ernie Sims DET 124 81.0 43 1
14 Lofa Tatupu SEA 122 91.0 31 7
15 Chris Hope TEN 121 89.0 32 15
16 Derrick Brooks TB 121 96.0 25 5
17 Gary Brackett IND 120 85.0 35 2
18 A.J. Hawk GB 119 82.0 37 8


It's commonplace for GB fans to make out players statistics and accomplishments to be bigger than what they are. Hawk had a great year for a rookie IMO but the jury is still out on him. I like Hawk and think he will be a force.

However, you will find on this forum that average guys are somehow stars. See Greg Jennings and Nick Collins.
 

Arles

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
304
Reaction score
0
I said it was comparable, not better. And, to the sacks comment, you obviously missed the part on Urlacher blitzing a ton more. As to "all over the field making big plays", that's a hair subjective. I look at big plays from a standpoint of forcing turnovers and making big stops. Urlacher forced 1 fewer turnover than Hawk and was on a team that was 4-12 - giving up almost the exact same defensive numbers as GB did in 06.

In almost every measureable manner (individual and team), Hawk and Urlacher had similar rookie seasons. Again, if you account for the amount of blitzing Urlacher did (impacts the 4.5 more sacks), I just can't see how Urlacher had a measureable better season than Hawk. The inidividual and team numbers show this.

But, hey, you *remember* Urlacher being all over the field on a 4-12 team, so he must have been much better, right?
 
OP
OP
O

Oannes

Cheesehead
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
196
Reaction score
0
I'd call AJ Hawk's rookie year...SOLID. Came out of the gate slow. Improved as things went along. This points to better things this year, especially if Harrell can team with Pickett to stymie O linemen from getting to his level. The Baltimore Raven (Sam Adams/Tony Siragusa) approach excites me.

Sadly, the Packers are bereft of stars. Favre was one and is living on that reputation, but frankly we don't have one anymore.

It's been fun watching Aarron Kampman and Cullen Jenkins grow into the cusp of elite status. Hopefully, this "grow slow" philosophy of TT pans out.

I'm excited about Zac Alcorn's development. It's fun watching these no name players become really good players.

If there's one thing the Packers have been good at it's finding good players late, or after, the draft. It'd be nice to really hit on a player in Round 1 though. I'm talking like a LaDainian Tomlinson type of impact player.
 

Cory

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
Cory said:
Oannes said:
Yes... Nice job AJ. How many huge plays did he make? Few. I recall Brian Urlacher completely changing the face of the Bears when he took the field as a rookie. That is the type of impact you expect when you take a guy at 5.

AJ Hawk plays weakside LB. He SHOULD lead the team in tackles. What other position on the field would you expect to do so?

I don't dislike AJ Hawk. He was not a difference maker as a rookie. Perhaps, in time, he will be.

Another mistake. It is usually the MLB that has the advantage in production over the WLB. The fact that AJ as a rook led the team in tackles from the weakside when it was dominated by Barnett for the previous three years from the middle says alot.


No this is NOT TRUE. Don't go around talking down to people when you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Lol actually yes it IS true.

London Fletcher Buf 146 tackles led team
Zack Thomas Miami 165 tackles led team
Teddy Bruschi NE 112 tackles led team
John Vilma NY Jets 113 tackles led team
Ray Lewis Balt 103 tackles tied for team lead
Andra Davis 104 tackles (second on team behind a safety and third on team was the OTHER ILB D Jackson)
James Farrior Pit 126 tackles led team
Demeco Ryans Hou 155 tackles led team
Daryl Smith Jax 88 tackles led team
Al Wilson Den 101 tackles led team
Kawika Mitchell KC 104 tackles led team
Kirk Morrison Oak 127 tackles led team
Donnie Edwards SD 141 tackles led team

12 out of 16 teams in the AFC the MLB led the team in tackles(one being second to a safety). On to the NFC

Bradie James Dal 101 tackles led team
Antonio Pierce NYG 137 tackles led team
Jeremiah Trotter PHI 112 tackles led team
Lemar Marshall Wash 104 tackles second on team to a safety
Brian Urlacher Chi 141 tackles led team
Keith Brooking Atl 136 tackles led team
Chris Draft(while filling in for Morgan) Car 107 tackles led team
Gerald Hayes ARZ 93 tackles led team
Will Witherspoon Stl 113 tackles led team
Lofa Tatupu Sea 122 tackles led team

9 out of 16 NFC mlb's led their teams in tackles with one being second to a safety. So that means 23 out of 32 teams MLB led their teams in tackles with two being second to safeties(since this is an argument of MLB tackle production vs WLB). Meaning a WLB leading their team in tackles in more the exception than the rule.
 

