Surviving Sunday: Packers News, Notes and Links for the Football Deprived All Green Bay Packers All the Time
Surviving Sundays with no Packers Football
Surviving Sundays with no Packers footba

If B.J. Raji and A.J. Hawk had a baby, he would fit in perfectly on the Packers defense.


Now that you’ve cleaned up the vomit and are fully recovered from the mental image of Hawk and Raji breeding, please continue reading:

All signs are pointing to Hawk starting at linebacker for the Green Bay Packers for the 9th consecutive season. Over the last eight years, Hawk has amassed 832 tackles, 18.5 sacks, nine interceptions and four forced fumbles.

If I were to ask you to name a memorable Hawk tackle or a key play where he forced a fumble or knocked down a pass, could you do it? I’m racking my brain right now and the only play I can come up with is when he sacked Sam Bradford in 2011 and flipped off the Packers bench.

That play was memorable, but not necessarily because of the impact it had on the game.

Raji had dollar signs in his eyes when he turned down a lucrative contract extension from the Packers midway through last season. Those dollar signs turned to tears after Raji’s play fell off a cliff, the extension offer was withdrawn, and Raji returned to Green Bay on a 1 year “prove-it” deal worth $4 million.

If I were to ask you to name a memorable play in Raji’s career, I guarantee everyone reading this will cite the pick-six against the Bears in the 2011 NFC title game and the ensuing Raji Dance. Raji also had 6.5 sacks in 2010 and occasionally gets featured in replays blowing up the center or pushing back a double team and wrecking a running play.

It’s safe to say both Hawk and Raji have failed to meet Packers’ fans expectations. Yes, Hawk is consistent, but with the No. 5 pick in the draft, Packers fans wanted a guy who scared the other team, not someone who’s just consistently ok. Raji has had moments of brilliance, but gets wiped off the line far too often and disappears for long stretches that lead to breakdowns in the Packers run defense.

Basically, if Hawk had some of Raji in him — an occasional flashy play that changed a game — and Raji had some of Hawk in him — more consistency — both players would be closer to meeting the expectations of Packers fans.

The offspring of Hawk and Raji, who would undoubtedly be named B.J. Hawk or A.J. Raji, would be perfect for the Packers defense.

Hawk and Raji are durable, which is a major anomaly on the Packers defense. Combine that durability with the steady tackling and firey attitude of Hawk and the raw athletic ability and size of Raji and you’d have an ideal player.

You’d also have one helluva celebration dance. I’d call it the “Middle Finger Mackarena.”

Unfortunately for Packers fans, genetics and basic laws of human decency prevent Raji and Hawk from bearing a child. Instead, we have to rely on another season of hoping that Hawk makes more impactful plays and Raji doesn’t end up on the back of a milk carton for half the season.

This column has totally gone off the rails, so let me try and close it with some sense of normalcy: Has Raji or Hawk had the better career so far?

Even though we might remember more plays from Raji, the edge here has to go to Hawk. As frustrating and underwhelming as Hawk can be, he doesn’t completely disappear like Raji often does. Plus the middle finger celebration is slightly better than the fat guy dance.

