We have depth at WR.

If Chiller can't come back from another surgery on that same shoulder, we would be down to Francois and Wilhelm for depth on the inside.

I would rather keep the depth at LB.

---

You forgot about Nate Irving, our 3rd or 4th round pick. He'll solidify our depth chart for the next several years just fine. 🙂

There's that stat again: number of tackles. Meaningless. It just means that he's played middle (or inside) linebacker a lot. Middle linebackers get a lot of tackles whether or not they are any good.

I think Barnett is a very good player, but not a great player, and nobody is worth $11 million for two years as a backup.

I also don't agree with your Chillar/Hawk comparison. For Chillar to be making the kind of money he's made as a backup is an exception, not the rule, and it's still nowhere near what Barnett would make. Add to that the awkward situation of having a benchwarmer who used to be a team leader who is emotional and known for shooting his mouth off. The interviews would be interesting, especially after the defense has a bad game, but it would not be good for team chemistry.

I think Nick will be gone regardless of what they can get for him in a trade, which will either be a low round pick or nothing at all. The decision whether or not to keep him will not depend on what they can get in a trade. He will be gone because you don't pay that kind of money for a backup who would cause team chemistry issues to boot. Too bad for Nick, who seemed remarkably level-headed in this interview.

---

If Chillar is not up to par and Bishop tweaks his hamstring and is out for a month or so again, Nate Irving isn't going to ride in and save the day. If we lose 2 ILBs, which happened last year, we would be awfully thin there without Barnett.

---

I wouldn't agree that Barnett is a backup. MM said Bishop would be the starter if we played now because Barnett isn't healthy. Then he mentioned that we are not playing football now. He seemed to be making a point.

I was also comparing Barnett with Hawk. Since Hawk sat on the bench for the first game of the year. His 5 mil a year salary was on the bench. Giving me a fine precedent to cite. The Salary between Chillar and Hawk is fairly comparable to Bishop and Barnett. In that specific order.

Lumping Barnetts final two years together like the last year in a contract actually means something is a little misleading. Everybody knows that won't happen. It is irrelevant.

---

I hadn't considered that the final year of Barnett's contract is one of those meaningless years. So I guess the question is how much he will make this year. I was thinking that it would still be a lot of money for a backup, but I don't know the number.

It's hard to picture Barnett beating out Bishop for the starting job, because I thought Bishop was clearly better than Barnett at that position, and that's not a knock on Barnett. Bishop was just that good. He was tougher than Barnett against the run, at least as good a blitzer, and at least as good in pass coverage, which was supposed to be his weakness. He's also younger and healthier.

You are right that the McCarthy comment is potentially interesting, though McCarthy reveals so little with his comments that I don't put much stock in it. We'll see what happens.

---

There's no question in my mind that Bishop and Hawk are the starters. Barnett will accept a backup role, be traded, or cut.

I'd love to have him for depth without a doubt. I just don't see it happening. I'll keep my fingers cross though.

I would like to see us get some value for Barnett also. For the reasons mentioned, missed tackles and made tackles - after too many yards. The D played better after Bishop took over his position and Hawk called the plays and directed the players. If we can't get dedcent value, we can restructure his contract and he is a good soldier(backup) keeping him would be OK.

---

This is kind of my point. I am not ready to anoint either of them starter yet. We'll see what happens when they are competing for snaps. If that even happens, because we can never know the mind of the Ted. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Bishop is 26 and Barnett is 29. He isn't that much younger. He is a lot more inexperienced though. Much more than the age differential.

---

Bishop has plenty of experience to be the starter...he started basically the whole season and we won the superbowl...

Plus, he's seen playing time before this year.

---