Cory

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
If there's one thing the Packers have been good at it's finding good players late, or after, the draft. It'd be nice to really hit on a player in Round 1 though. I'm talking like a LaDainian Tomlinson type of impact player.

Here is the problem with this and frankly I would LOOOOVVEEEE if we got a LT in the first round, but you're comparing LBers and RB's. Its not comparable IMO. For arguments sake if I had a choice between Urlacher and LT it's LT every single time hands down without question.
 

Arles

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
304
Reaction score
0
He wasn't a big impact player last season.
I'm just curious as to what a player needs to do on defense to be "impact". It is just solely subjective? If that's the case, this argument is meaningless. I would say Hawk flashed signs of being a an impact player. But, as a rookie, was not as consistent as he should have been (not unlike Urlacher in his rookie season).

Hawk in 8 wins:
66 tackles, 3 sacks, 2 picks, 5 passes defensed and 1 forced fumble.

Hawk in 8 losses:
55 tackles, 0.5 sacks, 0 picks, 2 passes defensed and 0 forced fumbles.

If he can have 12-13 games like those 8 wins this season, he could grow into a serious impact player on D. I would expect in his second season to get that kind of improvement. Also, it helps to add a talented player to the DL to help his growth as well.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
pyledriver80 said:
Cory said:
Oannes said:
Yes... Nice job AJ. How many huge plays did he make? Few. I recall Brian Urlacher completely changing the face of the Bears when he took the field as a rookie. That is the type of impact you expect when you take a guy at 5.

AJ Hawk plays weakside LB. He SHOULD lead the team in tackles. What other position on the field would you expect to do so?

I don't dislike AJ Hawk. He was not a difference maker as a rookie. Perhaps, in time, he will be.

Another mistake. It is usually the MLB that has the advantage in production over the WLB. The fact that AJ as a rook led the team in tackles from the weakside when it was dominated by Barnett for the previous three years from the middle says alot.


No this is NOT TRUE. Don't go around talking down to people when you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Lol actually yes it IS true.

London Fletcher Buf 146 tackles led team
Zack Thomas Miami 165 tackles led team
Teddy Bruschi NE 112 tackles led team
John Vilma NY Jets 113 tackles led team
Ray Lewis Balt 103 tackles tied for team lead
Andra Davis 104 tackles (second on team behind a safety and third on team was the OTHER ILB D Jackson)
James Farrior Pit 126 tackles led team
Demeco Ryans Hou 155 tackles led team
Daryl Smith Jax 88 tackles led team
Al Wilson Den 101 tackles led team
Kawika Mitchell KC 104 tackles led team
Kirk Morrison Oak 127 tackles led team
Donnie Edwards SD 141 tackles led team

12 out of 16 teams in the AFC the MLB led the team in tackles(one being second to a safety). On to the NFC

Bradie James Dal 101 tackles led team
Antonio Pierce NYG 137 tackles led team
Jeremiah Trotter PHI 112 tackles led team
Lemar Marshall Wash 104 tackles second on team to a safety
Brian Urlacher Chi 141 tackles led team
Keith Brooking Atl 136 tackles led team
Chris Draft(while filling in for Morgan) Car 107 tackles led team
Gerald Hayes ARZ 93 tackles led team
Will Witherspoon Stl 113 tackles led team
Lofa Tatupu Sea 122 tackles led team

9 out of 16 NFC mlb's led their teams in tackles with one being second to a safety. So that means 23 out of 32 teams MLB led their teams in tackles with two being second to safeties(since this is an argument of MLB tackle production vs WLB). Meaning a WLB leading their team in tackles in more the exception than the rule.


Omg, I'm sorry but I don't even know where to start without drawing you X's and O's.
 

Arles

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
304
Reaction score
0
Omg, I'm sorry but I don't even know where to start without drawing you X's and O's.
Translation - "I don't have any data to backup my oddball claim of MLBs not being in a better position to make more tackles over time than WLBs, so I am just going to call you ignorant in the game of football."
 

Cory

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
Cory said:
pyledriver80 said:
Cory said:
Oannes said:
Yes... Nice job AJ. How many huge plays did he make? Few. I recall Brian Urlacher completely changing the face of the Bears when he took the field as a rookie. That is the type of impact you expect when you take a guy at 5.

