The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
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!
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.Labrev wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024 09:45The 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.
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.
lolYoop wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024 10:11your 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.
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.
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.Labrev wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024 10:38I 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.
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 realLabrev wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024 10:25lolYoop wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024 10:11your 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 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!"
seriously Labrev I doubt you even believe that 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.NCF wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024 10:54I 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.Labrev wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024 10:38I 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 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.NCF wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024 10:54I 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.Labrev wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024 10:38I 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 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 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.
He was gawd awful at holding the edge and very susceptible to misdirection
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.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑30 Oct 2024 20:57Meh. 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.APB wrote: ↑30 Oct 2024 07:21The 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?lupedafiasco wrote: ↑29 Oct 2024 20:31I don’t think we need DBs. Defensively we are struggling to affect the QB from the pass rush.
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?
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, jmogo pak go wrote: ↑04 Nov 2024 07:51Nixon 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.