I need honest opinions
First off I'm just a visitor. I'm a Lions fan but need the opinion of the Packers fans.
On my home blog The Pride of Detroit, we had a fanpost come up a few days ago about who we would poach and add to the Lions. I had the first comment and that is why I'm here. With our need at linebacker, I said Aj Hawk. I'm a Lions and Michigan Wolverine fan so I've seen Aj play against my favorite team for 8 years now so he was the first guy that came to my mind. I also picked him because I feel he plays with passion and intensity. Am I wrong or no? Immediately after I posted Aj there were 5 guys telling me "Hawk=average at best." Including 1 of your own. They all told me Patrick Willis is better. I told them that even though Willis is better I want a guy that gives his all not just the best player. No way do I think Willis doesn't but like I said I've seen Hawk for 8 years. Again my question for you guys is not talent but DOES AJ GIVE HIS ALL ON EVERY PLAY OR IS IT JUST MY IMAGINATION?
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It was me that told you he’s average and it’s true. He may give his all but that’s not helping him reach the corner any faster to take down a Rb, or doing anything for his inability in coverage. Hawk plays hard, and at times can look really, really good. The only problem is, you probably only see that from him every 5 or 6 games, and even then it’s only in flashes. Maybe watching him in college a lot against Michigan makes you want to gravitate more towards him because in college he was a great, great player. It didn’t really translate to the NFL though.
Thats what I'm asking. Thanks
I’m just saying comming off a 2 season record of 2 and 30 I would want people on the team that gives a damn.
"If nobody invites you to their party, start your own f#$%ing paty"---Zakk Wylde of Black Label Society
Hawk
While Hawk has not lived up to expectations as the 5th overall pick in the draft he plays hard!!! I don’t have a problem w/ Hawk cuz I remember reading that even though he graded really high, his ceiling wasn’t really that high… He is what he is. A Darn good football player that plays hard down in and down out! He isn’t the playmaker many Packer fans wanted him to be… But if your asking about his effort level? He brings his best each week, IMO!!!
I like AJ enough to want him on the team. But next year he is schedule to make 10M. He doesn’t want a new deal so could become a FA. If you want him he might be there for the taking in FA!
I guess I am with Strohman
I think AJ gets more flack than he deserves cause of his draft position. While he hasn’t been a bust, he also hasn’t totally lived up to the hype. He’s above average IMO, he does try hard and he’s a very good tackler. He could be better, that is for sure. But we could do MUCH MUCH worse.
He is solid
Hawk isn’t as slow as packallday555 suggests; he can’t run down a halfback in the open field or hang with a WR, but most MLBs can’t do that. He has good size and strength, and better than average speed. I thought that in the 4 – 3 he and Barnett were in the wrong places — I would have liked to see Barnett at Will and Hawk at Mike, just because Hawk is bigger. In the 3 – 4, they both belong inside. Hawk is serviceable; in my opinion he is better than average. I liked the pick when Thompson made it and I’d hate to lose Hawk, especially to the Lions.
As for the comment that Hawk can’t shed blockers, I say “bunk.”
great post
Agree w/ everything you say… I was thinking the same when we drafted Hawk… I wanted him in the middle and Barnett outside too! That IMO, would have been the best use of their talents. Problems was Barnett didn’t want to change positions!!!
Yeah, I suppose I’d agree with most of what you said. I don’t think he should be able to stay with Rb’s or Wr’s in the open field. He can’t cover sideline to sideline though when on sweep plays, or on plays that the Rb’s bounce it outside. He gets beat too often, even when he has the angle on a guy. Whether that’s becauses he not fast enough, doesn’t accerlate particulary well, or maybe doesn’t great instincts I don’t know. To me it just seems like unless he has a good sized angle on a guy he can’t seem to make the stop.
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:20 AM CDT up reply actions
It's really tough to say
1. Like everyone else pointed out, he’s not a playmaker by any means, so he never really stands out on the field. He’s better then average, but not elite by any means.
2. Coaches say AJ does his job, but never really goes above and beyond, if you know what I mean. They want him to be more aggressive and have made that goal very clear this offseason. Whether AJ takes another step or not is to be determined.
3. I’ve said this about Nick Collins early in his career and I say it for AJ, a lot of times we never see him during a play. Sometimes that’s a good thing, sometimes it’s not depending upon the circumstances. If he’s in coverage and the ball isn’t going in his direction, then that means he was covering his man well. When he does get burned though, it becomes noticeable. To contradict that though, AJ does seem to get tied up with blockers when it comes to stopping the run. That is his downfall: his inability to shed blockers.
4. Frequent changes in the defense have never worked to his advantage either, so that never helped him develop. Think of it like Alex Smith’s situation: 5 OC’s in 5 years. That’s a recipe for disaster. In AJ’s case, he had a solid rookie outing. In 2007, he was alright. He didn’t progress, but didn’t regress either. In 2008, the entire defense was wrecked with injuries, forcing him to cover longer than he should have to or be out of position. He was also forced to play MLB, which was a new position for him. This happened after we lost Nick Barnett half way through the 08’ season. In 2009, we got a new DC and new defensive scheme, thus making AJ Hawk a rookie again in another way.
5. The biggest knock on AJ Hawk though is the fact that we have very good depth at the LB position. We have Brandon Chillar who often times plays as much as Hawk in each game. He may not have the skill set Hawk has, but he makes plays and is perhaps our best coverage LB. The depth that we have at the ILB position makes AJ Hawk somewhat expendable. So he is up for grabs for anyone that wants him. With Hawk, you can expect a decent player, but not with a high ceiling. He is what he is. Do I think he will be an immediate upgrade over the Lions current OLB? Absolutely. If I can give AJ Hawk an Overall Grade, it would be a B/B-. He’s better then average, but his lack of aggressiveness and wanting to go above and beyond keeps him from getting an A grade.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
LOL
That whole reply and you didn’t answer the question that was posed…
DOES AJ GIVE HIS ALL ON EVERY PLAY OR IS IT JUST MY IMAGINATION?
ha!
i was simply giving my analysis of Hawk. yeah, now that i thought about it though, i didn’t really answer the question, did i? you got me there.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
I like your exlpination
Us Lions fans know about changes in defense. That’s why most of the guys on POD are happy Ernie Sims is gone. I like Ernie but he never lived up to potential. I’m sure not haveing the same system for more than a year caused that.
"If nobody invites you to their party, start your own f#$%ing paty"---Zakk Wylde of Black Label Society
by Enforcer on Jul 2, 2010 4:44 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
He gives his all
But the results just aren’t there. He doesn’t have the greatest instincts. As Jabooty said in his point #3 above: he just isn’t around the ball. Also, the inability to shed blockers. He’s not a bust, and he’s stayed healthy, but he doesn’t do anything very well.
I am hearing differently.
The guys on AM1250 with Leroy Butler were saying that he has great instincts between the tackles. The problem is for AJ is that he cannot get off blocks or is just not quick enough to make tackles on the edge.
by Bush League All Star on Jul 2, 2010 3:34 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, that’s pretty much how he seems too me. Really doesn’t shed blocks well, and struggles to run guys down on the edges.
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:21 AM CDT up reply actions
Hawk is extremely ok
He gives his all and is solidly in the good category of NFL ILB’s. This is not a bad thing really. I’m sure there are lots of teams that would love to have a guy like Hawk that is dependable and is able to perform his role consistently week in and week out. Just don’t expect him to be a game changer on the defense because that’s not who he is on the NFL level.
It’s unfortunate that he was the number 5 pick. As a result he has such high expectations that people thing he’s supposed to be a savior of the defense. It’s a shame really. If he was a second round pick, maybe even a mid to late first round pick he would be respected and maybe even loved. But hey, we all have our cross to bear and I’m sure the millions that he has in addition to his hot wife allow him to sleep at night.
All that said, I’m pretty sure the Packers love him and are not going to let him go anytime soon. Even though we have good depth at ILB, it’s never a bad thing to have a tough dependable guy in the middle of the field. He does his job well enough, and while he could improve, generally that position is not broken so why try to fix it?
