AJ Hawk, Lee and Martin cut


Thanks Nick for the alert on this. Read here. None of these moves is all that surprising. The Packers had to cut Hawk now before the ridiculous $10 mil guaranteed took effect. I would be surprised though if they don’t work something out with him. Hawk had a good season and by all accounts, stepped up as the quiet leader of a very good defense. Bishop and others said several times that Hawk was the play caller and the guy the defenders looked to before each play. While I still don’t think Hawk is THAT talented and TT certainly shouldn’t shell out too much for him, when coupling his intangible contributions with his quality level of play, I would like to see him back.

11 Responses to “AJ Hawk, Lee and Martin cut”

  1. Dave K Says:

    It’s hard for me to put a value on Hawk. He stays healthy and really played at a nice level this year. Consistently solid but not special. He played better then most fans thought he would. (I really liked his pressure on 2nd down of the Steelers last drive) He knows the defense and is assignment sure but not really a huge play maker. MM the other day really talked him up. I think the coaches really want him back but my guess is that how Hawk sees his ability and value differs quite a bit from how TT values him. Hawk sees himself as an above average starting MLB in this league and TT sees him as a solid ILB role player on a team with some other pretty good ILB’s. TT isn’t going to over-pay and Hawk isn’t going to settle. I’m not sure they meet in the middle on this one which is shame because I get the sense that both want to continue the relationship. But, Hawk only remains a Packer if the other 31 teams agree with TT about his value.

  2. Travis Says:

    5 year deal coming tomorrow. He’s flying back to Green Bay. It’s a report, but I’d be shocked if it wasn’t true..

    It’s no surprise. And it’s likely Barnett is the guy thats not going to be back. Sucks to have a guy whose been here for years go, but I think it’s our best move. Hawk, Bishop, Matthews and Zombo/Walden. I hope we get some sort of player at least developmental.. but I still think were thin on depth.

    Maybe we can bring Barnett back on a restructured deal as well. He’d be good for a backup. Not sure he’d accept that role though.

  3. Dave in Tucson Says:

    Link to report via JSOnline:

    5 year deal, no word on money.


  4. Dave K Says:

    I guess I was wrong…maybe they did meet in the middle. I will interested to see the contract details to see how Hawks deal stacks up against the other good ILB’s in the league.

  5. RayMidge Says:

    Great move to re-sign Hawk long-term. He has never lived up to being the 5th overall pick but he is a very solid player and he obviously is a leader on the team and he really seems to want to be in GB. Can’t overlook the character of a guy who didn’t even play in the 1st game of the season (due to the scheme) but never complained and never gave up. The way I look at it GB got a top 5 talent at the bottom of the 1st with Matthews and a bottom of the 1st value in the top 5 with Hawk. Even-Steven!

  6. Travis Says:

    From Jsonline, looks to be about 6-7 mil a year with 10 guaranteed…

    Decent, lets hope Hawk continues to perform.. and hopefully continue to improve and start making some impact plays.

  7. Nick Says:

    Good to see. Given injuries this year, we need as much lb depth as possible. Hawk is no all-star, but he’s a solid player and has sway in the locker room. A solid Packer through and through.

    • Travis Says:

      Well, its leading me to believe Barnett is gone. I think depth could be an issue next year. Obviously 6 mil to a backup is way too much.. But I’m just worried if we lose somebody, whats going to happen..

      Realistically we can’t each year get by the injuries like we did this year. It’s eventually going to really hurt the team, and a key loss at LB could certainly do that. I think for outside, Zombo and Walden could step in. But for inside, can Chillar do it? (he’s our inside guy right?) We’ll see I guess.

      Lets hope there’s a season, cause I’m pumped and ready for another go at the ring.

  8. Dave K Says:

    Barnett caused a issue before the Superbowl about the team picture and Rodgers criticized him about not rehabbing with the team. Rodgers is usually pretty careful with his words and it seemed like he intentionally told Barnett publically to back off. the fact that Rodgers was willing to do that might be telling. Also, MM just this week named Bishop one of the starters at ILB. That may have been a message to Barnett or maybe a way to see how Barnett reacts to it. My sense is that maybe Barnett isn’t a great locker room guy and having to earn his starting spot isn’t going to go over well.

    Chillar is the other important part of this equation. Chillar is scheduled to make around $2 million this year. Hawk has proven he can be an every down ILB so I don’t think you see Chillar taking his place in nickel going forward. Is a healthy Chillar good enough to play every down if Bishop of Hawk miss time? If yes, then that makes Barnett really expensive to keep. If no, then maybe they try to find room for Barnett.

    Regardless, this doesn’t have to play out right now. Barnett is under contract and nothing is guaranteed until much later. So much is unknown right now….who they will draft, when will trades resume, roster sizes, cap space, etc…. In the past the Packers have pushed cap space from one year into the next using ‘likely to be earned’ pay escalators that were very unlikely to be earned. My guess is that goes away in the new CBA as the players feel it is a end-round the salary cap. Teams won’t be able to hoard money for an upcoming big FA(s). With Finley and Jennings coming down the pike sooner rather then later that $6 million might be better used now to extend one of them rather then keep a back-up ILB with an attitude problem.

  9. RayMidge Says:

    Given the variety and creativity of Capers’ defense, its probably a mistake to think strictly in terms of 2 ILB, 2 OLB . . . at least 5 LBs seem to get a lot of run in various places over the course of a game. That said, I agree with everyone that Barnett is probably the most logical to go. His salary isn’t outrageous but it just doesn’t fit his production the last few years and he’s not getting any younger. While I think he can still help a team, this past year showed that he isn’t indispensible. When forced to choose TT always seems to go younger. They already have Hawk, Bishop, Chillar, Matthews, Zombo, Walden and Jones as younger/cheaper/healthier alternatives and that’s before they draft anyone.

    I would like to defend Barnett as a “clubhouse” guy, though. The picture thing was a small flap blown up by the Super Bowl hype-machine and I didn’t read anything special into Rodgers’ remarks. Barnett was a durable, productive leader on the D for some of the leaner years of the Favre/Rodgers era. He always expressed pride in being a Packer and wanted to be in GB. Time seems to have caught up to him and I think he will probably not be back but it would be a shame if he was portrayed as a troublemaker or a bad teammate (unless more comes out out course . . I am just going on what I have read so far). Personally I think its a shame he missed the SB run and I will think of him as a very solid player who got old in a hurry.

  10. Mike in Eau Claire Says:

    I don’t follow the player contract situations much, so I was shocked to hear that they cut Hawk…then relieved the hear they re-signed him the next day. Donald “stonefingers” Lee, however: smell ya later.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: