Start: Who Should Start At Inside Linebacker?
by Brandon on Aug 16, 2010 7:00 AM CDT
in Green Bay Packers Training Camp
Email
PrintThis topic is on my mind after I watched LB A.J. Hawk get burned in coverage on a TD pass to TE Ben Watson in the 2nd quarter during the Green Bay Packers first preseason game. I'm willing to listen to any suggestion, but I expect the fat contracts (and high draft position) of some players will play a significant part in the final decision.
LB Nick Barnett. The first of the highly paid middle linebackers, but he's also the best of the bunch. He's had his play limited the last two seasons since he tore his ACL in 2008. That's been due to medical concerns, not because of his on-field performance. While he had a very strong 2009 season, he was torched in pass coverage on multiple plays during the playoff loss at Arizona. He appears to have returned to his near-Pro Bowl level of pre-2008.
LB Brandon Chillar. While he played almost exclusively inside in 2009, he's currently listed as the first-team right outside linebacker, which was LB Clay Matthews spot last season. Matthews is moving over to the left side, presumably so they have a bigger outside linebacker on the strong side. He seems to have moved behind LB Brad Jones since the Family Night scrimmage, but I still keep expecting they'll find somewhere for their high priced linebacker to start. As of right now, that doesn't appear to be at inside linebacker.
LB A.J. Hawk. While he continues to struggle every so often in pass coverage and run defense, their former top 5 draft pick remains at the top of the depth chart. I don't know why he's sitting there other than they want to give him every chance to finally fulfill his potential.
LB Desmond Bishop. He's a potential free agent in 2011 (depending on a new labor agreement) and he's never been given a chance during the regular season. He's listed as the top backup at both inside linebacker spots, but he might never start unless he signs with another team. While he's not a huge improvement, I'd expect he'd be better than Hawk.
I can't imagine they'd keep another inside LB past these four. It's possible Bishop or Hawk could be traded or released to open up a spot for someone else, but I'm not expecting it.
75 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i would
trade hawk for hunter hillenmeyer straight up—————-than bench him. it’s alot easier to sit a 5th round pick than a top 5 pick.
Here's the thing
Hawk got burnt by a veteran safety and former first round pick. He’s not good at coverage. Yes, he’s a bit of a disappointment from his draft status, but forget all that for a moment and look at who’s behind him.
Chillar: This is a guy that we are counting of for OLB depth at this point. He looks like he could be a pretty good guy in the rotation, but eventually we are robbing Peter to pay Paul if we keep moving him around to get the “best guys on the field.”
Bishop: I know, this guy is much loved. I get it…really I do. But if you think that Hawk is bad in coverage then buckle up because Bishop is terrible. Did you forget that in the scrimmage that Bishop was lit up in much the same way Hawk was by Lee and a second string QB? Really Bishop and Hawk have the same strengths and weaknesses. The main difference? Bishop hits harder and Hawk is more consistent. At this point I would take the more consistent LB then the one going to the highlight reel.
Really the best combination of LB’s would be Mattews, Barnett, Hawk, and Chillar in the base package with CM3, Barnett, Chillar, and Jones in passing situations.
I agree with most of it
Couldn’t have said it better in the first 3 sections. I like Chillar providing depth at OLB, but he’s not a better OLB than Jones. Maybe as a 4-3 OLB he was better, but not as a 3-4. I’m basing this off of what I see. Jones is the better pass rusher and is more physical against the run. He kind of reminds me of a younger version of Lamarr Woodley. Not sure if he’ll ever play to his ability, but he has the bull rush, good against the run, is quick, just not quite experienced enough in his technique. Chillar is the best coverage LB, meaning he should be an ILB in the Nickel/Dime Package. We can rotate him in at ILB in the Base 3-4 as well. Nothing more than that though. Maybe it’s because he’s not polished enough yet, but he doesn’t look too good as a 3-4 OLB.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Same
I think Chillar is about the same OLB as Jones is right now. Probably why they are in competition for the same OLB spot. Neither is physical enough vs the run and are good in coverage. Don’t think either is the answer as a pass rusher at OLB.
How does Jones remind you of Woodley? It sure as hell isn’t his play and they don’t have nearly the same body type!!! Get over your Jones luvfest!