As for the pay, well…TT is not afraid to over pay at LB. Just look at Poppinga, the dude is basically taking up space and getting paid a good amount of ching for it.
seems to me
That Poppinga is just as you described Hawk, he’s a mid round pick does his job, plays hard, just isn’t a playmaker!!! Yet you seem to have a pretty negative view of Poppinga!!! Sure you don’t wanna re-think how you might percieve Hawk as a mid round pick???
It should be noted that had it not been for the change to the 34 D, Poppinga would likely still be the starting SamLB… playing hard, just not being a playmaker!
Poppinga…I’ve never been a fan. He’s not out there getting 100 tackles a year either. He can’t seem to stay ahead of anyone on the depth charts long enough. If he was out there doing what Hawk does as a mid rounder I think people would adore him. He’s not though…
Poppinga
Was NEVER put in position to be a playmaker… And he just isn’t that kinda player anyway! At SamLB in a 43 he had to take on the TE every down… Mike and Will LB were free to run to the ball and were considered to be in the playmaking positions!!!
I still think Poppinga would be best as a 34 Inside LB…. He’s physical and likes the contact!!! He wouldn’t be as much a liability in the passing game.
I don’t know what you are talking about with Poppinga. Saying that he’s never been in a position to make plays is like saying that Matthews was never in a position to make plays. I mostly say this because Poppinga was in Matthews exact position. That’s whose job Matthews took.
by PackApologist on Jul 2, 2010 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between a OLB on the strong side and a LB on the weak side!!! Much different job responsibilities!!! When was the last time you ever saw a 43 SamLB get a ton of sacks? RARELY!!! Matthews and Poppinga play different side of the LOS… In the 34 the difference isn’t quite as great as a 43, but its still different! Poppinga has been mostly a strong side LB… They only used Poppinga on that side in the early stages of the 34 when Mattews was injured!!! Other than that Poppinga has ALWAYS been a Strong side LB…. And when Poppinga was in Matthew spot, Matthews was injured and Kampman was on the strong side… So they HAD to use Poppinga on the weak side!!!
Sorry, but you are mistaken sir
Matthews replaced Poppinga in the lineup. Jones replaced Kampman. Really it’s just that simple.
If you are going to try to change history by saying that Matthews didn’t replace Poppinga who are you saying that he did replace because he didn’t start in the first four games of the year last year, it was Poppinga and Kampman.
by PackApologist on Jul 2, 2010 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Except that Poppinga would have never really been on the weak side if it weren’t for Matthew injury! No injury and Matthews would have been the weak side OLB the entire Offseason, preseason and regular season… Only thing that was ever keeping Matthews from owning that spot was the injury! Matthews did replace Poppinga, but the only reason Poppinga was ever on the weak side in the first place was Matthews injury, IMO.
Brady Poppinga
Although I agree that he would be a better ILB and I am siding with you on the different responsibilities, there is another thing to add: Poppinga’s biggest responsibility as the Strong Side OLB is to cover the TE or take him out of the equation in stopping the run. Poppinga never excelled at either of those roles, thus making many of us criticize his performance.
Like you noted though Stroh, it isn’t his primary role to sack the QB. His job as the 4-3 OLB was to cover the TE or take him on. What Poppinga brings is a tough LB that can play the run well. That’s what I see in him. However, he is not good in covering the TE. In the 3-4, I agree, he is playing out of place because even the Strong Side OLB has an increase in responsibilities in sacking the QB. He’s really just an overpaid backup LB on our team now.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
true enough...
Thought at a little over 2M per I don’t know that he is really over paid… Whats was the salary cap last year? Some 120+M … that means even an average player is making 2M per.
Poppinga IMO, is definitely good vs the run, but is not good rushing the QB or in coverage. Damn good ST player and team player though, so he has value in other ways!
Thats all I’m tryin to say…
Ok, in that case i agree with you
but I’m not sure that value equals a $2 Million salary.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Poppinga
He was a DE in college, but in the NFL he doesn’t have the speed to really play either DE or at the weakside linebacker. He was on the depth chart as a weakside linebacker when the team converted to the 3-4, but I don’t think anybody took him seriously in that role. I didn’t like it when Thompson drafted him because he just didn’t look like an NFL player to me.
