Thursday Practices: Matthews vs. Thompson, Rouse, Bishop, and Hawk
by Brandon on Aug 21, 2009 8:00 AM CDT
in Green Bay Packers News
Email
PrintAccording to Rob Demovsky, bad weather forced the morning practice for the Green Bay Packers inside and 20 players sat out, so:
The morning practice was easily the most non-competitive (i.e. boring) practice so far.
One of the expected battles in training camp was supposed to be LB Clay Matthews vs. LB Jeremy Thompson for the starting right outside linebacker spot, but according to Mike McCarthy, both of them are still hurt and will miss the Buffalo game on Saturday. Although DT B.J. Raji should get his first action on the field.
S Aaron Rouse was the big story when he was carted off the practice field with a hamstring injury. McCarthy's kicking himself; he could have stopped practice three plays earlier. It hasn't been reported how bad the injury is. Judging the way the Packers training staff has been reluctant to let Matthews play with his injured hamstring, even a less severe injury might keep him out a while. He had no chance at beating out either S Atari Bigby or S Nick Collins for a starting job, but he is the top backup. I'm not sold on free agent S Anthony Smith yet, but at least he provides more depth then they had last season.
LB Desmond Bishop has been one of the stars in training camp. Something was bothering him during practice, but apparently it was nothing serious.
We've been discussing whether LB A.J. Hawk has reached bust status. The stats have shown that he isn't good at stopping the run. While I've read some criticisms that he is thinking too much, it's seemed like the bigger problem is that he's having trouble getting off blocks. I noticed that a lot last season, but I couldn't tell for sure from just watching TV. Was it just a play here and there or a real problem? From Greg Bedard:
Want to sum up Hawk's training camp? Andrew Hartline just rode him out of a play. Hawk couldn't get off the block at all.
And what's really awful is that I had to go look up who OL Andrew Hartline is.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Maybe...
…Hartline is the next Tauscher ;-)
There is something to be said about a kid who started every game over 4 years even if it was in the MAC and hey, he replaced a first rounder at left tackle…
Yeah but...
What happens when Hawk has to break free from a block from an actual proven NFL lineman? I agree with Brandon, he was been awful at shaking blocks last year. I’m sure that plays into his poor play against the run.
"I’ll give him a badge and he can be my deputy." -Sheriff Melvin appoints Deputy Braun
My first comment...
…was primarily a bit of Kool-aid related humor. I love the idea of an undrafted guy developing into a pro-bowler. That being said, I think Hawk still has the tools to get it done. He just needs some time coming off the injury last year and transitioning to 3-4.
Eh… I don’t think you can make a definitive judgment about Hawk after one play. I was watching Hawk fairly intently in last Saturday’s game. He made a few stops at the line and didn’t get blown away at any point. Chillar was a bit more active, but he was playing the weak side.
One thing about Bishop’s performance on last Saturday is that he was going against the Brown’s #2 offense, a team without much depth to begin with. How would Hawk have looked in the same scenario? And I’m still not sold on Bishop’s coverage abilities. Still excited about him though.
seperating
Hawk has always had trouble seperating from blocks… He has short arms, which makes him especially suseptible to this problem. It was one of my big fears of him being moved inside this year. IMO, it is why he NEEDS to be in a 43 D, not a 34… He skills just don’t fit the 34! Bishop should be given the ILB job that Hawk has been playing. He is MUCH better getting off blocks and also plays w/ alot more physicality. Bishop in turn needs to play better in coverage, but in the long run Bishop is much better suited for the 34, than Hawk!
Trade Hawk to a 43 team and put him in position where he is free to run to the ball. But then he had that in our old 43 scheme and didn’t shine. Unless he learns to overcome this aspect of LB play, he is going to struggle…
No good spot
I was trying to come up with some rebuttal, but I really couldn’t come up with one. If he can’t play inside, then I can’t see how it could work outside. Even if he doesn’t start, he still has value. As a backup, he’s good in coverage and not horrible against the run. He’d be good on special teams. The problem is that he might be too expensive as a backup, but that’s really something to deal with in 2010.
Whew
From a few of the responses to my other post, you’d think everybody is on the Hawk bandwagon. Glad to see I’m not the only one who sees these things in him. I REALLY hope he turns it around, but I’m not really counting on it.
