Trade deadline approaching Nov. 5th

[Pckfn23]

We didn't misuse Hawk, we played him at Will by the same thinking as folks are saying Quay should play there: let him just flow to the ball and make plays. Barnett was the mike. Yet Hawk was never much of a playmaker in that role. Hawk was average, it is what it is.

We 100% misplayed Hawk when we moved to a 3-4 and needed him at ILB. He was never as good of an ILB as he was a Wil. Hawk was a very good Wil. He was 3rd in DRoY voting his rookie year!

[williewasgreat]

Quay should absolutely play OLB, whether strong or weak side. He reminds me in size and speed of the Steeler’s great Jack Ham.

[Labrev]

The defining play of Hawk's career was when we played the Seahawks in Week 1 of 2014. They ran a reverse to Percy Harvin and Hawk had him 1-on-1 in the open field, and Hawk... backpedaled.

Some fans tried to defend it, saying he was just trying to position himself at the first down marker so he could get Harvin to stop short of it and have to make a move, and he might have given up the first and a bigger gain if he hadn't done that.

In fact, Hawk was standing at the first down line when he was squared up with Harvin, and then he moved himself behind it by backpedaling. Moving backwards didn't make Harvin stop, he just kept running, and it ended up allowing Harvin to get past the sticks (at which point, he was tackled) and convert it.

Regardless, that's not how you play LB. Get after the guy, attack him!!

That play forever defines Hawk to me. It's not simply that he wasn't a playmaker, it's that he didn't have the attacking mindset needed to be a playmaker at the position he played, in the first instance. Quite the opposite, he was painfully tentative, which is why even when we had him in his best fit (4-3 Will) and his athletic prime, he was just an okay-at-best player for us, and that frankly was probably his ceiling. He was great at padding the stat sheet with tackles four or more yards past the LOS, but that's about it.

[Yoop]

The defining play of Hawk's career was when we played the Seahawks in Week 1 of 2014. They ran a reverse to Percy Harvin and Hawk had him 1-on-1 in the open field, and Hawk... backpedaled.

Some fans tried to defend it, saying he was just trying to position himself at the first down marker so he could get Harvin to stop short of it and have to make a move, and he might have given up the first and a bigger gain if he hadn't done that.

In fact, Hawk was standing at the first down line when he was squared up with Harvin, and then he moved himself behind it by backpedaling. Moving backwards didn't make Harvin stop, he just kept running, and it ended up allowing Harvin to get past the sticks (at which point, he was tackled) and convert it.

Regardless, that's not how you play LB. Get after the guy, attack him!!

That play forever defines Hawk to me. It's not simply that he wasn't a playmaker, it's that he didn't have the attacking mindset needed to be a playmaker at the position he played, in the first instance. Quite the opposite, he was painfully tentative, which is why even when we had him in his best fit (4-3 Will) and his athletic prime, he was just an okay-at-best player for us, and that frankly was probably his ceiling. He was great at padding the stat sheet with tackles four or more yards past the LOS, but that's about it.

your defining a player based on a play or two, we had to move Hawk to MLB, in that process he packed on a few lbs and lost the speed he had as a Will backer and highly rated draft prospect, and Hawk was a dynamic tackler.

Hawk played in the Capers 34 scheme, 2 gaping DT's stood up the blockers and the lbers made the tackles, and Hawk and Bishop made the tackles, that was not a gap penetrating scheme, completely different requirements of the ILB's.

no one play ever defines a player, your grasping at straws.

[Yoop]

We didn't misuse Hawk, we played him at Will by the same thinking as folks are saying Quay should play there: let him just flow to the ball and make plays. Barnett was the mike. Yet Hawk was never much of a playmaker in that role. Hawk was average, it is what it is.

with Barnett in sanders 43 the job of will and sam was to turn everything inside to Barnet, once he left we had to move our best ILB to MLB, that was Hawk, by then we had switched to a 34, remember we didn't use resources on ILB's back then.

we just used a 1st and 2nd on ILB in the last 3 drafts, if you think we'll spend another high pick on one in 2025 draft, well I sure have my doubts about that

[Labrev]

your defining a player based on a play or two, we had to move Hawk to MLB, in that process he packed on a few lbs and lost the speed he had as a Will backer and highly rated draft prospect, and Hawk was a dynamic tackler.

Hawk played in the Capers 34 scheme, 2 gaping DT's stood up the blockers and the lbers made the tackles, and Hawk and Bishop made the tackles, that was not a gap penetrating scheme, completely different requirements of the ILB's.

no one play ever defines a player, your grasping at straws.

lol

Yoop thinks that a two-gap scheme means that the D-Coord tells the LBs "no, don't shoot through run-lanes and try to tackle ballcarriers behind the LOS. That's penetration—we don't want that!"

[Labrev]

we just used a 1st and 2nd on ILB in the last 3 drafts, if you think we'll spend another high pick on one in 2025 draft, well I sure have my doubts about that

I don't "think we" will do it, I'm saying I *want* us to do it. Rather than the mediocrity we are used to in which we tell ourselves that AJ Hawk and Quay Walker are good LBs, I want to be like San Fran, who would immediately use their 1st Round pick on a LB than head into the season with guys like Hawk or Quay as their best starting options.