LOL
Come on man, you know I was never on the Brad Jones bandwaggon! You know I was with on on bringing in Jerry Hughes! Again though, he reminds me of him while he was coming along in his first couple years. Woodley was not very productive either in his first couple seasons. And I was clear that I wasn’t sure if he’ll ever be as good, I just see a few similarities. Jones does have a bull rush now. I’ve seen it and watched the game twice now. It’s not consistent yet, but he has the ability. Maybe were just used to Kampmann having that consistency, but we can’t compare the 2. Jones is good against the run. He’s very good against the run. He’s not elite by any means. Not nearly, but he is showing the ability. I’m basing this off of what I see now, not off of last season. I didn’t like Jones at all last season! He was average, and that was it. I think he’s showing that he can hold up though. I just wish Capers would keep him as the Strongside OLB though. I don’t want him being the Weakside. I personally feel moving Clay to the Strongside will hurt our pass rush more than it will help us.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Sorry
But I don’t keep track of what stance everyone else holds too much. Don’t think Jones is going to match Woodley’s 2nd year production of 11.5 sacks an INT and 2 Forced Fumbles any time soon!!! That was Woodleys 2nd year! I believe he was a Pro Bowler following that year as well. Woodley plays at 265 and his bull rush is light years ahead of Jones, who BTW plays at only 242 this year!!! I don’t think he’s got a bull rush whatsoever and as far as vs the run, I doubt he holds up… He had ZERO QB pressures vs Cleveland.
Matthews on the LOLB to play over the TE makes sense, he’s nearly 15 lbs heaveir than Jones and he was going to get alot of attention from TE and RB anyway. And having him on the opposite side as Jenkins spreads the blockers out instead of just all at Matthews and Jenkins when on the same side!
Clay is a interesting take
Again, it was similarities that I saw, and no I don’t think he’ll ever be as good as Woodley. I’m trying to be as optimistic and positive as I can.
I support Clay on the opposite side of Jenkins when there is no TE, as in on the Nickel and Dime Packages. I think that will improve out pass rush, no doubt about that. In the Base 3-4, the DL will be usually looking to stop the run, so our pass rush will if any will be coming from Clay, which which I would prefer to have him on the weakside (which could be on the left side if the TE is lined up with Jenkins).
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
You disagreed with me earlier
when I suggested moving CM3 to the other side to free up Jenkins. Why the change of heart?
by gern blanston on Aug 18, 2010 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Jones does have a bull rush now. I’ve seen it and watched the game twice now. It’s not consistent yet, but he has the ability. Maybe were just used to Kampmann having that consistency, but we can’t compare the 2. Jones is good against the run. He’s very good against the run. He’s not elite by any means. Not nearly, but he is showing the ability. I’m basing this off of what I see now, not off of last season.
I’m watched him pretty closely and agree with everything you just said. He definitely looks like he’s improved his game. I still think he could grow into something better, and I hope he gets the chance to possibly do so. Too me, he’s a better option then Chillar because he’s better against the run then Chillar is.
by packallday555 on Aug 17, 2010 12:12 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Woodley couldn't disagree more
Woodley is 6’2 almost 270 pound animal. To me he’s the best 3-4 outside linebacker in the game right now and he’s still young
Agree
I thought Bishop really showed his weaknesses in the Family Night scrimmage he really had a horrible night. He was as bad as Hawk looked great that evening. Those big hits are real easy to see but all the blown assignments aren’t so obvious unless you replay and single him out.
I think Bishop covers ground better then Hawk does too but otherwise yeah, your pretty spot on.
by packallday555 on Aug 17, 2010 12:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Hawk was burned once, but made a couple big plays on D.
Barnett was out of position on the very first pass that resulted in I believe 20 yards just off a 5 yard hook to the TE!
Bishop did nothing spectacular in the 1st Preseason game.