Also, in case some of you are wondering who “Mike” and “Will” and "
Sam" are — the first initials of their names denote which linebacker position they play. As several folks have pointed out, they all have different responsibilities, with Sam being the least likely to get big stats
Yeah, your right. His role as a starter was rather bland in Sander’s system. Play the tight end, with an occasional blitze off the edge. He did his job in the old system, and that was to be a serviceable playmaker.
Haha and Stroh I know we have different views on Jones as a 3-4 Olb. Just imagine if Poppinga was the other starter opposite Matthews. We’d be in trouble.
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:24 AM CDT up reply actions
My main point is that Poppinga is well paid with his recent contract extension to sit on the bench and play special teams. Right now he’s essentially Brad Jones…without an upside…and paid starters money…and beat out by Brad Jones. That’s my basic problem with the guy.
by PackApologist on Jul 2, 2010 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions
Poppinga and Chillar are both getting similar pay arent’ they??? Both he and Chillar are backups… I don’t think Poppinga is paid too much… 2M+ per year….
Chillar is used more than Poppinga
Last year Poppinga was used primarily in special teams and spelling Brad Jones. He lost his job to two rookies.
Chillar on the other hand is at ILB where the position is deep, but there are some long term questions. They also used him at a variety of positions, including safety for crying out loud.
by PackApologist on Jul 2, 2010 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Haha no way you can say Jones and Poppinga are similar players! Jones gets a ton of hate on this site!
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:26 AM CDT up reply actions
By the way
Thanks for posting over here Enforcer! It was great to get such a warm welcome over at PoD and wanted to reciprocate that a bit for your post over here.
Not a problem.
Interaction is fine with me. Sometimes you need to go to other fans for there opinion on a player more so than the fans of your same team.
"If nobody invites you to their party, start your own f#$%ing paty"---Zakk Wylde of Black Label Society
by Enforcer on Jul 2, 2010 4:47 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I agree man
I got some good laughs over that fanpost at POD. Good laughs in a good way though. You guys are cool. Hopefully we’ll have more “Inter-fanatical Conversations,” if that is a term. haha!
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Check out this for some good laughs
http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2010/6/30/1545350/yeah-they-said-it-june-edition
"If nobody invites you to their party, start your own f#$%ing paty"---Zakk Wylde of Black Label Society
I think that'd be more funny for me and everyone else here if it involved the more active users on APC
I doubt anybody was really keeping track of the funniest comments on APC in the month of June though…
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Speaking of which though....
I think that idea was a good one in the offseason.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
From my experience, Lions' fans are mostly good people.
Few bad apples yada yada yada…..
One of my good buds is a Lions’ fan who resides near Detriot. Good laid back people, don’t really have animosity myself towards the Lions. I feel they have the same feelings about the Packers. It is the feel-good rivalry. LOL
by Bush League All Star on Jul 3, 2010 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed.
Plus, when you meet a Lions fan, you know they’re genuine. It’s not like any frontrunners are jumping on the Lions bandwagon right about now. I feel bad for those folks, mostly because I remember the days when the best I could hope for was an 8-8 season and a couple of meaningful regular season games after Thanksgiving.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 3, 2010 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
So true, Ted.
The overt Lions fans you meet now are definitely the real deal!
These are the ones who will be able to speak as TRUE fans when the Lions are winning again.
-
The glass is more than half-full.
I feel the same
I have no bad feelings about you guys(packer fans). We have no real reason to hate you guys.
"If nobody invites you to their party, start your own f#$%ing paty"---Zakk Wylde of Black Label Society
Seriously, it’s nice to have a big long thread haha!
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:27 AM CDT up reply actions
hawk plays hard
but he’s just your average run-of-the-mill lb. he’s hunter hillenmeyer, but with the big price tag, hopefully he’ll get mad next year when thompson asks him to take a pay cut, so they just release him and wish him well. easily replaceable.
..he’s hunter hillenmeyer,….