You like Hawk and Walker. Good for you. I do not. I like Cooper, and I want another one, much like SF has Warner *and* Kinlaw.

[NCF]

Kinlaw.

Greenlaw.

[NCF]

we just used a 1st and 2nd on ILB in the last 3 drafts, if you think we'll spend another high pick on one in 2025 draft, well I sure have my doubts about that

I don't "think we" will do it, I'm saying I *want* us to do it. Rather than the mediocrity we are used to in which we tell ourselves that AJ Hawk and Quay Walker are good LBs, I want to be like San Fran, who would immediately use their 1st Round pick on a LB than head into the season with guys like Hawk or Quay as their best starting options.

You like Hawk and Walker. Good for you. I do not. I like Cooper, and I want another one, much like SF has Warner *and* Kinlaw.

I am kind of with @Yoop on this one. We have Cooper and we also have another high investment in Hopper. Let's see what we have there, too. I am not saying don't draft a good player if he is there, but I don't want to necessarily target that position, either. Warner was a 3rd-round pick and Greenlaw, a 5th. It's not like SF created the model for the investment necessary at the position. Just came away with two hits. There draft history actually shows the opposite as these are two of the highest LB selections since Lynch and Shanny took over.

I would much rather grab an EDGE, OT, or CB where I think it is more difficult to find those guys later in The Draft.

[Yoop]

your defining a player based on a play or two, we had to move Hawk to MLB, in that process he packed on a few lbs and lost the speed he had as a Will backer and highly rated draft prospect, and Hawk was a dynamic tackler.

Hawk played in the Capers 34 scheme, 2 gaping DT's stood up the blockers and the lbers made the tackles, and Hawk and Bishop made the tackles, that was not a gap penetrating scheme, completely different requirements of the ILB's.

no one play ever defines a player, your grasping at straws.

lol

Yoop thinks that a two-gap scheme means that the D-Coord tells the LBs "no, don't shoot through run-lanes and try to tackle ballcarriers behind the LOS. That's penetration—we don't want that!"

the number one job of a inside backer in any scheme is to fill the front and backside gaps, there are 6 gaps, so if your 6 man front fills every gap and one of the DT's get blown out, who's left to stop the run? the small guys, this penetration stuff is so blown out of proportion, we don't do that stuff, and never have, no one does, get real seriously Labrev I doubt you even believe that

[Yoop]

we just used a 1st and 2nd on ILB in the last 3 drafts, if you think we'll spend another high pick on one in 2025 draft, well I sure have my doubts about that

I don't "think we" will do it, I'm saying I *want* us to do it. Rather than the mediocrity we are used to in which we tell ourselves that AJ Hawk and Quay Walker are good LBs, I want to be like San Fran, who would immediately use their 1st Round pick on a LB than head into the season with guys like Hawk or Quay as their best starting options.

You like Hawk and Walker. Good for you. I do not. I like Cooper, and I want another one, much like SF has Warner *and* Kinlaw.

I am kind of with @Yoop on this one. We have Cooper and we also have another high investment in Hopper. Let's see what we have there, too. I am not saying don't draft a good player if he is there, but I don't want to necessarily target that position, either. Warner was a 3rd-round pick and Greenlaw, a 5th. It's not like SF created the model for the investment necessary at the position. Just came away with two hits. There draft history actually shows the opposite as these are two of the highest LB selections since Lynch and Shanny took over.

I would much rather grab an EDGE, OT, or CB where I think it is more difficult to find those guys later in The Draft.

I forgot about Hopper, ya we've spent quite a bit to repair that position, and people are giving up on Walker to early, any guy that gets 10 tackles a game is a keeper imo, and we have what looks like a gem in Cooper, Wilson was our highest rated defender last week, the position is so much better then it was 4 years ago.

I'am not really a opponent of BPA drafting just that I believe unless your picking top 10 or so, it becomes muddled with need, and we now have higher priorities, DL,OL,CB all seem more needy positions

[Labrev]

we just used a 1st and 2nd on ILB in the last 3 drafts, if you think we'll spend another high pick on one in 2025 draft, well I sure have my doubts about that

I don't "think we" will do it, I'm saying I *want* us to do it. Rather than the mediocrity we are used to in which we tell ourselves that AJ Hawk and Quay Walker are good LBs, I want to be like San Fran, who would immediately use their 1st Round pick on a LB than head into the season with guys like Hawk or Quay as their best starting options.

You like Hawk and Walker. Good for you. I do not. I like Cooper, and I want another one, much like SF has Warner *and* Kinlaw.

I am kind of with @Yoop on this one. We have Cooper and we also have another high investment in Hopper. Let's see what we have there, too. I am not saying don't draft a good player if he is there, but I don't want to necessarily target that position, either. Warner was a 3rd-round pick and Greenlaw, a 5th. It's not like SF created the model for the investment necessary at the position. Just came away with two hits. There draft history actually shows the opposite as these are two of the highest LB selections since Lynch and Shanny took over.