Until Bishop shows that he is clearly the best LB than Hawk this year, I say Hawk. It’s Hawk’s job to lose. I’m not looking at last year. Last year doesn’t matter. It’s a new year. Hawk looks good so far, but it’s still very early. If Bishop shows up and plays consistently as opposed to Hawk, then Bishop gets the job. Barnett already has it locked up. Chillar should also be there. I want Jones and Clay as the OLB in the Nickel and Dime Packages. Based upon what I’ve been seeing, Jones is the better pass rusher compared to Chillar. Chillar provides depth though, so that’s good.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
I am with you
Before I see a starter lose his job, I want to see someone TAKE his job, not just be given the job.
by TrevorR on Aug 16, 2010 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
"[LB Desmond Bishop]... he's never been given a chance during the regular season."
False. 2008, right after Barnett blew out his knee he came in and stunk the joint up in Minnesota. Then he got the start the following week against Houston and was even worse as the Pack lost at home (another one of those awful last minute losses that plagued us in 2008.. such a frustrating season!) and Bishop was really, really bad.
There’s obviously little doubt he’s improved some since then given that it’s been a couple years, but enough to overtake even Hawk in the inside spot? Who knows. We only know how well he plays when it doesn’t count, against second and third teamers.
Against MN he DID have 9 tackles and a forced fumble…not saying he was having a good game but he couldn’t have been THAT bad if he made that many plays, could he?? He didn’t even start the game…
In the Houston game, he started and recorded 12 tackles, had a sack, and forced TWO fumbles.
I am not defending him cause I don’t remember the game but he couldn’t have been THAT bad and that was only his second year on the team in a different defense (the 4-3)
Wow
Don’t remember him in those games must be getting old. Those are the kind of stats over 16 games get you in a probowl.
2 games
Those 2 games make up almost the entirety of his professional production. Why has he not shown up in any other games? Can’t base him on 2 games… Would love to see him on the field on run downs, but he’s more a liability vs the pass than Hawk is… Basically Bishop and Hawk are identical players except Hawk is FAR more consistent, as PackApologist said above!
did you read this thread?
He specifically called out those two games as games where he was given a chance and “stunk the joint up” and then “was even worse as the Pack lost at home” in the other game.
Why has he not shown up in any other games?
Well if I were you, I would have to use the argument of "cause he isn’t getting opportunities just like James Jones and Jordy Nelson, right? If I were me, I would say its because he hasn’t beaten out the guy ahead of him to take the job away.
THanx for making my point
Thats what I was getting at… If his play in any other games was good he would have earned it, just like Jones and Nelson are doing!
Didn't he also blow an angle in the MN game?
I seem to remember him missing a tackle that caused a conversion of a 4 and 1 and caused to us to lose the game. Maybe I’m thinking of a different game though.
by PackApologist on Aug 16, 2010 6:57 PM CDT up reply actions
If its the same play
I think that was a pass play where he took a poor angle and let the reciever get by him. Might have been a 4th down, but not sure if we’re thinking of the same play.
I remember that. He got absolutely abused by Chester Taylor a few times out of the backfield. He looked almost silly trying to cover him..
by packallday555 on Aug 17, 2010 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions
He's had 1 career start
That hardly merits a chance. Coming in off the bench, having spent all week on the scout team, and not practicing with the first team defense is not a chance. And as TrevorR mentioned, his stat line was kick ass in the Houston game.
I agree with Trevor
You have to TAKE a starter’s job, a shove won’t do. I’m a big Buckeye fan and was excited when we drafted AJ, but let’s face it, he’s average and so are Bishop and Chillar. IMO, we need to look elsewhere for the man. We need some pass rush desperately. Looks like we won’t get it from the Dline and CM3 is all we got. Hell, we didn’t even pressure CLEVELAND.
Well
we didn’t blitz much, CM3 wasn’t playing, and Cleveland does have probably the best starting LT in the game right now…so…
by Archibaldcrane on Aug 16, 2010 11:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Plus, and up and coming center who may very well be one of the better ones in the league in a year or two.
by packallday555 on Aug 17, 2010 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions
Alex Mack
Is considered the best already by some. I’m not really sure if I agree because I’m not too familiar with him, but the arguments are legit. Keeping in mind he does face Casey Hampton twice a year, all the Ravens big guys (Ngata plays mostly DE now, but does rotate to NT once in a while), and considering a lot of AFC teams run the 3-4. He holds up strong. Cleveland has a very good Offensive Line. It’s just overlooked due to inabilities at the QB position and WR position. I think what ultimately killed that offense was trading TE Kellen Winslow. He was the go to guy. Trading Braylon Edwards wasn’t the biggest loss, but it had an effect.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
noticed
I noticed that Raji wasn’t exactly getting any penetration too… I hope it was simply the fact that Mack is that good, otherwise BJ was a little disappointing. We really need Raji to create some penetration or the D is going to suffer alot!