That’s a pretty accurate comparison!
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:28 AM CDT up reply actions
It seems you all agree
He gives his all but isn’t the best out there. But like I said earlier, I would rather have a guy give his all like AJ does than a guy just there to collect a check like we had last year at the end with Larry Foote. The last game of the season we were 2-13 and 48 mins away from 2-14, Foote wasn’t around. We have Louis Delmas and Deandre Levy that were playing like a playoff spot was on the line. Levy to me seems like your guys explination of AJ, he’s gives his all but isn’t always there to make the play. But I would take Levy over Foote any day with age not a factor.
"If nobody invites you to their party, start your own f#$%ing paty"---Zakk Wylde of Black Label Society
by Enforcer on Jul 2, 2010 4:52 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
I think Hawk could be a good fit for the Lions
As others have noted, he’s not a game-changing player like Woodson or even Matthews, and he hasn’t really lived up to what he did in college and his high draft pick. But he’s a solid performer who gives a good effort, and it seems to me that’s something the Lions need. After years of Millen’s mismanagement, I think the Lions have a bunch of players who would struggle to make the squad for most other teams, so a solid performer who can generally be counted on to handle his assignment would be an upgrade. And after the past several seasons, there are also a fair number of players who have stopped putting forth much effort (I’ve heard it said that players are being “Lion-ized”), so a player who consistently does put out an effort would be a big help, not just on his own, but as a potential leader to encourage the rest of the team. So I think Hawk would be a good pick-up for the Lions, but as PackApologist pointed out, they probably won’t get a chance at him.
Makes sense to me. Thanks
"If nobody invites you to their party, start your own f#$%ing paty"---Zakk Wylde of Black Label Society
by Enforcer on Jul 2, 2010 9:47 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
39 comments should tell you that....
… it’s sort of hard to tell if he takes downs off because he’s so rarely involved in anything of significance. He’s generally around the pile, but in a 3-4 he should be.
Point is, it’s not obvious he’s dogging it, but other than that it’s hard to tell because he’s so profoundly mediocre. So who do you want? A guy who you can tell takes downs off because when he’s “on” his talent and ability is so obvious? Or a guy with such modest talent and ability that it’s hard to tell whether he gives a damn? A guy with average talent who busts his ass should make plays based on his intelligence and effort, and Hawk doesn’t generally do that. I’m hesitant to say he takes downs off because that’s such a damning thing to say, but the truth is that if he’s on every down you can’t really tell, so either way you should probably look elsewhere.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 2, 2010 6:45 PM CDT reply actions
Harsh
That seems a little harsh, IMO… When Hawk reaches FA you’ll find out what value he holds to other teams! My guess is he takes home 5 – 6M per…
His salary doesn't matter.
His production, or lack thereof, does. And if someone else wants to throw money at him, fine by me. He’s just a guy.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 2, 2010 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions
This is not an accurate analysis
Hawk is in the pile most of the time. His limitations are (i) he doesn’t have the footspeed to chase down running backs in the open field, and (ii) he can’t run with WRs on crossing routes. There aren’t very many Mikes who can do this, fo the ismple reason that, if you’re big and strong enough to take on 300 pound linemen, you generally aren’t running a 4.3 40 too. He doesn’t blitz very well either, but his effort is just fine — not sure what you’ve been watching if you think otherwise. He’s better than “just a guy.” Much better. He’s above average.
Brad Jones is “just a guy.” Unless he continues to recover, Nick Barnett at this point in his career is “just a guy.”
Say hello to my creepy little bald friend from Iowa, by the way.
Hmmm...
… I don’t remember saying he was garbage. I don’t think Brad Jones is garbage. Nor Nick Barnett, (whom I would I say is a better effort guy than Hawk is). And I don’t think Hawk is garbage either. Just ordinary. That’s all.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 3, 2010 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions
No, you just ran him down
and your opinions really aren’t based on real facts. Hawk is not “just a guy,” he is very solid. If you meant to say that as the no. 5 overall pick you would like to see gaudier stats, like more tackles, sacks, interceptions, fumbles forced, etc., that’s a different issue. Is that what you meant, counselor?
That's not what I meant at all.
Thank for asking, douche-bag.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 7, 2010 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
You really need to let that go.
It makes you sound like a crazy person instead of someone who just disagrees with me. I don’t disagree with your first 3 sentences, but I do disagree with your notion that he’s got the strength to take on 300lb linemen. He doesn’t. If they get to him, he vanishes. If he did have the strength to do that, he’d be a better pass rusher. He’s either in or around the pile a lot, but given the position he plays, effort isn’t required for that to happen. All that is required is a lack of cowardice, and he certainly has that.
Just a guy might have been a bit harsh, but I think he’s the epitome of average. There’s nothing the guy does that can’t be done by virtually anyone else, and I guess that’s what I meant to communicate. Is his effort there? Probably. I just think it’s hard to tell. He rarely, if ever, pops in a way that makes me think he’s busting his ass. The way the original post read the author appeared to be thinking Hawk was a relentless effort guy, like Kampman was and probably still is, but I’ve never thought of Hawk that way. High effort guys find ways to make plays that are otherwise beyond their physical talent, and I’ve never seen Hawk do that.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 3, 2010 8:34 AM CDT up reply actions
I obviously don't see him as much as you guys, but I disagree.
In the Dallas game last year he was relentless in a way that “virtually anyone else” is not… just ask Tony Romo. Maybe he’s not always that guy, hell I hope he isn’t, but when he is that guy he is anything but average.
I dunno man.
Are you sure it was Hawk? I can’t remember being that impressed by him in that game though I may just be forgetting. His line (3 tackles, 1 assist, 0TFL, 0FF, 0FC 0Sacks, 0PDef, 0INTs) isn’t all that mesmerizing. He had bigger games than that last year.
Barnett, by contrast, had 6Tackles, 2 Assts, 2 sacks, a pass defensed, and Matthews had a sack…
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 4, 2010 9:58 PM CDT up reply actions
And Matthews had that cool leap after finally recovering the Woodson fumble.
by PackApologist on Jul 4, 2010 10:41 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, Hawk wasn’t too visible. Though I suppose Woodson’s effort/play could just be overshadowing Hawks, and a lot of the other guys for that matter.
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:41 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm getting old so maybe my memory is slipping...
It may have been the Baltimore game, but I thought it was Dallas. It was definitely a night game and he was absolutely a factor. I don’t specifically remember him getting any sacks, just that he personally put heat on the QB seemingly every time he dropped back.
Either way I think you might be a little overly critical of him at this point, 10 sacks from a rookie, really?! As a casual observer of Packer football I can say this with certainty… I noticed him because he made plays. As a Viking fan I’m not crazy about the knowledge that he should get physically stronger. Hopefully, that will compromise some of his quickness/elusiveness. ;)
I'm not sure we're communicating all that well here.
Hawk isn’t a rookie and didn’t have 10 sacks. Clay Matthews did. If the question is whether Matthews’ effort and desire is obvious, my answer is yes. But the question is about the kind of player Hawk is after 4 years in the NFL…
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 5, 2010 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions
Though I'll admit that the hair makes it easy to confuse them...
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 5, 2010 8:20 AM CDT up reply actions
ROFL just call me Emily Patilla
Remember her… old SNL Gilda Radner character who came on the news with her misguided editorial rants after which the anchor would point out her mistake and she would slink down and apologetically whimper… “never mind”.
Yeah that’s me, I’ve been talking about Mathews… never mind.
That was the Dallas game
You had it right the first time, I’m sure he was alright against Baltimore too, but he really stood out in the Dallas game. He needs to have more performances like that on a consistent basis.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
I remember he had an int against Baltimore that was fairly impressive. He was covering Heap down the seam and made an impressive adjustment for the ball. I can see the Pack letting him go in the next year or two, and with our depth (Bishop, Chillar and to a lesser extent, Poppinga) we should be fine.
That I remember.
I was stunned. I didn’t think he had the ability to make that play.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 6, 2010 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe I'm not paying enough attention to him them...