AJ Hawk plays weakside LB. He SHOULD lead the team in tackles. What other position on the field would you expect to do so?

I don't dislike AJ Hawk. He was not a difference maker as a rookie. Perhaps, in time, he will be.

Another mistake. It is usually the MLB that has the advantage in production over the WLB. The fact that AJ as a rook led the team in tackles from the weakside when it was dominated by Barnett for the previous three years from the middle says alot.


No this is NOT TRUE. Don't go around talking down to people when you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Lol actually yes it IS true.

London Fletcher Buf 146 tackles led team
Zack Thomas Miami 165 tackles led team
Teddy Bruschi NE 112 tackles led team
John Vilma NY Jets 113 tackles led team
Ray Lewis Balt 103 tackles tied for team lead
Andra Davis 104 tackles (second on team behind a safety and third on team was the OTHER ILB D Jackson)
James Farrior Pit 126 tackles led team
Demeco Ryans Hou 155 tackles led team
Daryl Smith Jax 88 tackles led team
Al Wilson Den 101 tackles led team
Kawika Mitchell KC 104 tackles led team
Kirk Morrison Oak 127 tackles led team
Donnie Edwards SD 141 tackles led team

12 out of 16 teams in the AFC the MLB led the team in tackles(one being second to a safety). On to the NFC

Bradie James Dal 101 tackles led team
Antonio Pierce NYG 137 tackles led team
Jeremiah Trotter PHI 112 tackles led team
Lemar Marshall Wash 104 tackles second on team to a safety
Brian Urlacher Chi 141 tackles led team
Keith Brooking Atl 136 tackles led team
Chris Draft(while filling in for Morgan) Car 107 tackles led team
Gerald Hayes ARZ 93 tackles led team
Will Witherspoon Stl 113 tackles led team
Lofa Tatupu Sea 122 tackles led team

9 out of 16 NFC mlb's led their teams in tackles with one being second to a safety. So that means 23 out of 32 teams MLB led their teams in tackles with two being second to safeties(since this is an argument of MLB tackle production vs WLB). Meaning a WLB leading their team in tackles in more the exception than the rule.


Omg, I'm sorry but I don't even know where to start without drawing you X's and O's.

aaannnnd he cops out. Remember I'm talking strictly production not "big plays" because that seems to be subjective anymore. I know the WLB is meant to make "big plays" but in terms of strictly tackling production it's a FACT that the MLB is more productive than the WLB.
 

Cory

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
pyledriver80 said:
Omg, I'm sorry but I don't even know where to start without drawing you X's and O's.
Translation - "I don't have any data to backup my oddball claim of MLBs not being in a better position to make more tackles over time than WLBs, so I am just going to call you ignorant in the game of football."

I feel like I'm Matt Lauer talking to Tom Cruise.

"I know and you don't...you don't know the history...you're being glib!!"
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
pyledriver80 said:
Omg, I'm sorry but I don't even know where to start without drawing you X's and O's.
Translation - "I don't have any data to backup my oddball claim of MLBs not being in a better position to make more tackles over time than WLBs, so I am just going to call you ignorant in the game of football."


No, that is true. MLB's are in a better position to make tackles however the Will is the primary benefactor in any most systems.


The Mike is in the middle of the field in space. He's closest to the action without being covered up on every run play. Thus most Mikes will lead the team in tackles. However, with Barnett's overplaying tendency and Poppinga taking on the playside lead it's going to balloon Hawks numbers.
 

Cory

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
Arles said:
pyledriver80 said:
Omg, I'm sorry but I don't even know where to start without drawing you X's and O's.
Translation - "I don't have any data to backup my oddball claim of MLBs not being in a better position to make more tackles over time than WLBs, so I am just going to call you ignorant in the game of football."


No, that is true. MLB's are in a better position to make tackles however the Will is the primary benefactor in any most systems.


The Mike is in the middle of the field in space. He's closest to the action without being covered up on every run play. Thus most Mikes will lead the team in tackles. However, with Barnett's overplaying tendency and Poppinga taking on the playside lead it's going to balloon Hawks numbers.

That's what I've been saying and the numbers prove it. Doesn't it say something for Hawk that he led the team in tackles his first season after Barnett had led the team 3 years straight, though?
 

tromadz

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
999
Reaction score
3
Location
Chicago
Arles said:
pyledriver80 said:
Omg, I'm sorry but I don't even know where to start without drawing you X's and O's.
Translation - "I don't have any data to backup my oddball claim of MLBs not being in a better position to make more tackles over time than WLBs, so I am just going to call you ignorant in the game of football."