Make or Break Year for Hawk
I would not yet classify Hawk as a major bust. I’m still optimistic that he can become an above average linebacker. Will he ever be a super star? I doubt it but he can become a very good player.
by BeerBratTees.com on Aug 21, 2009 3:37 PM CDT reply actions
Hawk > Kevin Green
Lets give Green some time with Hawk and he should improve. He isn’t a bust. It is his third year and now is when we would expect him to grasp what he needs to do. Barnett is going to have difficulty with quickness after his operation so the last thing they need to do is jettison linebackers at this time. They may decide on trading one but it won’t be Hawk
Unless I'm mistaken,
Hawk > Kevin Green
Lets give Green some time with Hawk and he should improve.
Hawk is playing inside linebacker, while Greene is coaching the outside backers.
(FWIW, Aaron Kampman = Kevin Greene)
The glass is more than half-full.
Hawk
I don’t think we can call him a bust. He has been a pretty solid guy for us since we drafted him. Obviously he hasn’t had the sort of impact you would want the 6th player taken in the draft to have, but he still is good. He doesn’t have a problem making the tackle when he is in position too but like pretty much everyone has said he struggles getting of blocks. He was injured last year, and hopefully him being healthy this year will help him this year.
With that being said I really like Bishop, and even Chillar. Bishop in kind of an explosive player, and is pretty good in coverage as well. MM has said Chillar has been one of the top 11 defensive players on the team so far, and I really wouldn’t be surprised to see either of them take Hawk’s position sometime during the regular season.
I'm more worried about Barnett
Hawk wasn’t terrible last year:
2008 Season 2nd year
Started every game for the third straight season, playing through chest and groin injuries
Had nine starts at weak-side linebacker and final seven at middle linebacker, where he replaced the injured Barnett
Led team with 121 tackles (84 solo)
Led linebackers and was tied for second on the team with 3.0 sacks
Vs. Minnesota (Sept. 8): Started at WLB and led the team with season-high 12 tackles At Detroit (Sept. 14): Posted first two-sack game of his career and tied for team lead with seven tackles.
Vs. Dallas (Sept. 21): Finished second on the team with 11 tackles.
At Tampa Bay (Sept. 28): Posted four tackles and broke up a pass intended for TE Jerramy Stevens in the end zone on third down to limit the Bucs to a field goal. Left game briefly in second half with groin injury but continued to start despite being limited in practice the next two weeks
Vs. Chicago (Nov. 16): Started first career game at MLB in place of an injured Barnett and led team with 12 tackles
At Jacksonville (Dec. 14): Started at MLB and tied for team high with 10 tackles, including sack of David Garrard for an 8-yard loss early in the fourth quarter
Vs. Detroit (Dec. 28): Started seventh straight game at MLB and surpassed 400-tackle mark for his career with eight stops
Veilen Dank
It’s nice to see some facts amid the hot air.
It’s clear that in the 4-3 Hawk is not a bust. He may not be Nitschke in his prime but it’s irrational to ask someone to do more than lead the team in tackles while he’s fighting injuries.
Which leads one to wonder where this talk of bust is coming from. Is this a case of follow the leader, once one guy starts getting negative, everyone else piles on? Or did some folks decide that he was the wrong pick in draft and now they’re hoping to be vindicated? Something irrational is going on, cause a team’s tackle leader is not bust.
The idea that short arms will give him problems working the middle of the 3-4 makes sense. But, given the lack of rationality in looking at his past performance, could anyone give me a link to Hawk’s arm measurements and how they compare with other Packer LBs or with the arm lengths of some Pro Bowl LBs? How about some more hard facts to go with his tackling records from last year? I’d be much obliged.
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 21, 2009 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Combine stats
I don’t think those measurements are widely available on the web. Certainly NFL teams take them, but I don’t think they are released. Not a state secret or anything, but it isn’t something usually news worthy.
It’s not that he’s a bust, but he’s not very good either. We’ve got three seasons of stats to look back on, and he’s never been very good and doesn’t appear to be getting any better. He just wasn’t worth the No. 5 overall pick. I thought he was playing through undisclosed injuries all last season, but apparently he was just struggling.
