Nick Barnett out for the season/Hawk to MLB (1 Viewer)

[trader jake]

In his press conference Packers head coach Mike McCarthy just said that MLB Nick Barnett is out for the season with a ligament tear.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

who replaces him? any chance they move Hawk inside?

 

[Rozelle]

I beleive Desmond Bishop seen the snaps after Barnett went down, he finsihed 6-0-0.

 

[The Man With No Name]

I beleive Desmond Bishop seen the snaps after Barnett went down, he finsihed 6-0-0.

Bishop is the one who tackled Charles Gordon when he broke his ankle. And he was the one who whiffed the tackle on Chester's long touchdown.

 

[derek245583]

Wow, so....Hawk Bishop and Poppinga. Chillar was inactive yesterday

I am hoping Hawk gets moved to the middle with Bishop and Poppinga on the outside.

 

[Jack Johnson]

Wow, so....Hawk Bishop and Poppinga. Chillar was inactive yesterdayI am hoping Hawk gets moved to the middle with Bishop and Poppinga on the outside.

I would be curious to see how Hawk's numbers look with him in the middle.

 

[G-King]

Will Bishop play on 3rd down? Or is it Hawk and Pop?

 

[Jene Bramel]

Money would be on Bishop stepping in at MLB on base defensive downs only. Similar to Daryl Smith in Jacksonville, I don't know that AJ Hawk's numbers would be much better inside, especially given the struggles at DT in Green Bay right now. Bishop might be able to shed blockers a little better than Barnett, but I don't think he'll have the big play potential Barnett had and he's not likely to see much time in nickel packages.

 

[Mikey16x]

I'll take my chances of a flier, could be something. Looking at Barnett all year I really doubt i'll be missing his "big play ability" he's been playing like crap up to this date with a few good game in between.

Edit: On Hawk moving inside, I've seen Barnett miss games before and A.J has never moved inside, not sure why... seems logical. I remember Hodge used to be the backup and always used to come in.

 

[Jene Bramel]

I don't understand the interest in moving Hawk to MLB in the Forum. We had a lot of discussions about where he'd fit on the day he was drafted, too. I suppose it stems from a desire to see his IDP value maximized and I suppose he would work out okay there, but his coverage, pursuit and range would seem to fit best on the outside.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I don't understand the interest in moving Hawk to MLB in the Forum. We had a lot of discussions about where he'd fit on the day he was drafted, too. I suppose it stems from a desire to see his IDP value maximized and I suppose he would work out okay there, but his coverage, pursuit and range would seem to fit best on the outside.

My general feeling is that it most teams tend to play their best LB at MLB. There are obvious exceptions (Tennessee and Detroit come to mind), but with Barnett out Hawk is clearly the best LB on the roster so it makes sense to put him in the middle where he can make plays all over the field. Barnett's strengths, IMO, are very similar to Hawk's (coverage, pursuit, range). There are plenty of reasons to keep him at WLB too. I just wasn't sure how confident the Packers were in Desmond Bishop, and I figured Chillar and Poppinga could handle the OLB spots without much of a dropoff.

 

[KellysHeroes]

Money would be on Bishop stepping in at MLB on base defensive downs only. Similar to Daryl Smith in Jacksonville, I don't know that AJ Hawk's numbers would be much better inside, especially given the struggles at DT in Green Bay right now. Bishop might be able to shed blockers a little better than Barnett, but I don't think he'll have the big play potential Barnett had and he's not likely to see much time in nickel packages.

that suxs... MLBBC is useless to us.

 

[Mikey16x]

Money would be on Bishop stepping in at MLB on base defensive downs only. Similar to Daryl Smith in Jacksonville, I don't know that AJ Hawk's numbers would be much better inside, especially given the struggles at DT in Green Bay right now. Bishop might be able to shed blockers a little better than Barnett, but I don't think he'll have the big play potential Barnett had and he's not likely to see much time in nickel packages.

that suxs... MLBBC is useless to us.

Bishop did go 8-1 after barnett went down... i'll take a flier on that anyday.

 

[pretender]

I wonder if they wish they hadn't cut Abdul Hodge. I know that Hodge signed with Cincinatti and I'm still waiting to see if he ever gets a chance to play full time there.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Is it safe to assume Barnett's "ligament" tear is an ACL? If he tore his MCL, I would assume there would be an outside chance of returning this season.

 

[pretender]

Is it safe to assume Barnett's "ligament" tear is an ACL? If he tore his MCL, I would assume there would be an outside chance of returning this season.