I would much rather grab an EDGE, OT, or CB where I think it is more difficult to find those guys later in The Draft.

I'm not particular about the strategy. Target a guy high like Round 1, or do the "overkill" strategy like Gute did at WR three drafts ago, and at S last draft (but both entailed using at least one Day 2 pick at the position, in one case trading up to do so). Or sign an FA... this would be my least preferred option, but not off the table.

Point is, I don't want the FO to be content and be like "oh we have Cooper and he looks good." How about, instead of settle for finally being up to par or a little bit better, that we try and push to be *great* at it? What do you do when Cooper is the starter but misses significant time to injury, just go back to mediocrity? What if Cooper doesn't take the next step, regresses? Let's not put all our eggs in one basket.

I know the org has been content with mediocrity at LB and neglecting it in favor of flashy offense stuff or the sexier position s in defense e.g. CB, but I think that was a mistaken attitude. LBs are in position to make so many plays, all over the field, like Cooper did last Sunday.

[NCF]

I'm not particular about the strategy. Target a guy high like Round 1, or do the "overkill" strategy like Gute did at WR three drafts ago, and at S last draft (but both entailed using at least one Day 2 pick at the position, in one case trading up to do so).

I know what you are getting at and I agree, but they literally did this at LB in this past draft. Cooper in R2 and Hopper in R3. That is more of an investment than Bullard and Williams. So before we say the FO is complacent, let's at least see if Hopper can play football.

[Labrev]

Hopper is a project, dude needs a lot of work, and we don't have a good track record at developing players at this position (in part because LB is a position where you either have the instincts or you don't; it can't really be taught; which is a big part of the reason why I rather just draft a blue-chipper than hope we hit in the mids like SF did).

He's not stopping me from drafting someone high. And if he can play, cool, three good LBs is not too many; you can rotate them and still give each a good amount of snaps.

[APB]

How do you “we-need-a-pass-rusher” trade deadline pundits feel about Chase Young? Currently on a prove-it deal with the Saints, I believe.

Of course, the reason he’s on a prove-it deal is because…well…he hasn’t.

[BSA]

Of course, the reason he’s on a prove-it deal is because…well…he hasn’t.

He was somewhat productive in SF last year on that talented DL, but they didn't try to bring him back.

[lake shark]

Of course, the reason he’s on a prove-it deal is because…well…he hasn’t.

He was somewhat productive in SF last year on that talented DL, but they didn't try to bring him back.

He was gawd awful at holding the edge and very susceptible to misdirection

[APB]

I don’t think we need DBs. Defensively we are struggling to affect the QB from the pass rush.

The Packers defense, from an individual and collective analytical standpoint, don't seem to be winning much at the point of attack. However, the collective defense seems to be working just fine. As pointed out here, it's working. Maybe it's by design? Or maybe it's just luck?

I don't know if the pass rushers just all decided to take a step back this year or if Hafley is asking them to do something different. Historically, the talent is there. I'm not sure if the addition of a Landry or other talent-equal rusher will make much difference in this scheme.

Obviously, a player like Maxx Crosby would make a difference. I don't think the Packers are the type team to chase a player of his caliber at the deadline, though.

As far as the secondary, Hafley asks a lot from his cover corners. I think Nixon and Stokes are players you can "get by" with...until it's playoff time. Then they become liabilities. If there's an upgrade possibility, I'd definitely be interested in pursuing it.

If Jaycee Horn is available? Absolutely.
Kendall Fuller? Yep.
DJ Reed? You bet.
Greg Newsome II? That's a player I'd definitely take a chance on as a reclamation project.

I just don't trust either Nixon or Stokes in January. Maybe Valentine, if he ever sees the field again, can be that guy. Who knows?

Meh. It’s been proven time and time again that in the playoffs the rules change for CBs. You can get grabby for free and refs are less likely to call it. Pass rushers in the playoffs though can completely carry a team through the playoffs.

Nixon got exposed again yesterday and it's not even January. Hard to put hands on the WR when he's trailing them by two yards.

Yeah, yeah...Jaire was out and he would have been on ARSB. Well, next go 'round Williams will be back for them and he'll be the one burning Nixon.

Nixon (and Stokes for that matter) is a coverage liability. When QBs are typically getting the ball out in 2.5 sec, signing a pass rusher won't matter. Upgrading at CB will.

[go pak go]

Nixon is fine when he is playing outside coverage against a non-quick WR.

But Nixon is absolutely a liability when playing in the slot and against any WR who has quicks to him. We know the end result every single time.

We need an agile CB to supplement Jaire Alexander. I was hoping King would be that but that is not the case. It would be great if we could strike magic at the CB spot again.

[Yoop]

Nixon is fine when he is playing outside coverage against a non-quick WR.

But Nixon is absolutely a liability when playing in the slot and against any WR who has quicks to him. We know the end result every single time.

We need an agile CB to supplement Jaire Alexander. I was hoping King would be that but that is not the case. It would be great if we could strike magic at the CB spot again.

we need to treat CB in the coming draft the way Gute did WR and TE versus day 3 picks or walk ons, Nixon plays more like a safety then a CB, jmo