Tackles aren’t a really good indicator of a linebacker’s value. They fluctuate from year-to-year, and often do so for reasons unrelated to the player. Just as an example, Barnett’s tackles went from 138 to 105 to 131 from 2005-2007 (I’m skipping 2008 since it was a half-season) and I don’t think 2006 was a slump season for him although his tackle total dropped by 25%.
But if you don’t base it off of tackles what do you base it off of? Hawk switched to MLB last year when Barnett went down, which is a big change for him. He had been playing the outside since he came into the league, and was always pretty good on the outside. He did play MLB in college, but there is probably a reason we drafted him and moved him to OLB, aside from the fact that Barnett was already there. The NFL is so much faster then college. He probably found covering sideline-sideline much more challenging then college as well as covering backs who pretty much all run somewhere around a 4.4. Unless you draft someone with amazing speed and explosiveness at MLB, most of the time it takes a couple years for players to transition to playing MLB in the NFL, and Hawk was just simply trying to fill in there halfway into the season (not exactly ideal terms).
I like Hawk’s role in our 3-4 defense. Ideally, Pickett and Raji will require a double team on most plays, especially running plays, and when that happens either Hawk or Barnett will have 1 o-lineman to beat, and go make the stop. When Hawk is in position to make the tackle he is pretty much a sure thing. He has only been in the league for 3 years, and this is right around the time when most players hit their prime so I’m hoping that will happen for Hawk.
by packallday555 on Aug 22, 2009 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions
1) So the short arm theory has no basis in fact? Oh well, it sounded logical. The question matters because you can’t teach longer arms but you can teach technique.
2) Actually his stats say he’s average. For a starting rookie that’s very good. For an injured player moved to a new position that is also very good. Is he a pro bowler yet? No, but then most first rounders aren’t after two years. People see early first round and think: must walk on water. Another view would be: a starter I can count on.
Where do you get the idea he wasn’t injured? Many posters have mentioned his injuries. Can you point to a site that says he wasn’t injured? That would change my opinion.
3) I agree that the tackle count by itself is not a good indicator. For instance, an LB could be lined up behind a pro bowl caliber lineman and so only busted plays would get to his level. :) But, Hawk led the team in tackles last year, while playing hurt. What more do you want him to do?
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 22, 2009 11:41 PM CDT up reply actions
So the short arm theory has no basis in fact?
Who ever said that?
Brandon only (correctly) pointed out that arm-length info isn’t publically available.
He didn’t say that arm length, or lack thereof, has no effect on shedding blockers.
The glass is more than half-full.
It was the Strohman
Actually it was Strohman who raised the issue a few posts up.
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 23, 2009 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions
That is correct,
and Strohman brought it up as an issue.
Neither he, nor anybody else that I am aware of, including Brandon, whose comment you replied to, said that it has no basis in fact; hence, my reply to your statement,
So the short arm theory has no basis in fact? Oh well, it sounded logical.
Indeed, it does sound like a logical explanation for his troubles with shedding blockers.
The glass is more than half-full.
No offense intended
Sounds like I’ve offended you. I’m not sure how. My apologies if that is the case.
As I surf the posts on several Packer sites, I’m always looking for the details that explain what’s going on. Take Collin’s success last year. A reporter asked him about his new found ability to make interceptions. He said he had always been a film addict, but it had never really paid off. Then during the winter of 2008 he’d watched film with Woodson. Woodson had taught him how to use the time effectively. I only saw this reported in the MJS. I didn’t see it covered anywhere else. And it told me so much. Most importantly, it supported the idea that the DB coach wasn’t doing his job. Often others find similar nuggets and pass them on. I’m just trying to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I’ve read Strohman’s posts for years. He often sees things that others don’t. But sometimes he doesn’t state clearly when he has data and when he’s hypothesizing. I was just asking Brandon what we had in this case. If Hawk really has short arms then maybe he has peaked. If he doesn’t have short arms, then maybe he wasn’t coached right. McCarthy is really high on Moss. But if Moss is so good, why hasn’t he been able to help Hawk? If Hawk has short arms, why were all the pundits saying he was a first rounder? Without data we could go on and on.
Many do not share my preference for data first, theory second. Please excuse my choice of words if my questions seem a bit pointed. It is not my intention to send gusts of wind into others’ cloud castles.
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 24, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions
No offense taken, 50 Y and C; not at all.
