I think the most interesting part was actually the bit about some of Hawk's teammates thinking he should not be starting. Hard to really think Hawk deserves to start.... he is nothing special. Looking forward - more like hoping really badly - to move on from Hawk.

I'm not sure where the "hindsight" criticism comes from... it was a pretty big gamble to rest the pass-rush hopes on Neal... everyone should have knows this. And frankly, the vast majority of his time here Hawk has been nothing more than just another player. He cannot (or is unwilling) to shoot gaps, cannot get free from blocks, and has rarely shown himself to be instinctive. It isn't "hindsight" at all - this should have been obvious from evaluating Hawk. It's more like "stating the obvious" but McGinn gets style points because the article is based on a "year-in-review" type of format and he's the best beat writer covering the Packers.

---

Bob McGinn is the best Packer insider on the planet, so I tend to listen to what he says.

With that said, I don’t like the idea of overanalyzing because the team isn’t in the Super Bowl. We don’t know where the ‘11 draft will rate among Thompson’s drafts. Derek Sherrod was obviously coming along, as the team was giving him reps at the expense of Marshall Newhouse. If Sherrod is the future at OLT, then the pick is a success.

Remember, Thompson's approach to the draft has always been a long-term one. Jordy Nelson is a prime example of that, which is why selecting Randall Cobb was the right move. He's clearly going to be one of the best offensive players on this team moving forward.

Frankly, Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, and Finley are a very good nucleus, especially if they ever get some aspect of a running game to compliment them. I recall Packer writers and fans obsession over the fact that Brett Favre never had talent around him at the skill positions. Well, Thompson’s made sure Rodgers is good to go for much of this decade.

The stuff regarding Hawk is interesting. He had his fair share of missed tackles this season, though the entire team did. He’s just awful in coverage, though. That might be the icing on the cake. Can you imagine Hawk matching up with Rob Gronkowski or Vernon Davis? Yikes!

---

You haven't been reading capable writers, then.

All season, McGinn has done his "Rating the Packers" after each game, and in it he has been conveying that Hawk is becoming more of a liability not just for this defense, but he is possibly holding Bishop back.

McGinn actually takes the time to not only re-watch games, but publish articles based on what he has evaluated. I don't know of other writers that do that.

For what it is worth, McGinn stated at the start of training camp that Hawk's contract was a mistake based on his entire body of work - not just last season. He's been pretty spot on... a simple Hawk/Barnett comparison is good evidence that not only is Hawk overrated, but he may very well be overvalued by the one guy (Ted) who you'd expect to be impartial and realize what's pretty evident.

You may not have read other writers write about Hawk being a weak link... but please do not assume that reflects badly on McGinn's observation. If anything, it may show you how unwilling other beat writers are in covering teams to their fullest extent possible. Hawk has been pretty average. And even saying something like that may be overstating his play. Someone like Bob McGinn publicly acknowledging this when others haven't should make you think a bit about the observation instead of simply dismissing it; McGinn knows his stuff about as well as anyone not a coach/personnel evaluator could ever hope to.

---

This irks me, for one simple reason: it's based on a pretty damn small sample size.

Over the course of three years, Barnett ended up on IR twice. In 2008, he tore his knee. That's it. No lingering injuries, no missing games before that injury. Then in 2010, he ended up injuring his wrist ... the same injury that cost Urlacher his season in 2009. Again, one very serious injury to a different part of the body - he missed no games or practice time before that or after that.

And based on that, Hawk was "far more reliable" than Barnett? You make it seem like Barnett was breaking down and injury prone... far from it. Both players showed remarkable availability during their time starting next to each other... but two injuries - just two awkward yet equally likely to happen to another player type of injuries - are the difference between the two players. So I'm not so sure it's fair to imply Barnett was becoming more injury prone based on the fact that his luck led him to succumb to injuries that Hawk was/is just as susceptible to incur as well.