Packers News, Notes and Links

  • Michelle at Bleacher Report argues that the Packers should use fewer shotgun formations. It’s tough to argue with her. When under center, Aaron Rodgers had an 83.3 percent accuracy rate with a 120.6 QB rating compared to 78.3 and 100.5 out of the shotgun. With Eddie Lacy now in the backfield, putting Rodgers under center more often should also boost the running game and allow the Packers to use more multiple sets.
  • Brian Carriveau at CheeseheadTV highlights how the Packers don’t pay much for wide receivers compared to other teams, and how that’s about to change with looming extensions for Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb. Nelson was grossly underpaid with his previous extension, and he’s talking like his re-signing with Green Bay is a foregone conclusion. Even if he’s slightly underpaid with the upcoming extension, he’ll still rake in a ton of cash and boost the Packers overall spending on receivers.
  • Here’s more on the Nelson and Cobb contract situation from’s Thomas Hobbes.
  • Jason Hirschhorn breaks down the film on new Packers DT Khyri Thornton. Hirschhorn’s conclusion: “Thornton remains an intriguing (albeit high-risk) prospect who could carve out a role in the base 3-4 defense over the next two years. He also brings enough versatility to contribute in the Packers’ 4-3 under packages. The pressure is on Dom Capers and Mike Trgovac to find a way to get Thornton snaps along a crowded defensive line.” (I never heard of Thornton before so I’ll take Hirschhorn’s word for it.)
  • Ian Hanley power ranks the Packers safeties. Based on last season, here’s how my rankings would look: 1. Ha Ha Clinton-Dix (because he can’t be any worse than the other safeties on the team); 2. Morgan Burnett (because there was nobody else to put at No. 2); 3. Micah Hyde (because why not?); 4. Whoever else can walk upright and play safety.
  • The Out of the Pocket podcast team at breaks down OTAs and hot yoga. OTAs and hot yoga go together like Brett Favre and questionable decisions.
  • It sounds like Scott Tolzein is making a good impression at Packers OTAs. I was surprised by Tolzein’s arm strength last season and look forward to seeing what he can with a full offseason in the Packers system. To me, Tolzein has a higher ceiling than Matt Flynn.

Non Packers links and other Nonsense

  • Some people’s reactions to Bowe Bergdahl’s return home is embarrassing. There’s not an *asterisks next to Support Our Troops that says *but not the troops who may have made a poor decision while under extreme stress in a war zone that most of us will never understand. As far the negotiating with terrorists talking point, every president negotiates with terrorists and every president will continue to negotiate with terrorists. Why does everything has to turn into a political circus that makes Americans dumber?
  • I’m in the middle of “Console Wars,” a new book that digs into the video game battle between Sega and Nintendo in the early 1990s. So far, it’s a great read. I wasted a lot of my teenage years playing NHL 94 on the Sega Genesis. I was also one of the few kids who owned a Sega Master System.
  • Best rock band you’ve never heard of: Red Fang.
  • Friday was the 70th anniversary of the attack on Normandy Beach. There’s nothing I can say to capture the importance of that day, so listen to the men who were there instead.

Adam Czech is a a freelance sports reporter living in the Twin Cities and a proud supporter of American corn farmers. When not working, Adam is usually writing about, thinking about or worrying about the Packers. Follow Adam on Twitter. Twitter .


62 thoughts on “Surviving Sunday: Packers News, Notes and Links for the Football Deprived

  1. As far as Bergdhal is concerned yes there is an asterisk. It’s one thing to go AWOL it’s another to join the enemy and hate your country.

    US Army 1996-1970

    I spit on this piece of garbage, Adam and if you don’t understand that stick to the Packers.

    1. So now Bergdahl “joined the enemy and hates his country?”

      Seriously, how do people reach these conclusions?

      Sorry, normally I don’t respond to such obvious troll comments, but since this is the first comment people will see as they scroll down, it needed a response. I don’t want non-regulars who visit the site and wander into our comments section to think is just another blog filled with angry, drooling trolls.

      1. I really don’t understand how one mustn’t assign unflattering motives to Bergdahl, but a commenter (regular or not) who expresses his opinion regarding him is an “angry, drooling troll.” It’s pretty sad that we’ve come to this.

      2. Adam – so someone responds to a political topic YOU initiated and you label them as “angry, drooling trolls.” Really?

        I have a feeling sometime in the future, you’ll espouse on how we should allow viewpoints different than our own to be expressed. If you want to see the troll here, look in the mirror.