Barnett has ACL tearBy Tom Silverstein of the Journal Sentinel Nov. 10, 2008 | Green Bay -- The knee injury linebacker Nick Barnett suffered is to his anterior cruciate ligament, which is one of the most common tears among football players. Coach Mike McCarthy confirmed on his afternoon radio show on WTMJ that it was an ACL tear. In general, that injury requires six to eight months of rehabilitation once surgery is performed.That means Barnett has a chance to be ready for training camp next year, although it's likely that he'll be a part-time participant, taking part in no more than one practice a day. That's how McCarthy has handled players with significant injuries in the past.

 

[Weiner Dog]

Is it safe to assume Barnett's "ligament" tear is an ACL? If he tore his MCL, I would assume there would be an outside chance of returning this season.

Barnett has ACL tearBy Tom Silverstein of the Journal Sentinel Nov. 10, 2008 | Green Bay -- The knee injury linebacker Nick Barnett suffered is to his anterior cruciate ligament, which is one of the most common tears among football players. Coach Mike McCarthy confirmed on his afternoon radio show on WTMJ that it was an ACL tear. In general, that injury requires six to eight months of rehabilitation once surgery is performed.That means Barnett has a chance to be ready for training camp next year, although it's likely that he'll be a part-time participant, taking part in no more than one practice a day. That's how McCarthy has handled players with significant injuries in the past.

Thanks.

 

[Go Pack]

I would guess that Bishop takes over in the middle on running downs, but I would bet that Chillar will be on the filed with Hawk on passing downs.

I had also wondered if they wished they still had Hodge since the run defense is struggling and that was his strength, but Bishop beat him out and seems to have some pop so hopefully he can be adequate. It's not like Barnett was playing great this year.

 

[G-King]

I would guess that Bishop takes over in the middle on running downs, but I would bet that Chillar will be on the filed with Hawk on passing downs.I had also wondered if they wished they still had Hodge since the run defense is struggling and that was his strength, but Bishop beat him out and seems to have some pop so hopefully he can be adequate. It's not like Barnett was playing great this year.

Isnt Chillar hurt? If so how long?

 

[Scarpaggio]

Are they going to be putting Barnett on IR?

 

[pretender]

For what its worth

Hawk working at middle linebacker

A.J. Hawk is working at middle linebacker in practice in place of the injured Nick Barnett, according to the Green Bay Press-Gazette.

Our View: Hawk only has 42 tackles (32 solo) this season from the weak-side, but his fantasy stock would likely improve with more chances for tackles while serving in the middle.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

when I watched that Green Bay game carefully, Bishop looked pretty awful. I'm not sure how he wound up with so many tackles, but I don't have a lot of confidence in him and I'm guessing the coaching staff might feel similarly.

 

[Jene Bramel]

For what its worth

Hawk working at middle linebacker

A.J. Hawk is working at middle linebacker in practice in place of the injured Nick Barnett, according to the Green Bay Press-Gazette.

Our View: Hawk only has 42 tackles (32 solo) this season from the weak-side, but his fantasy stock would likely improve with more chances for tackles while serving in the middle.

Here's the primary source.

* What to do at LB: Working all combinations. All of top four linebackers -- A.J. Hawk, Brady Poppinga, Chillar and Desmond Bishop -- are double training. "They're all going to be ready. ... A.J.'s getting a lot of work there."

As Aaron noted, I think Hawk getting time in the middle is more of an indictment on Bishop than it is a desire to move Hawk inside. Should be interesting to see how this shakes out.

 

[pretender]

Bishop didn't play very well when he had to come off the bench - but I have a sneaky feeling that given some practice this week and watching how good he was in preseason (I know - everyone looks good in preseason) and that he will have something to prove (that he can play better than last week) that he will be out on the field - possibly on all 3 downs.

Just my homer position. I picked him up in a few leagues just in case.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Hawk to the middle pretty official now.

The Packers are moving Hawk from weak-side linebacker to Barnett’s spot in the middle and playing Brandon Chillar on the weak side in their base defense.

On passing downs, defensive coordinator Bob Sanders might consider using any combination of two linebackers, and might play Desmond Bishop at middle or weak-side linebacker on occasion as well.

But because Barnett’s injury is long term, the Packers are turning to Hawk, the fifth pick overall in the 2006 draft, and not Bishop, to replace him at the keystone position in Sanders’ scheme. The move also allows Chillar into the starting lineup. The Packers consider him one of their three best linebackers (along with strong-side starter Brady Poppinga) now that Barnett is out.

“A.J. is getting a lot of work there,” coach Mike McCarthy said, “and we just have to be ready just to be able to move in and out of our different personnel groups.”