---

The fact remains that Hawk had a resurgent year in 2010 -- enough to receive glowing remarks from his head coach and by other players in interviews. This year was not his best, but by any other measure than interceptions, the entire defense regressed. Tramon Williams gets the excuse of being injured, but he was at-times dreadful. Woodson's tackling seemed to take a dip. The Claymaker had just as much help at the opposite OLB spot as he did in previous years, but didn't put up the same numbers (I'll add that losing Jenkins had perhaps the greatest effect on him . Also that I don't think Clay played poorly at all, he was still disruptive and made some big plays -- he just didn't seal the deal with many sacks). Raji wasn't in the backfield like he was in previous years. The list goes on. It was a bad year defensively. But I think based on Hawk's body of work, which I'll agree has been unspectacular, he still warranted an extension. Not every player needs to be a star, and I think Green Bay knew that (hence the release/re-negotiation of a new contract for less money). So while I don't have the insider accounts or the film tape (or the wherewithal to put all the pieces together) I do confide in what little I've heard from the players and coaches -- though maybe I should hear more from the players that don't think he should be a starter.

---

I'm still trying to figure out why it took a thorough humiliation in the playoffs -- in all three phases of the game -- for the sacrilegious words "bad defense" to finally be uttered on this board. It was glaringly obvious all year. People kept saying it was "good enough," but that was never the case. The defense just had the good fortune to benefit from one of the most spectacular offensive performances in the history of the game, a performance made all the more remarkable because, unlike the Saints, the Packers never had anything resembling a top-10 rushing attack. Had the offense been anything less than stellar this year, this team probably would have been 10-6 or 9-7 and very possibly wouldn't have had a playoff berth. But maybe -- just maybe -- a worse record would have forced the defense to fix its shit before the playoffs and maybe the Packers could have put on a late-season run toward the Super Bowl, much like the 9-7 Giants have done. But somehow I doubt it. I'm not convinced they had either the personnel or the will to rectify the problems on the field. Not only did the defense simply look overmatched throughout the season (except for the occasional offensive mistake they were able to capitalize on), they also looked increasingly complacent and apathetic as the season wore on. I never got the impression this team cared all that much, particularly not after Week 15. I think they got bored, and after the first loss they just sort of seemed to check out. That's unfortunate, because they really did have a chance at history. Now they get to watch either the Giants or the Patriots make history. The Giants could become the first 9-7 team ever to win the Super Bowl, while the Patriots could become the first team ever to win a Super Bowl with a defense ranked lower than 25th.

---

Rourke, maybe people were more fond of enjoying the WIN rather than bemoan about the defense? It was pretty obvious, even with so many "yards mean nothing" rants that the defense needed to step up. We all basically knew the offense would eventually sputter and we'd need the defense to muster up. We all (I think) accepted that yards lead to at least Field Goals and that's points... but I think most were arrogantly believing yards shouldn't even be tracked because they mean nothing.

---

Barnett over Hawk.. not in a heartbeat.

McGinn.. way to make an omelet 6 months after the eggs were broke.

Personally.. Hawk has always been what he has been in the pros.. a solid NFL linebacker that flashes at times but isn't going to tilt the world on fire. But he certainly does a better job in the hole than Barnett ever did.. he can at least hold the point of attack.. Barnett backpeddled then made the play in pursuit, sometimes yards down the field.

In coverage.. I won't give the tip of the cap either way at this point of their careers.. neither is top self in coverage. Barnett of his first five season.. yes would have been an improvement.. today.. not.

Personally.. the roster or decisions this season were not deficient in my mind.. at least not anymore than any other season. Maybe we overpaid for Hawk.. but it is not like we were tight against the cap after signing him.

The only real blunder I can say was made (other than maybe second guessing draft picks).. was banking on Neal over re-inking Jenkins at the number he got.

Hawk is solid.. DJ is a rookie.. Francois is a workable player.. so looking back.. retaining Hawk makes sense.. especially when comparing that decision to Barnett. IMO.

I would question execution and lack of trust in players (aimed more at the defense) more than personnel decisions. But even then.. we couldn't apply pressure without sending at least 5.. that in the end is the lynchpin of the 2011 Packers and the reason we are not still playing.

And sorry.. Barnett isn't the solution in that aspect.

I will back the Jenkins argument.. but no way in hell am I buying in on the Barnett argument.

Silliness.

Plain and simple.. the secondary got hung out to dry this season.. albeit the combo of Peprah and Morgan made it even more challenging.. bad angles, out position, late reads.. they made sure to sprinkle it all in.