I feel like I'm Matt Lauer talking to Tom Cruise.

"I know and you don't...you don't know the history...you're being glib!!"
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
pyledriver80 said:
Arles said:
pyledriver80 said:
Omg, I'm sorry but I don't even know where to start without drawing you X's and O's.
Translation - "I don't have any data to backup my oddball claim of MLBs not being in a better position to make more tackles over time than WLBs, so I am just going to call you ignorant in the game of football."


No, that is true. MLB's are in a better position to make tackles however the Will is the primary benefactor in any most systems.


The Mike is in the middle of the field in space. He's closest to the action without being covered up on every run play. Thus most Mikes will lead the team in tackles. However, with Barnett's overplaying tendency and Poppinga taking on the playside lead it's going to balloon Hawks numbers.

That's what I've been saying and the numbers prove it. Doesn't it say something for Hawk that he led the team in tackles his first season after Barnett had led the team 3 years straight, though?

Thats what I was saying. It doesn't actually mean Hawks a beast. He is no doubt above average by far and has some nice tools but because his numbers are better than Barnett's doesn't really mean much besides Barnetts not making the plays and leaving Hawk to clean em up.
 

Arles

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
304
Reaction score
0
However, with Barnett's overplaying tendency and Poppinga taking on the playside lead it's going to balloon Hawks numbers.
Barnett was 12th in the NFL in tackles in 04 and 6th in the NFL in 05. That seems like a guy who isn't going to "balloon" anyone else's tackle numbers. In fact, the fact that Hawk led the team with as productive a MLB than GB had in 05 shows that he has a nose for the ball and can make plays. And I doubt he suddenly gets worse in the next few seasons.
 

Cory

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
Cory said:
pyledriver80 said:
Arles said:
pyledriver80 said:
Omg, I'm sorry but I don't even know where to start without drawing you X's and O's.
Translation - "I don't have any data to backup my oddball claim of MLBs not being in a better position to make more tackles over time than WLBs, so I am just going to call you ignorant in the game of football."


No, that is true. MLB's are in a better position to make tackles however the Will is the primary benefactor in any most systems.


The Mike is in the middle of the field in space. He's closest to the action without being covered up on every run play. Thus most Mikes will lead the team in tackles. However, with Barnett's overplaying tendency and Poppinga taking on the playside lead it's going to balloon Hawks numbers.

That's what I've been saying and the numbers prove it. Doesn't it say something for Hawk that he led the team in tackles his first season after Barnett had led the team 3 years straight, though?

Thats what I was saying. It doesn't actually mean Hawks a beast. He is no doubt above average by far and has some nice tools but because his numbers are better than Barnett's doesn't really mean much besides Barnetts not making the plays and leaving Hawk to clean em up.

I think it says alot for Hawk that he and about 2-3 other WLB in the league led their team in tackles and only one of them was a rookie(earnie sims). Now obviously we all want him to be successful and I guess we view him in different ways, but I think there were plenty of plays last year that Hawk made and had a significant impact. Now does that mean I want him to stay where he is and not improve? Of course not, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he didn't have an impact on last years D. JMO.
 

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
Theres no debating it. Hawk played well last year and shows promise for the future. Even Bears/Vikings fans would admit that one.
 

warhawk

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,922
Reaction score
17
Location
Gulf Shores, Al
Pyle Wrote:

Thats what I was saying. It doesn't actually mean Hawks a beast. He is no doubt above average by far and has some nice tools but because his numbers are better than Barnett's doesn't really mean much besides Barnetts not making the plays and leaving Hawk to clean em up.[/quote]

I think MM should game plan it so EVERYBODY else misses the tackles and Hawk get's them all but, and here's the challenge, we CONTINUE TO IMPROVE OUR RUSHING D STATS like we so dramatically did last year.

Maybe, just maybe, TT was on to something when he figured maybe Digg's and Lenon had to go and we probably needed some real NFL linebackers since they play kind of a critical role in both the run and pass defense in our scheme.

Did I not see somewhere that AFTER they decided to leave Hawk in there on passing downs that our whole pass defense began it's climb out of below dead bottom?

I forgot. We're talking strickly total tackles here which equates to EVERYTHING good a player does.
 

MassPackersFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
831
Reaction score
2
We should also ignore the hard work and dedication to the game. That's not objective at all, and real stars of the game like Jerry Rice never worked harder than the other guys out there.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top