He’s definitely key. He was getting a lot better penetration in our scrimmage.
by packallday555 on Aug 17, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
I think Mack is really good
I think Mack is really good hoping so because BJ has been doing well against our O lineman. That wouldn’t say much for them
I voted barnett and chillar
bishop cant cover and hawk is slightly below average at everything
something tells me even the mafia wouldn't call on greg walker if a hit was needed.
-MarketMaker
hawk consistent?
the only thing he is consistent in—————is being awfully below average.
just my opinion——-i am hermitcrab————-i dislike hawk’s lb ability.
Yeah, I don’t really see the consistency either..Maybe in comparison to Bishop he’s consistent? I don’t know. Too me, his lack of consistency is his problem. He’ll have a good game and follow that up by 3-4 average ones and 1-2 bad ones.
by packallday555 on Aug 17, 2010 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions
That exactly it
I saw that phrase several times now with Hawk being consistent. I think it was in reference to him being more consistent than Bishop. That statement is true. He’s not consistent as in amazing, but he’s more consistent than Bishop.
I was dissapointed in Hawk the past couple years, but it’s a new year now and Hawk looked fine against Cleveland. Until Bishop takes his job or shows he can do it better, I want Hawk in there.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
Hawks consistency
is in the form on being assignment-sure, playing his assignment and being in the place he’s supposed to be, and making the plays he’s supposed to make. Bishop doesn’t get on the field cuz he isn’t as assignment sure, isn’t always were he is supposed to be and therefore gives up too many big plays. He makes a couple big plays too… Bishop won’t beat out Hawk until he is always where he is supposed to be. Coaches will always take the guy who is assignment sure, its a matter of trust! Hawk has the trust of the coachs, Bishop simply does not as much!
…is in the form on being assignment-sure, playing his assignment and being in the place he’s supposed to be, and making the plays he’s supposed to make.
I agree he’s usually in the correct position, I just don’t always think he makes the play from there.
by packallday555 on Aug 17, 2010 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions
I totally agree
Bishop shows more of the highlight reel hitting you would expect from a LB but Hawk is the guy that can read the play. Everyone is saying how the two are so similar but I think Bishop has the better abilities but Hawk has the brains. And the trust issue you brought up is spot on! Would you rather have a guy that can read the play and have a chance to make a play (even if his abilities limit him from making a play) or a guy that makes the plays but misreads them and is usually to far from them to make the play?
i would
like to see bishop get a chance to start a whole season. afterall, he only has 1 start in his career. hawk has like 60, so we know what we have in him because there is a large sample size and that is a below average lb. bishop is still an unknown. if you gave him 60 starts,(imo) you’d see a better lb than hawk.
That's pure speculation though
You are assuming Bishop will be better than Hawk. Bishop gets a lot of love because he makes the highlight reels and makes big hits. He’s good against the run, I would agree he could be as good as Hawk against the run. However, as bad as Hawk is against the pass, he’s still better than Bishop against the pass. I’m hoping Hawk is traded after this season if Bishop earns the starting role, but I’m not ready to give it over to him. Let him earn it and work for it.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
The $10 Million
Nobody is claiming Hawk is worth that much! Yeah, he’s definately overpaid. However, we’re not talking about salaries and contracts, we’re discussing who is the better ILB. I will, and I’m sure most people here as well, agree that Hawk is and will be overpaid this year and the next.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
More so I think it’s just his opinion, and really we all do the same thing. Hawk just hasn’t been anything more then average for the last two seasons. Bishop’s been decent in his spotty playing time, and who knows, maybe with a some more consistent playing time he could improve in coverage. There’s always the chance, while with Hawk there really isn’t that chance.
by packallday555 on Aug 17, 2010 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
speculation?
that’s what most of you do here!
this guy has potential—-that guy has potential. shields looks like a player. underwood will be good in a couple years, brad jones isn’t special……blah, blah blah..(speculation?)
if you’re happy with hawk that’s yor opinion——-mine is the opposite.
it doesn’t matter if hawk is assignment sure on the field, because if he can’t get over to his assignment and ACTUALLY make a play——what’s the use?
it’s like some nerd can explain perfectly how to build a house, but once you throw the tools in front of him and ask him to build it—————-he fails miserably.