I was just puzzled by that query, as it was unclear to me what had led you to what I took to be, pretty much, a conclusion stated in the form of a question.
But, in light of your explanation, I have a much better understanding.
I also sometimes come off as offensive when I have no intention of doing so, so I know how that can be.
I have also been reading Strohman’s posts for the last couple of years; first at the Press-Gazette site (from which he disappeared before I did), then here, and I agree with your assessment of him.
Given his past as a S & C coach, I sometimes accept what he says without questioning whether he has facts to back it up, since I presume that a S & C coach possesses knowledge which I lack, if it soubds logical.
I share your preference for data (facts) first, which is why one of my favorite football websites is ColdHardFootballFacts.com (The Truth Hurts), where one of their main stated philosophies is, ‘Facts trump opinion, every time.’
(It is amazing how much of what I read there agrees with what I already know and/or believe.)
One thing that works for me, however, in lieu of raw data, is common sense, cause-and-effect logic.
I have read enough of your posts on this site, 50 Y and C; to think that you and I agree much more than we disagree, so will continue to enjoy reading, and interacting with, your input in the future.
Go! Pack! Go!
The Bares still suck!
(The ‘queens take it one step further)
And the Lions couldn’t beat the Little Sisters of the Poor!
The glass is more than half-full.
CHFF Rocks
I also love CHFF. It is the first site I visit each evening.
I also agree that when data are not available, common sense must serve. Given the way most teams guard any info that might help opponents this is often the only option.
I must disagree in one respect:
I consider the Bears our ancient and worthy adversaries.
The Vikiings and Cowboys are the sewer sludge, unworthy of stepping on the field with the Packers.
And, I didn’t realize that Detroit still had a football team, thanks for the heads up.
Go Pack!
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 25, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions
arms
Yes I did bring it up as an issue. I don’t have empirical evidence on the matter, unfortunately… I tried to find Hawks draft bio info, but was unable to find the page. Seems the link is no longer availble.
Its something I’ve mentioned on other sites as well. I remember some point about it being made in his draft info. It seemed to me that it was mentioned as a possible reason that Hawk needed to be protected and free to run to the ball, to make plays.
How hurt was he?
I honestly don’t know. Looking back in my archives, he was listed on the Friday injury report (the last one before Sunday’s game) for week 1 and weeks 5-7. So apparently he wasn’t hurt all season long, but he sure struggled the entire time.
Are you sayin guys don't play hurt?
The chest injury was during a Monday night preseason game. Hawk was held out of the preseason game the next Saturday. MM said he would have been held out even if it had been regular season game. I can’t find any other facts at this point though the most logical theory out there was pectoral sprain.
The groin injury happened against Tampa. Initial reports were a tear. Later down graded to a pull. He came out of the game and didn’t go back in. But he played the next week.
More importantly, are you saying you believe that all injuries make it to the injury report, and that if a player is injured he doesn’t play, even if he’s the best you can field?
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 24, 2009 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions
You base your evaluation on say, avg. yards gained on rushing plays against him, and if you do that, you’ll see that Hawk is below average. Check it out right here. You can also look at the guy, and you see a guy who struggles with blockers, and has trouble keeping up with NFL speed. I still wouldn’t call him a bust, but that question is more one of semantics than anything else.
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Aug 22, 2009 3:46 PM CDT reply actions
More good data, thanks
I had forgotten about that post. Thanks for bringing it up. It does make the point that he hasn’t played like the 5th best player in his class. Given 32 teams in the league and roughly a third running 3-4, that makes him an average starting LB for yards/carry as a rookie, and near the bottom of the league when playing a new position and injured. Not bad, but not what you hope for from an early first rounder.
On the semantics front, I disagree. Throwing the word bust around in describing Hawk is just wrong. This site has been unique in its focus on accurately reflecting reality. I hope it stays that way. I hope that the sloppy use of loaded adjectives will be discouraged. There are so many GBPG-like blogs out there, full of shrill posturing and bitter invective. Let’s stay focused on measured and thoughtful analysis.
by 50 years and Counting on Aug 22, 2009 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions
To be perfectly pedantic...
“Bust” would be a sloppy noun!
by uglyfatpimplynerd on Aug 23, 2009 2:17 AM CDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