Hawk is stronger and more physical than Chillar and thus the better fit for the middle, though he spent his career at Ohio State and first 2½ seasons with the Packers on the weak side. Hawk occasionally has taken snaps in practice at middle linebacker, mostly during training camp, but that work has been limited. He also will wear the speaker helmet for the defense and relay Sanders’ calls to his teammates, a duty Barnett performed.

Though the Packers would have preferred not having to make the move, they’ll also get a look at Hawk at a position some scouts think is a better fit for him in Sanders’ scheme.

“I don’t know,” Hawk said on whether he’s better suited to middle linebacker. “To me, it was natural to play outside when I got here because I played outside in college. I have no problem wherever they put me.”

Hawk and the defense face a couple of problems in their transition.

First, the Packers’ run defense has been a liability this season even with Barnett, who’s their leading tackler.

Second, if Kyle Orton is healthy enough to play quarterback for the Bears, the Packers probably will face a solid dose of no-huddle offense that could increase the chance for assignment errors.

The Packers come into Sunday’s game against Chicago with one of the worst running defenses statistically in the NFL: They’re ranked No. 27 in rushing yards allowed and No. 30 in yards allowed per carry. If they were losing Barnett for a game or two, they more easily could cover his absence because high emotions might carry them in the short term. However, Barnett will miss the final seven games, and that’s a long stretch to go without a productive player, even if he hasn’t played as well this year as in past seasons.

That’s probably one of the reasons the Packers are starting Chillar and moving Hawk instead of plugging Bishop into Barnett’s spot. They signed Chillar as an unrestricted free agent in the offseason for $1.85 million in bonuses and another $1.1 million in base salary because they thought he had starter ability, though he ended up losing the battle for the starting job on the strong side to Poppinga.

Bishop, a sixth-round draft pick last year, made noticeable improvement in the offseason and during training camp, which helped him beat out former third-round pick Abdul Hodge for a highly contested roster spot. But he had an uneven performance while replacing Barnett in the second half against Minnesota on Sunday.

...

“I don’t know how to answer that question politically correct,” Bishop said when asked about his disappointment at not getting the start. “I kind of want to say it’s almost bittersweet. Of course I’m a competitor and want to be out there and get my shot and play. On the other hand, A.J. Hawk is part of the team, and whether it’s him or me, we both expect to do the job.”

 

[derek245583]

I watch packer games almost every week and I pay quite a bit of attention to AJ. He does a lot more gap control than he does persuing. He also doesnt take on blockers and shed them. He usually just gives ground and tries to out quick them. I am not sure how that will translate to the middle, but hopefully they turn him loose and he steps up.

He has alot of talent I think he just needs to get it together.

 

[Rozelle]

PFW WWHI...

Former first-round draft pick A.J. Hawk has moved over from the weak side to replace Barnett, but word is second-year pro Desmond Bishop could still see plenty of playing time in the middle.

 

[pretender]

PFW WWHI...

Former first-round draft pick A.J. Hawk has moved over from the weak side to replace Barnett, but word is second-year pro Desmond Bishop could still see plenty of playing time in the middle.

please please will know tomorrow

 

[Jene Bramel]

I don't understand the interest in moving Hawk to MLB in the Forum. We had a lot of discussions about where he'd fit on the day he was drafted, too. I suppose it stems from a desire to see his IDP value maximized and I suppose he would work out okay there, but his coverage, pursuit and range would seem to fit best on the outside.

Uhhh...yeah, this looks like a brilliant assessment so far.

 

[kerpow]

I don't understand the interest in moving Hawk to MLB in the Forum. We had a lot of discussions about where he'd fit on the day he was drafted, too. I suppose it stems from a desire to see his IDP value maximized and I suppose he would work out okay there, but his coverage, pursuit and range would seem to fit best on the outside.

Uhhh...yeah, this looks like a brilliant assessment so far.

lolWatching the game right now, he looks great.

 

[derek245583]

I don't understand the interest in moving Hawk to MLB in the Forum. We had a lot of discussions about where he'd fit on the day he was drafted, too. I suppose it stems from a desire to see his IDP value maximized and I suppose he would work out okay there, but his coverage, pursuit and range would seem to fit best on the outside.

Uhhh...yeah, this looks like a brilliant assessment so far.

lolWatching the game right now, he looks great.

He really #### the bed for the last 3 quarters...Hope that first quarter is the norm from here on out.

 

[Jack Johnson]

I don't understand the interest in moving Hawk to MLB in the Forum. We had a lot of discussions about where he'd fit on the day he was drafted, too. I suppose it stems from a desire to see his IDP value maximized and I suppose he would work out okay there, but his coverage, pursuit and range would seem to fit best on the outside.

Uhhh...yeah, this looks like a brilliant assessment so far.

lolWatching the game right now, he looks great.

He really #### the bed for the last 3 quarters...Hope that first quarter is the norm from here on out.

I don't know what to make of it. He was very active in the first quarter on the first two drives. Anyone watch this game who can share some insight on what happened the final three quarters.

 

[trader jake]

The Packers played nickle a majority of the game yesterday. I suspect that they will do the same thing against the Saints next week on MNF.

Overall Hawk looked natural in the middle and had a solid game. It's difficult to take too much from the lopsided win against the Bears offense but the early signs were definitely positive.

 

[pacman_fl]

A couple of questions for those who understand schemes, etc better than I and got a good view of the game on TV. My buddy and I were at the game and I said it appeared that the D-Line was getting "stood up" quite a bit (better than the push back I have seen in other games). Is it possible that it was by "design" for the line to hold up blockers so the LBs didn't have to "wade through trash" (which was my concern with Hawk at Mike)? trader jake - thanks for the info, I was having a hard time picking up the nickle packages and it could answer parts of my question.

Also, to the posters who feel Hawk will move to the middle next year and beyond, why would Barnett not take back the position next year? He was having a down year for sure but he is more of a prototypical Mike in my opinion and Hawk fits the scheme well at Will. Since Barnett is signed long term, it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I am missing something.

 

[Jene Bramel]

A couple of questions for those who understand schemes, etc better than I and got a good view of the game on TV. My buddy and I were at the game and I said it appeared that the D-Line was getting "stood up" quite a bit (better than the push back I have seen in other games). Is it possible that it was by "design" for the line to hold up blockers so the LBs didn't have to "wade through trash" (which was my concern with Hawk at Mike)? trader jake - thanks for the info, I was having a hard time picking up the nickle packages and it could answer parts of my question.Also, to the posters who feel Hawk will move to the middle next year and beyond, why would Barnett not take back the position next year? He was having a down year for sure but he is more of a prototypical Mike in my opinion and Hawk fits the scheme well at Will. Since Barnett is signed long term, it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I am missing something.

Unlikely that getting stood up was a good thing in this situation. Some read-and-react 4-3 fronts will have a pair of big defensive tackles that attempt to control their blockers at the snap rather than fire gaps. You'll usually see them with arms extended underneath the pads of the OL and a good strong base -- looking like they're in control -- when doing it well. If you're seeing a tackle sprawling with their legs or with their upper body in bad position (arms outside the OL, OL arms inside and under their pads), it's a sign that things aren't going well for them.To answer your question, it's very likely that the Packer scheme is designed as a read-and-react scheme. Bob Sanders, who is a believer in the big DT Jim Bates school of defense, would prefer to have his tackles control the line of scrimmage and allow his backers to read on the run and shoot gaps without facing an OL at the second level.

 

[Jack Johnson]

A couple of questions for those who understand schemes, etc better than I and got a good view of the game on TV. My buddy and I were at the game and I said it appeared that the D-Line was getting "stood up" quite a bit (better than the push back I have seen in other games). Is it possible that it was by "design" for the line to hold up blockers so the LBs didn't have to "wade through trash" (which was my concern with Hawk at Mike)? trader jake - thanks for the info, I was having a hard time picking up the nickle packages and it could answer parts of my question.Also, to the posters who feel Hawk will move to the middle next year and beyond, why would Barnett not take back the position next year? He was having a down year for sure but he is more of a prototypical Mike in my opinion and Hawk fits the scheme well at Will. Since Barnett is signed long term, it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I am missing something.

Unlikely that getting stood up was a good thing in this situation. Some read-and-react 4-3 fronts will have a pair of big defensive tackles that attempt to control their blockers at the snap rather than fire gaps. You'll usually see them with arms extended underneath the pads of the OL and a good strong base -- looking like they're in control -- when doing it well. If you're seeing a tackle sprawling with their legs or with their upper body in bad position (arms outside the OL, OL arms inside and under their pads), it's a sign that things aren't going well for them.To answer your question, it's very likely that the Packer scheme is designed as a read-and-react scheme. Bob Sanders, who is a believer in the big DT Jim Bates school of defense, would prefer to have his tackles control the line of scrimmage and allow his backers to read on the run and shoot gaps without facing an OL at the second level.

Would you roster Tatupu or Adibi over Hawk down the stretch?