Hate on Hawk for all we care
That’s fine. What we are challenging is what is behind Hawk. We are looking at what the team would be if Hawk were traded or cut. The answer is pretty shaky at ILB.
Without going into speculation there are two options if Hawk is gone: Chillar and Bishop. The question then becomes which one would be able to fill that role and be less of a liability than Hawk was?
Here we venture back into speculation based upon the play we have seen in camp and in games because that’s all we have to go on.
If we rely on Chillar then our OLB becomes extra weak again. There have been multiple injuries and guys just not playing to their potential here. The Packers would also need to just completely rely on Brad Jones or hope that Brady Poppinga puts together a year for the ages. Other than that Chillar seems to be the best option to be able to replace Hawk.
If we go Bishop then I don’t see how that’s an upgrade. Bishop hasn’t overtaken Hawk by his play in practice. Bishop hasn’t had many opptorunities, but he has gotten on the field in special teams and in limited action but has not made a name for himself. He hasn’t gotten on the field. I know his supporters cry that the Packers don’t do it to protect Hawk because of his draft status. This is crap and point to some examples as to why. Example 1) Justin Harrell. He has not gotten on the field. When he couldn’t get on the field and couldn’t play another player who was drafter later than him and paid less, one Johnny Jolly, got on the field and got his chance to play. Why? Because he was able to do the job. Example 2) Brian Brohm. He was drafted to be the backup for Aaron Rodgers and never got that role…ever. Why? Because he was consistently outplayed by one Matt Flynn. Flynn was drafted much lower than Brohm, had less fan fare, and was paid less. In the end though Brohm was cut and Flynn has stuck around because of the play each player has put on the field. Example 3) Pat Lee. Lee is currently in competition with Brandon Underwood. Lee was drafted higher and more hope rests on him, but right now Underwood is doing more than Lee to merit the nickel position and that’s why he’s ahead of Underwood on the depth chart.
Hermit you’ve given opinions, but no arguments. See there’s a difference between them. Arguments have weight and reasoning behind them. Opinions are feelings and fluff. I’ve caught lots of fluff about how Hawk is inconsistent, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Hawk led the team in tackles his first year on the team. He’s been in top 5 since then. He’s been disappointing, bland, and not the game changer he was expected to be…he’s also been generally reliable and solid. He would start on most teams in this league as a LB.
I am PackApologist and I use reason and examples to show a point more than just capital letters and strongly worded responses! I seek conversation and banter more than simply trying to yell more than the other posters on this site!
by PackApologist on Aug 17, 2010 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions
sometimes
you have to look from the outside in on players————we’ll see next year how many teams are willing to trade for hawk, my guess it will be no-one. that will be my proof.
thanks for the fill-a-buster post by the way————that, of course, is just an opinion. no facts involved with those 4 paragraghs you just posted either. more opinions and speculations, just what a blog is about. if you don’t like it, ooops. i’m not going to stop banging on hawk.
by the way, leading the team in tackles is weak. how many were at or behind the line of scrimmage? and how many were 5-7 yards down the field as he was getting dragged. there’s enough film on hawk,to say,(imo) that he’s a below average lb.
Thats not proof!
There isn’t any team in the NFL that would give up a draft pick AND a 10M per year salary for ANY Inside LB, Hawk or otherwise!!! Its just not that important of a position!
most of us don't see the practices
but knowing what Rodgers was capable of in practice, preseason, and exhibited in that Dallas game, is what gave TT the courage to let go of Favre. Using that same logic, If Bishop were lighting it up in practice, they’d be more inclined to give him some playing time during both preseason and the regular season. That he hasn’t is pretty telling. Long story short, I agree with you.
I think we’re all disappointed that Hawk is not another perennial pro bowler given his draft status. But the bottom line is that he’s been solid, if unspectacular. Bishop has had as many gaffes as explosive plays and is therefore not as reliable.
by gern blanston on Aug 18, 2010 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions
by the way
hawk has zero trade value for next year. unless he takes a serious pay cut.