        1. Anyone who calls an American soldier a piece of garbage to be spit on is an angry, drooling troll — especially when their grasp of the issue is so far off base that they accuse that American soldier of “joining the enemy”

          1. As a Marine Corps veteran, my thought is to wait to pass judgment until all the facts are in, over the next couple of months.
            Saw some interviews of comrades of Bergdahl, but, would like to hear his side, and would also, like to know all the details of the note he left his mates before he disappeared…

            1. I think you hit the nail on the head. Wait until all the facts are in before passing judgment. At this point it really doesn’t look good, but it’s way too early to say at this point in time.

              1. The pastor at the church my wife grew up in was the associate pastor at Bergdahl’s church in ID. That church has been praying for Bergdahl’s release for years – knowing full well that Bowe was a “free spirit who did things his own way” (their words).

                I am glad he’s on his way home. If he deserted and did so because he intended on hurting the military, then he should be punished.

                But being punished in Ft. Leavenworth or Ft. Bragg is FAR better than in some cave in a trackless wasteland with people who hate you and are only using you for political gain.

          2. I was an American soldier who watched a piece of garbage go over to the Soviets in 1969. He was despised by all 100 of us at our post. Got it, buddy?

            Are you seriously telling everyone here that a GI in 1944 who went over to the Nazis is anything other than dirt?

            Who are you?

    2. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad, all the ex servicemen and women coming out of the wood work to hang this guy. Pitchforks and straw hats. We have something in this country called due process. Even the armed forces have it(in a medieval kinda way). I don’t know if he’s guilty but if possible he deserves a trial by his peers. It’s what we at least say we’re fighting and dying for.

      1. But the next time an NFL player says that it’s hard for someone who’s never worn the uniform to understand this or that about the business, what are you going to say? And where was the congressional notification, if we are speaking of due process?

        1. As both a veteran and lifetime Packers fan, I can and will note that you are offbase. Congress was notified that talks were in progress for the release of Bergdahl and John McCain himself said back in Feb, he would support an exchange provisionally.

          Additionally, ever claiming that anyone should spit on a veteran and POW is beyond the pale. Do you even remember of the Vietnam vets? Bring the man home, review the facts and if necessary, hold a trial for his actions.

          1. I am grateful for your service, but even Dianne Feinstein seems to be somehow under the impression that the administration didn’t properly notify Congress. The administration then trial ballooned a variety of excuses, including eventually that they were afraid that his captors would execute him if the negotiation information got leaked from Congress. Why the Taliban would make such a threat, nobody seems to be able to explain, but keep in mind that this is the same White House that ridiculously blew the identity of the CIA station chief over there, just a week or so ago.

            Oh, yeah, I remember the Vietnam vets. And I see a bunch of administration apologists questioning the motives of the soldiers who are now sharing their ground-level views of what happened with Bergdahl, the soldiers who, it seems, were asked to sign non-disclosure documents regarding the circumstances of his disappearance, and who shut up until the politicians tried to sell a feel-good narrative about complete asshattery. In my respectful opinion. Sir.

            1. Dan Collins…good points…
              This administration is truly clueless, time-and-again, it is embarrassing…At once,”He(Bowe Bergdahl)was so sick we had to make the swap now,” without notifying congress thirty days in advance or one day in advance for that matter per the Law…or the disgraced Susan Rice, who needs to shut-up and stay off TV, “He served with Honor and Distinction”…
              My reading is that Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers at the outpost where he was serving were not “asked to sign non-disclosure documents (just like at Benghazi, Libya)” but, were forced to sign non-disclosure documents. That in itself points to yet another cover-up.
              The new name for the Obama administration should either be the Keystone Cops or the Pinocchio Regime.
              But, nonetheless, let us sit back, and wait until ALL the facts are in before rendering an opinion and a verdict….

              1. John, I agree that it’s best to render judgments when in possession of all the relevant information. That is what I would expect in a Court Martial. However, what we have here is another dispatching of admin hacks to shape the narrative, just as they did when they tried to use an “interagency deliberative process” to gut all of the true information out of intelligence regarding Benghazi, so that they could substitute this BS about a YouTube video, and turn around and lecture us all about Islamophobia.

                The administration then stonewalled Congress, called it politicization (though the decisions and its own reaction were all political from the start), and then said, after things dragged out from the withholding of information that it is legally obliged to supply, that it was an old story, and “what difference, at this point, does it make.”

                I have no confidence that things will be different here. I don’t think the admin wants the facts to be known. I don’t think they want there to be a Court Martial, or any kind of inquiry. I think they want to sell us this soft soap line about how Bergdahl’s suffered enough, and you mustn’t judge him, and you mustn’t judge us, because, after all, our hearts were in the right place, and Justice is whatever the heck we say it is, and bugger the law.

                But this whole thing started over Adam’s saying that people’s reactions to being lied to, badly, insultingly, again by this administration were embarrassing, rather than the behavior of the administration itself. What he means is, be quiet. I’m sorry, but no, thank you.

                They broke the law and brokered a horrible bargain from a position of weakness because they thought that in the wake of the VA revelations they would show us all how much they truly care about the troops, and they miscalculated badly. They screwed up, but it appears that if I point this out, in response to a throw-away complaint in a sports column, it is I who am the danger to the Republic. Because among the inalienable rights vested in us by the founders (who quaintly argued that they were vested in us by our Creator), the most important is the right to shut up when the President does something that combines illegality and stupidity.

        2. So even if no notification was given, your rational is 2 wrongs make a right? Nice.

          1. I’m sorry, I seem to have missed your point. To what two wrongs are you alluding? I’m going to assume you mean that on the one hand you’ve got soldiers who are very angry at Bergdahl, and who use heated language to express their anger, and on the other hand you’ve got the administration not complying with the law.

            Let’s break this down a little bit. This man walked off his post, but in another comment in this thread, I am accused of being “off base” and “beyond the pale,” for suggesting that as a matter of fact the administration did not comply with the law. A soldier deserted his post during a time of war, and somehow I’m supposed to be outraged that some other commenter states, rhetorically, that he spits on the garbage that he considers Bergdahl to be. Vietnam veterans were actually spat on. A soldier walked away from his post, actually, inaugurating all kinds of nasty consequences from his actual behavior. Yet we are to denounce the heated rhetoric, and reserve judgment of the soldier, till we better understand his motives. There’s something fundamentally crazy about elevating the act of heated commenting beyond the real act of desertion, in my view. But observe that above there is someone who is claiming that Congress was in fact notified, even though the administration is making excuses for not having properly notified Congress. My assertion, based on the facts as I can best suss them out, given the information available to me, is somehow seen as more transgressive than Bergdahl’s actual behavior, which actually involved walking “off base” and “beyond the pale.”

            In fact, the administration’s representation of Bergdahl was prejudicial. They were fashioning a narrative that they thought would serve them, rather than telling the straight-up truth about the circumstances, many of which had been outlined a couple years ago in a Rolling Stone article. And then they started spinning, and spinning, in a way that is quite honestly, to me, insulting. And because I think, especially now that Bergdahl’s recovered, the soldiers who served with him have every right to tell the story from their perspectives, I’m somehow made out to be the bad guy who doesn’t remember Vietnam vets. Now, I could bring up the career-starting testimony of a certain Secretary of State regarding his fellow soldiers, and all the rest, but I don’t want to get out in the weeds here.

            Then there is your appeal to due process. You’re quite right: there should probably be a court martial given to Bergdahl. Certainly. But then, actual lawbreaking on the part of the executive branch, which was quite aware that it was breaking the law, though charged with the law’s execution, is treated with kid gloves, while the expression of contrary opinions (and we all have them, and generally base them on necessarily incomplete information) is somehow outrageous.

            The people who are charged with the execution of the law really ought to have the greatest obligation to comply with the law. Suspend judgment till all the facts are in? Sure, but keep in mind that Mrs. Clinton claims in her book that we may never know the truth about Benghazi. And why might that be? Because, in her estimation, all the facts will never be in. So, presumably, we must simply suspend judgment forever, which is most convenient. At the same time, she would like us to believe that her book is made of nothing but the choicest morsels of truth. It really is mind-boggling. It was pretty mind-boggling to me that Candy Crowley tried to get McCain to state that his captivity was essentially the same as Bergdahl’s. If that’s sophistication, then it seems to me that sophistication has become a form of mental retardation.

            You know what was really wrong, though? Bergdahl’s behavior. And the deal that the administration made, in my opinion, was really very wrong. McCain said that he supported a deal for Bergdahl ‘provisionally’? Provided what conditions? If the conditions provided did not include exchanging 5 Taliban commanders, it is dishonest to try to represent that as a prior endorsement of this deal. I can ‘provisionally’ support a deal for Aaron Rodgers, but I’ll be damned if I think any team would pay what I would want in exchange. If the team then traded him for the Jets’ second round pick, I would blow a gasket. And if I were told that I’d somehow expressed my approval, I’d blow another.

            My interpretations are mine. It is possible that we can look at the same thing and come to very disparate conclusions, just as scouts sometimes look at the same player and see very different prospects for the pros. That doesn’t necessarily make either of us bad, or dishonest, or stupid, although either or both of us may very well be wrong. However, if you accuse me of ungracious and ungenerous interpretations, please do take care that you don’t evince the very same behavior that you’re criticizing, or I am liable to call you out.

        3. Also I don’t have to say anything, Doesn’t matter if I wear a uniform or not. There are a set of constitutional rights for us all. I bet you wouldn’t let them take your gun, but you would throw due process out the window…That is Ironic in my opinion.

          1. Wow, that’s wonderfully bigoted. Do I have a gun? You know this how? And yet, we mustn’t rush to judgment. Were you this adamant about George Zimmerman’s due process? Were you snarking down everyone expressing their online opinion about that case? Or was it then their right to rush to judgment on the Internet? Was it a matter of free speech? Was it regrettable, but what are you going to do? Or was that a special case?

            I’m really big on due process, and the law. I wish this administration cared more about those things. I wish people were more careful about their judgments, and about the evidence, and not so easily swayed by emotions. I wish Nancy Grace weren’t on the air, but, hey, if that’s your bag, dig in. I wish our government were more honest. I wish we weren’t so polarized. I wish sports and politics weren’t so entangled. I wish you’d make a better argument.

            1. The reality is that the founding fathers gave us inalienable rights to protect us from people like you Dan. People so full of emotion that it blocks their view on reality. You have no direct knowledge of the situation, just here say. Yet your conviction is absolute. Before 1776 there really were pitch forks. I for one and glad it’s toned down to keyboards. You would be a great lesson in Civics where I a teacher..hmm

              1. You are very presumptuous, and very egoistical, and those two things tend to go together. You have no idea what my convictions are. You conclude on nothing but the strength of your bigotry that I own a gun, when in fact I do not, based on what you would likely under other circumstances denounce as prejudicial ‘profiling.’

                I have strung together a certain amount of argument here, whereas you counter with smug snark. That’s all it is. Who, between the two of us, has attempted to have a conversation? I believe you very well may represent a waste of my time, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that prideful twatwaffles like you are somehow licensed to teach the young how not to think.

            2. I also don’t need to make a better argument, that was also already done for me about 240 years ago

              1. You’re like debating a marshmallow. What the hell are you talking about? You’re self-discrediting. You don’t care whether another commenter’s facts are wrong, just so long as they express opinions you like. You don’t think that the opinions of those who wear the uniform regarding desertion should have any special dispositive weight, but you pull ‘rank’ with CIVICS TEACHAR!

                I’ll tell you what: why don’t you de-cloak and express yourself in the form of some reasonable argument, instead of smirky, non sequitur sound-bites? I am not sure, at all, that you are capable.

  2. I love your site, Al, and am grateful for all the time and effort you and your crew put in to bring me Packers news and opinion, but regarding Bergdahl’s release, the embarrassment is the administration. Here’s a guy who walked away from his post and asked to be connected with the enemy in time of war. He caused a massive reallocation of mission personnel and materiel, and he may have gotten a number of his comrades killed looking for him. His idiocy prompted the release of 5 Taliban commanders to Qatar, on condition that they not leave for a year, and may have involved other concessions, but there’s certainly no guarantee that none of them will return to the battlefield even before the last US troops are pulled out of there, and beyond the US troops, there are Afghanis who will likely die at the hands, or at least under the orders, of these barbarians. And make no mistake, they are barbarians.

    Well, why politicize this decision, you seem to be asking. It was always already political. It was a political calculation of the administration, against the advice of military and other threat assessors, and it was calculated, very poorly, to be a PR coup. They did the deal without the required consent of Congress, and then they seem to have lied about the circumstances that led to that ‘oversight.’ They trotted out Susan Rice to state that Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction.” Don’t piss down my leg and tell me it’s raining, please. People will have their reactions. You can chalk them up to whatever you like. A Packers beat writer can say that they shouldn’t have signed Lyerla, because he’s a character risk, and others can disagree with him based on their own assessment of risks and rewards.

    You say we can’t possibly understand someone’s motives under those extraordinary circumstances, yet a million people will accuse one of being motivated by racial hatred for any criticism whatsoever of this administration. At some point, motives don’t matter. I’m not crying over the Santa Barbara shooters self-pitying motives. You’re not going to cry the next time some NFL player does something absolutely repugnant and gets his ass in a jam.

    We live in an age where the mantra, ‘the personal is political,’ has gotten way out of control. Because professional sports attract eyeballs, they are increasingly hijacked as means to advance political agendas. Personally, and I think that I speak for many people, my interest in pro sports is escapist. It bothers me that they have been so thoroughly invaded by politics.

    You sportswriters have every right to express your political convictions wherever you wish. And other people have every right to express theirs, too. But the most embarrassing thing about this whole episode probably emerged from an administration flak who tweeted the line that perhaps Bergdahl was surrounded by psychopaths in his unit. Unbe-effing-lievable.

    This swap was so bad, even Dan Devine wouldn’t have contemplated it. And if I ever eyeball a column here about how so-and-so is a divisive figure in the locker room, and a distraction, and not a team player, I’m not going to bitch about it, but I sure as hell am going to roll my eyes.

  3. I don’t think Hawk is as bad as everybody thinks. Granted, I’m only an Australian who’s only been following the Green Bay religiously for about 6 years but I like his reliability. Some of the stats quoted here and there seem to back that view up too.

    As an Aussie who has served on the ground in Afghanistan all I have to say about Bergdahl is that it is unthinkable that you would walk away from your mates whilst in combat. Unthinkable and unforgiveable. That’s all I have to say about that…

      1. Archie, sometimes I Love your sarcasm!

        This one, you appear to have hit the nail on the head…Am hoping Barrington and/or Bradford step-up and play substantial time at ILB…

  4. We bring them home. Every soldier is a soldier until they are discharged. All the talk about them personally is nothing but gossip and all you people wasting your time opinionating on this guy are making yourselves look small minded and petty. It’s easy to be self righteous and sanctimonious when you believe all the gossip.

    1. It’s not gossip when all the soldiers who served with him are attesting to the fact that he deserted.

    2. Yeah, that was the clincher for me. They guys in his section are the only ones who would know FOR SURE what happened…

  5. I’ve always wondered who the Hawk haters believe would have made those 100+ tackles per year if Hawk was not there.

  6. Adam,you have shown a huge disrespect to our soldiers,especially those of the past when you placed the dribble about Bergdhal and those of D-Day in the same article.

    The people of this country are suffering and to some degree rightfully so for the two times they elected a President based on attempting to prove that race doesn’t matter and simply discarded any and all ability away to hold the office to the curb in doing so…Affirmative Action in its glory.

    Those who argue this as not true are either totally politically blind,or just love living in the land of denial.

    One of the saddest things that will come after his term is up,counting the days,is that this fool will have a Library and I honestly cannot think of ‘one’ thing he has done that would merit a visit to see it…except of coarse,how well he was able to blame everyone else for the woes and blunders,self made or not,that nearly every President had to deal with.

    Many here have written about the heroic thing Pat Tillman did when he gave up his career and $millions to serve his country.Ask this question,do you think Tillman would have accepted the trade off Obama-la-ma-ding-dong gave for a Bergdhal,especially knowing who they were and what they did as a whole and or individually?

    1. Let me start by saying that I’m just as disappointed in Obama as everyone else. But to claim everyone who voted for him did so because of race is beyond ridiculous. He gave great speeches in 2008, and sounded like someone who might actually change the game in Washington. As for 2012 – he won because he went up against Mitt Romney, one of the least likable major party candidates to ever win a primary.

      1. of course it wasn’t everyone. but I guarantee you there were alot that did. I was in college at the time, and it was unbelievable how many of my peers (who completely ignore politics 99% of the year) straight up admitted to me that they voted for him because it would be cool to make history by electing the first black president.

        1. I wouldn’t be surprised if your peers told you that because they didn’t want to get into a political argument with you, so they said something to stop that conversation before it started.

          I suppose Obama vs. Clinton was just a bunch of people voting for which glass ceiling they wanted to break first?

          1. nope, this stuff just comes up in casual conversation, and I certainly didn’t initiate any of it. I play stuff close to the vest, so I doubt most people know what my political leanings are. I certainly don’t volunteer anything. just fly-on-the-wall hearing things around campus.

      2. Yeah,he won because he had a depth of experience and a resume’ that boasted such.If he was white with same,you wouldn’t even know his name.

        1. Lack of experience is actually an asset for candidates these days. Less of a record to attack.

          Do you think most people would vote Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin only because they’re female? Or Joe Lieberman only because he’s Jewish? Or Keith Ellison only because he’s a Muslim? Maybe that helps someone get a job at your nearby coffee shop, but I don’t think many people seriously vote for a President because “it would be cool if ______ were a president.”

          For the record: I didn’t vote for Obama because he’s a Bears fan. You can’t trust someone like that in the highest office in the land.

          1. I didn’t vote for Obama the first time around because he was a Bears fan, but voted for him the second time around because of how he handled the Packers visit to the White House after winning the Super Bowl.

            He really kept his cool under pressure.

            If the Bears win a Super Bowl when I’m president, I would invite them to the White House with open arms, then once they arrived, I’d have the CIA arrest the entire team and ship them off to Guantanamo.

      3. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who votes for an individual because of race,one way or the other is a bigot…

        Anyone, and again, I mean ANYONE, who votes for someone specifically because they are of a specific sex or gender, is a moron…

        And back in Green Bay, I Love the Packers!

  7. Adam, really enjoy your analysis on the Packers. However, as an Army veteran with 33 years of active duty service and three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think your insights on the Bergdahl issue, were well intended, but off base. Bergdahl deserted his unit in combat and put his fellow Soldiers at risk as a direct result of his selfish behavior. I’m amazed at how disconnected some can be from military values to believe that Bergdahl served with anything resembling distinction and honor. As a nation, we have buried far too many loyal American Soldiers who truly sacrificed and suffered, but never broke faith with their country. I agree we should try to bring back all our Soldiers, but not under any conditions, certainly not by returning five Taliban terrorist leaders to return to the battlefield. The Israelis conduct prisoner exchanges, but do so regrettably. It is not seen as a cause for celebration. I look forward to the day that our leaders in Washington apply “No Soldier Left Behind”, not only to deserters, but to the our veterans left behind by the VA. Thanks.

  8. As I have said many times before Raji has been misused by Capers. That 2010 season Raji was at nose tackle. His first season and the last three years he’s been a defensive end with Pickett at nose tackle. He is not a defensive end and never will be. He is a very good nose tackle when he can use his power (ie his 6.5 sacks in 2010). He is being moved back to nose tackle this season. Three years too late. What a waste of prime playing time.

