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
Why this draft made no sense at all
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="Cory" data-source="post: 149257" data-attributes="member: 634"><p>Their rookie years are comparable as many have mentioned. You turned it into people saying Hawk was "more impactful" than Urlacher. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What "facts" have you given to this argument? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cory, post: 149257, member: 634"] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: milani
26 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
28 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: CarryTheG14
28 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
33 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: DoURant
Today at 2:58 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why this draft made no sense at all
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