We could also talk about Capers and staff taking the corners out of heavy bump and playing a little looser in man and our inability at corner to play the zone effectively, something we haven't done well in a number of years. Or maybe staying to conservative and trying to mask the coverage issues that we have between the backers and secondary.

Want a fix.. find some more pressure from both the inside and edges of the front 7... it is easier to find the edge than from the inside.. the one drawback to the 3-4. The Cullen Jenkins, Justin Smith types don't grow on trees.

Barnett.. lol.. that is a reach.

---

Coming into this season, Aaron Rodgers had started 52 games including the playoffs. In 26 of those games, the Packers had allowed fewer than 20 points; they went 23-3 (.884) in those games. In the remaining 26 games, the Packers had allowed at least 20 points and only gone 8-18 (.308). Their winning percentage when allowing 20+ points was 24th in the league since Rodgers took over. Ironically, they significantly improved that winning percentage this year, going 9-0 in games in which they allowed 20+ points compared to 6-1 when they allowed fewer than 20 points. That means that since Rodgers took over, the Packers are now 30-4 (.882) when allowing fewer than 20 points compared to 35-19 (.648) when allowing more than 20 points.

This team also improved its winning percentage in games decided by 6 points or less. Coming into this season, the Packers were 7-15 (.318) since 2008 in such games. That put them 30th in the league, ahead of only the Lions and Rams. This year they went 3-1 in such games, improving their overall record to 10-16 (.384) since 2008.

Coming into this season, the Packers had lost 6 consecutive overtime games dating back to the 2007 NFC Championship game, making Mike McCarthy the first coach ever to lose 6 OT games with a single team and Aaron Rodgers the only quarterback ever to lose 5 straight OT games with the same team. That streak continued this season, with the Packers falling to the Giants in OT, bringing McCarthy's streak to 7 and Rodgers' to 6. Both streaks are unprecedented.

Incidentally, the Packers have gone to overtime in 5 of their last 11 playoff games. Needless to say, they've lost every single one of those games. I wonder if that has ever happened before.

Coming into this season, the Packers were 3-16 (.157) in 4th-quarter comeback situations with Rodgers at the helm. After losing to the Chiefs, first beating and now losing to the Giants, they are 3-18 (.143) in such situations. (By the way, the average deficit overcome in the 3 comebacks was a mere 1.33 points.) That's not something that inspires either fan or team confidence when the game is on the line and the team is down by a field goal or touchdown. To its credit, the offense under Rodgers has been decent at coming from behind to tie a game in the 4th quarter, but they've been downright lousy at pulling off the win.

Another interesting fact is that in the past 46 games, the Packers have never lost by more than 6 points. In other words, they have been competitive in every game. They have had a chance to win every game they have played.

The point is that with Aaron Rodgers at the helm -- and really, ever since Mike McCarthy took over -- the Packers have been great at getting out to early leads and maintaining those leads. The problem is that this team pretty much has to get out in front early, because in close games they almost always lose and coming from behind is almost out of the question for them. This makes for a lot of exciting football, and it's sure been a lot of fun to watch, but it also underscores just how vulnerable this team was without a defense.

As Scott Kacsmar wrote  before the season began:


That trend continued this year, with the defense having to pull out a number of late interceptions to ice away games that, based on the number of point scored by the offense, should have been decided early. And of course, that strategy failed them when it really counted.

Hopefully, the Packers will be able to rectify some of those problems in the offseason. I enjoy watching the front running, but I also like to know that when the chips are down, my team will have a chance to pull out a dogfight . I don't like gambling on the odds of a last-second interception to pull out the victory.

---

I would argue the defenses inability to get offenses off the field this season to last season had a greater impact than relying on "key" interceptions.

This year, the defense could not be relied upon to make stops consistently within games.

2010

3rd conversion Percentage 36.2% - Ranked 9th in the league

270 1st downs allowed.

2011

3rd conversion Percentage 42.6% - Ranked 26th in the league

358 1st downs allowed.

To me.. that speaks more in volume than interceptions.. considering we were near the top of the league again in picks.

First Down Given Up

2010

Via Run 82
Via Pass 163
Via Flag 25

2011

Via Run 96
Via Pass 246
Via Flag 16

83 more first downs via the pass.. alarming even.

---