Marshawn Lynch is the anti-Hawk -- and that's meant pejoratively. Lynch is all flash, no substance -- and add the "character" issues in there to boot. Hawk may not light it up, but he's been a solid defensive contributor.

It isn't going to be every week that we run nickel 100% of the time. I think having Hawk in there for base defense is best -- and also as depth for in case Barnie or Chillar go down.

We're sitting one game into the season. IMO there are far too many snap judgments going on. We don't know the character of this team just yet, why pull the trigger?

---

Hate it.

Never liked Marshawn Lynch. He's a fruitcake; a gold-teefed gansta wannabe.

No thanks.

And I'm not that worried about running back anyway. I think BJack will be fine. We need depth, not a starter. I'm much more concerned about DE...

---

What? That is just really bad guess-work.

Why not keep Francois on the PS? Um, maybe because he is 27 - not exactly a spring chicken relative to the other younger players on the roster?

You realize that Francois now can be signed to any other team's 53 man roster, OR any teams Practice Squad; in other words the chances of Francois being picked up by another team increase now that he is off the practice squad.

Besides, Francois was tried at OLB. Hawk is an ILB. He will not be taking Hawks place, seeing as he plays a totally different position than him.

---

It wouldn't be bad bringing Lynch in but its also a loss losing Hawk.If it happens it happens either way it will work out ill be supportive about what ever happens.

---

This.

Hawk provides excellent depth; lat year he filled in pretty well when Chillar was injured.

Now some may say that Bishop will still be on the roster if we trade Hawk, therefore we still have excellent depth.

Bishop got a couple of weeks in training camp to earn more playing time when Chillar was being tried out at OLB.

He couldn't cover Finley, was inconsistent, and still thought too big of himself - he talked big but played little. We hear a lot of talk from Bishop, but that is just it: not much substance behind those talks. Hawk is still the best ILB we have to replace Chillar, and he is an excellent option on our depth chart.

To trade it for a RB who has known character issues and is basically a 3rd string RB on another team... well it's not a good move.

---

I don't know if I like this....

1) Would Lynch want to change teams just to be a back-up again? (I would understand that, though, because the Packers have a shot at the super bowl)

2) Next year when Grant is back, Lynch would just be moved back down to 3rd string....

3) I don't think this would be fair to Brandon Jackson. I can understand the move if it was just for this year, but when Grant gets back, we don't need Lynch

4) You really think Bishop is better than Hawk? I don't. I would try to trade Bishop before I would Hawk....

I would definitely take Lynch on my team, and it would help us out tremendously for this year. But in the long run (next year) we won't need him. I don't want to see us lose Grant OR Jackson.

Maybe he would be content with being our 3rd string RB?

---