    1. Playing DE effectively with 30 inch arms is hard to do. Of course, TT doesn’t think so because he just drafted another guy with 30 inch arms to play DE. So much for putting more length on the DL. What is wrong with TT? Putting two guys on the DL, both with 30 inch arms, backed up by AJ Hawk and Brad Jones. What a freak show.

    2. Mr. Deniston, I agree with your assessment of BJ Raji and hope he returns to 2010 form. He was pitiful at DE.

      Secondly, I have noticed a lack of enthusiasm by the other 31 teams out there for Ryan Pickett. Yet some were lambasted on this site last year, for stating they believed he was a below average nose tackle. Why do we no longer hear a peep from these ‘experts’?

  9. LOOKING BACK AT THE 2006 DRAFT, THERE’S NOT THAT MANY LBs still playing. DeMeco Ryans comes to mind, who fell the beginning of the 2nd rd to the Texans and was later named AP Defensive Rookie of the Year.

    Elvis Dumervil fell to the 4th rd of this draft because everyone said he was too small, but would probably be a 1st rounder now.

    Overall, I’m disappointed Hawk is not the impact player we’d hoped he’d be. However, as the article notes, his durability and tackling productivity at least have allowed him to have a pretty long career with the Packers.

  10. Red Fang is awesome. Definitely see them if you ever get the chance. Or just YouTube “prehistoric dog”

  11. A.J. Hawk had the Packers first ever interception of Brett Lorenzo Favre. Lambeau Field, 10/24/10. Just went back and did a quick search, couldn’t find a video on it. But the point is true, both of these players need to step up in 2014 if the Packers want more than they’ve had over the past three seasons. No excuses!

  12. Being a Marine veteran I understand the hostility toward this guy. I think we planted homing devices in these 5 dudes asses and will be able to monitor there movement. If they do something evil here come the drones. Hawk is our best ILBor he wouldn’t be out there. You wanted a new #66 crushing people like everyone did, but he is AJ Hawk there are no # 66’s anymore.

  13. That’s 2 political articles in the last 3 weeks round about here… I participated in the last one… not this one.

    I miss football. Raji makes me angry. Hawk is so maddening to watch. I hope we get halfway decent TE, S and ILB play this year. The 5 techniques scare me because none of them seem like run stoppers…

    There. I “hijacked” the thread right back.

    #ISeeWhatYouDidThere 😉

    1. Don’t think I’ve participated in either.

      Raji at DE was a disappointment, not surprisingly… I’m anxious to see him back at NT where he belongs! He never should have been moved IMO.

      Hawk is what he is… A dependable player the Packers can count on, which should be commended given the amount of missed games by others. Not saying it makes him great, mind you.

      We play base 34 about 1/4 of the downs. I don’t think the 5 tech DE are going to make or break the D. But hoping the Packers get good or better NT from Raji, Datone and one other DE isn’t really a stretch by any means. 5 tech is among the least of my worries given the smallish role involved in the D overall.

  14. Love the website; love the writers; love the Surviving Sunday edition; but hate to see our football polluted with politics. Packers football is holy ground.

  15. Hey, let’s get back to AJ and Raji. They’re both spectacular and should continue to start for u guys for years to come! Please Mr. Thompson offer BJ (that’s why he drafted him) that $8 million per yr package again. Maybe he’ll settle for it this time around.
    Running up the middle against those two is absolutely frightful.

    1. One thing Obama can do to save his legacy is to trade you to the Taliban.

  16. On an unrelated note, I think we should stop with the Viqueens, Biqueens nicknames. From now on we should just call them “The Vikings”, because they are a “team”.

  17. He certainly should…..that’s what he’s attracted to. Oh if Vince only knew his beloved Pack was being run by the rainbow coalition!

Comments are closed.