…. because I honestly don’t remember that.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 6, 2010 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Haha what? So your saying you’d take Hawk over Barnett basically? Barnett was better then Hawk last season (by a lot), and he’ll probably recover some more as most ACL tear guys do in their second year.
His limitations are (i) he doesn’t have the footspeed to chase down running backs in the open field, and (ii) he can’t run with WRs on crossing routes.
These are his limitations against the pass. Your not even touching on his limitations against the run. Like he lacks the footspeed to cover, he also lacks the footspeed too chase guys down along the sidelines, even at times when he has an angle. He’s probably above average in between the tackles but in today’s league that isn’t saying a whole lot. Things are so much more up-tempo now. So many more Rb’s bounce it outside as opposed to smash mouth football right up the middle. The Rb’s are used more in the passing game, and some Te’s have Wr type speed.
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, I don't get that either.
Barnett’s got his faults as a player and I still think that the Packers may have miscast both Barnett and Hawk in their respective positions, but he gets more out of his speed than Hawk gets out of his strength and size.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 5, 2010 8:19 AM CDT up reply actions
By no means is Barnett really great or anything but he was pretty good for us last season. He looked good blitzing, especially when stunting with Hawk, and he did a great job in between the tackles. I’d say the biggest negative about Barnett is that he isn’t always the agresser. A lot of times he’ll be in position to make a play but he waits for the Rb to make his move, instead of just trying to go after him right away. He also struggled a bit in coverage last season as did Hawk.
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions
I just don't agree with that
He’s 250 pounds and he runs under 4.6 in the 40. He has very good speed for a 250 pounder. I agree that he doesn’t have gaudy stats, but come on already — you aren’t going to find many better than him; there certainly aren’t any on the present roster. Would I take him over Barnett right now? Yes, I think I would.
Great Explination
"If nobody invites you to their party, start your own f#$%ing paty"---Zakk Wylde of Black Label Society
+1
So who do you want? A guy who you can tell takes downs off because when he’s "on" his talent and ability is so obvious? Or a guy with such modest talent and ability that it’s hard to tell whether he gives a damn?
Yeah, it’s really a no brainer actually. I could think of a lot of Lb’s I’d pick over Hawk.
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah but...
While I could probably think of many LB’s over Hawk, I could also think of so many more that I would want Hawk over.
Is Hawk going to eclisp Willis and be THE guy? No. He’s solid, he’s above average, he’s all those things. Really the Packers could do much worse.
by PackApologist on Jul 5, 2010 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions
That's the point precisely
We have him. Was he worth the no. 5 overall pick? I don’t know about that, but the fact is that i\he is a Packer and he would not be easy to replace. He’s fine — there are much bigger problems for Thompson to address. Punting comes immediately to mind. A top-quality running back would be nice too.
I don't disagree with that...
… but that’s a slightly different topic than the one broached in this thread initially.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 5, 2010 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions
It just continues down the same path you started
when you took the position that Hawk is “just a guy” and is “so profoundly mediocre.” I disagree with that “profoundly mediocre” position.
He can be profoundly mediocre and still not be a priority for an upgrade.
The coaches regularly say that Hawk “does his job.” If that’s not damning with faint praise then it must be impossible to do so in this day and age. Maybe that equates to average. I don’t think so, but I could be wrong. My point was that I agree with you when you say that Hawk isn’t at the top of the list of players that need replacing.
What begins in fear usually ends in folly.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Jul 5, 2010 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions
I do believe that's the first time we've agreed on something
I hope it’s not the last.
Go Pack!
by PackApologist on Jul 5, 2010 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I’d agree with that for sure. A new ILB isn’t really all that high on TT’s to do list I’d guess but that’s not really what this thread is about. Though, I think we’re going to be seeing a lot more Chillar this coming season. Seemed like he was on pace to replace Hawk as the starter until he broke his wrist.
by packallday555 on Jul 5, 2010 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions
AJ Hawk
He started coming on strong on every play about midseason 09, before that he was
65 % at best. Think it had something to do with the new competition and adjusting to a new scheme which better suites his talents.

by 




