Al Davis maybe crazy, but he even won’t pay hawk 11 million next year———that’s what he is supposed to earn.
Tough to say
At this point, I’d suspect we could get a 4th or 5th out of Hawk. Any higher would be great. However, it’s a new season and more experience under his belt. The coaches are talking about him and based upon the way he has played against Cleveland, Hawk is looking to be more aggressive in the backfield, so that’s a good sign he’s trying to step up his game. Whether or not that happens in the Regular Season is TBD.
"No player is greater than a team."
-Vince Lombardi
I wouldn't trade him
and further deplete our depth. He’s not bad….he’s just not spectacular.
by gern blanston on Aug 18, 2010 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions
talking in circles
is not an arguement appologist. you say if we get rid of hawk, we have no-one behind that can play. (opinion). on the otherhand you say burnett is going to be fine in replacing bigby this year and that is an upgrade. (opinion, speculation) yep, i guess you got me there.
actually arguements don’t have weight and reason behind them. they are filled with biased OPINIONS and are irrational. debates hold weight and reason. you are starting an arguement based on your opinion on hawk. your 4 paragraph dissertation is proof of that.
really I thought you were the one doing that?!!!
starting an argument based on your OPINION, that is…
Not seeing the circle really
Let’s break down the two arguments next to each other:
Hermit:
Bishop is as good or better than Hawk
We might get some trade value for him this year, but won’t next year
If a team has two equally good players and one of those players would not lead to as much trade value the following year then the player with diminishing trade value should be traded.
Therefore, Hawk should be traded.
PA:
LB’s are an integral part of a 3-4 defense
A team that is preparing for a Super Bowl run should not trade solid starters, or players capable of starting, for no good reason
Hawk is a solid starter.
The Packers are preparing for a Super Bowl run.
Therefore, the Packers shouldn’t trade Hawk.
by PackApologist on Aug 17, 2010 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Now the problems with my argument
Hawk being a solid starter would probably be the weakest link.
To defend this I would start by pointing out that many of the weak links of our defense have had moments of losing games for us (Josh Bell, Jarret Bush, Desmond Bishop all come to mind) AJ Hawk has not had a signature moment in this same manner. Rather he tends to be invisible, without many highlights. Now this isn’t a quantifiable fact, but it is anecdotal evidence that points towards my premise.
by PackApologist on Aug 17, 2010 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Now the problem with your argument
Here is where speculation can come into play.
Bishop is as good as Hawk. What evidence is there? Most of Bishop’s good plays have come against second stringers. What has he shown in training camp (which we can see) or in game footage that warrants him to be placed in this position?
Hawk’s dimensioning trade value. What value do you think he currently has? Is what we would get from a trade worth the production and depth we would lose if he weren’t on the team? What would his value be next year that is so much less?
The reality is that trade values in the NFL are very difficult to foresee. This becomes a meeting of team need, skill of the player, his current contract situation, and so on. Right now I just don’t see enough value in what we would get versus what we would lose.
Moral of the story? Please back up your own thoughts and points before you through around a vague important sounding word like speculation.
by PackApologist on Aug 17, 2010 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions
hawk is a solid starter?
once again——-that is your opinion, not mine
most of the time the universe is based on meaningless events that occur around us.
i guess to continue this conversation(or arguement as you see it) is one of those events.
hawks footage
too slow, can’t shed blocks, not good at the point of attack, he thinks to much instead of reacting and constently gets beat by lesser te’s in the league. there is 4 years of film of this———-that’s my opinion on hawk.
i mentioned, i would like to see bishop get a chance to prove himself. getting 1 start is not getting a fair chance imo……….reading comprehension is lacking.
too slow, can’t shed blocks, not good at the point of attack, he thinks to much instead of reacting and constently gets beat by lesser te’s in the league.
That pretty much perfectly sums up Hawk’s problems haha. It’s pretty hard to argue against those things. All you have to do is watch games, and all those things become evident. The only thing he really does well is play in between the tackles, and even there he struggles to get off blocks like you had mentioned.
by packallday555 on Aug 17, 2010 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
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.
