Barnett: 'We Don't Know Where We Stand'

Dexter_Sinister
100% (Exalted)
Registered

14 years ago

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.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

doddpower
100% (Exalted)
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#22

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.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

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

Greg C.
50.25% (Neutral)
Registered

14 years ago

#23

I don't want to sound like I am defending Barnett because I also think he is kind of a tool. But to be honest, he is third in career tackles for the Packer all time and would need 35 tackles to take the lead. (records kept since '75) He is only 29 and missed about a year and a half due to injury. He led the team in tackles a record 5 times. Set a single season record for the Packers with 194 (128 solo). According to the Packers website.

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Nick-Barnett/5d06d9b3-687f-49b4-91bf-0a292f3a2bac

Chillar and Hawk started the year splitting time and Hawk didn't even get an offensive snap in first game. If we can afford Chillar and Hawk for one position, we can afford Bishop and Barnett.

The reason we won the super bowl is depth. We were able to go 5 deep at OLB, 3 deep at safety. I would think everyone learned the lesson of how vitally important depth is. Including the ILBs. Because we lost 2 of them also.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

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.

blank

Dexter_Sinister
100% (Exalted)
Registered

14 years ago

#24

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.

"doddpower" wrote:

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

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

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 want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

Dexter_Sinister
100% (Exalted)
Registered

14 years ago

#25

I don't want to sound like I am defending Barnett because I also think he is kind of a tool. But to be honest, he is third in career tackles for the Packer all time and would need 35 tackles to take the lead. (records kept since '75) He is only 29 and missed about a year and a half due to injury. He led the team in tackles a record 5 times. Set a single season record for the Packers with 194 (128 solo). According to the Packers website.

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Nick-Barnett/5d06d9b3-687f-49b4-91bf-0a292f3a2bac

Chillar and Hawk started the year splitting time and Hawk didn't even get an offensive snap in first game. If we can afford Chillar and Hawk for one position, we can afford Bishop and Barnett.

The reason we won the super bowl is depth. We were able to go 5 deep at OLB, 3 deep at safety. I would think everyone learned the lesson of how vitally important depth is. Including the ILBs. Because we lost 2 of them also.

"Greg C." wrote:

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.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

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 want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

Greg C.
50.25% (Neutral)
Registered

14 years ago

#26

I don't want to sound like I am defending Barnett because I also think he is kind of a tool. But to be honest, he is third in career tackles for the Packer all time and would need 35 tackles to take the lead. (records kept since '75) He is only 29 and missed about a year and a half due to injury. He led the team in tackles a record 5 times. Set a single season record for the Packers with 194 (128 solo). According to the Packers website.

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Nick-Barnett/5d06d9b3-687f-49b4-91bf-0a292f3a2bac

Chillar and Hawk started the year splitting time and Hawk didn't even get an offensive snap in first game. If we can afford Chillar and Hawk for one position, we can afford Bishop and Barnett.

The reason we won the super bowl is depth. We were able to go 5 deep at OLB, 3 deep at safety. I would think everyone learned the lesson of how vitally important depth is. Including the ILBs. Because we lost 2 of them also.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

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.

"Greg C." wrote:

I wouldn't agree that Barnett is a backup. Mike McCarthy 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.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

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.

blank

doddpower
100% (Exalted)
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#27

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.

PackerTraxx
100% (Exalted)
Senior Member

14 years ago

#28

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.

Why is Jerry Kramer not in the Hall of Fame?

Dexter_Sinister
100% (Exalted)
Registered

14 years ago

#29

I don't want to sound like I am defending Barnett because I also think he is kind of a tool. But to be honest, he is third in career tackles for the Packer all time and would need 35 tackles to take the lead. (records kept since '75) He is only 29 and missed about a year and a half due to injury. He led the team in tackles a record 5 times. Set a single season record for the Packers with 194 (128 solo). According to the Packers website.

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Nick-Barnett/5d06d9b3-687f-49b4-91bf-0a292f3a2bac

Chillar and Hawk started the year splitting time and Hawk didn't even get an offensive snap in first game. If we can afford Chillar and Hawk for one position, we can afford Bishop and Barnett.

The reason we won the super bowl is depth. We were able to go 5 deep at OLB, 3 deep at safety. I would think everyone learned the lesson of how vitally important depth is. Including the ILBs. Because we lost 2 of them also.

"Greg C." wrote:

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.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

I wouldn't agree that Barnett is a backup. Mike McCarthy 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.

"Greg C." wrote:

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.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:

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.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

go.pack.go.
100% (Exalted)
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#30

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.

Greg C.
50.25% (Neutral)
Registered

14 years ago

#31

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.

You really lost me there. Bishop played lights-out for the second best defense in the league, and they won the Super Bowl. How much more experience does he need? And three years is not a big age difference, but all things being equal (which they're not--Bishop is better) it is still significant, especially when you consider Barnett's injury history.

blank

DakotaT
100% (Exalted)
Select Member

14 years ago

#32

The reason I like Bishop over Barnett is because he brings the wood when he hits. Barnett is just a tackler, and not that textbook solid guy either. Barnett is a better linebacker in a 4-3 defense, and as he grows might need to move to the SAM instead of MIKE.

I just hope we find someone to trade him too. If we keep him, I guess it's good, but I don't feel good about it because he doesn't seem to have the kind of character to accept the backup position. I could be wrong on that, but I don't think I am.

wpr
100% (Exalted)
Preferred Member

14 years ago

#33

The reason I like Bishop over Barnett is because he brings the wood when he hits. Barnett is just a tackler, and not that textbook solid guy either. Barnett is a better linebacker in a 4-3 defense, and as he grows might need to move to the SAM instead of MIKE.

I just hope we find someone to trade him too. If we keep him, I guess it's good, but I don't feel good about it because he doesn't seem to have the kind of character to accept the backup position. I could be wrong on that, but I don't think I am.

"DakotaT" wrote:

Actually I think they could get 1 year and 1 year only out of him with him being quiet and doing his job what ever it may be. I feel it is important for Barnett to be on the field for the SB and not to simply be handed a ring without him contributing to the win in any way.

shield4life
100% (Exalted)
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#34

What's the chances of signing Jenkins with Barnetts $$$?

Glad To Be A Packers Fan.

Zero2Cool
100% (Exalted)
Elite Member

14 years ago

#35

What's the chances of signing Jenkins with Barnetts $$$?

"shield4life" wrote:

About the same as Jenkins then paying Barnett's bills.

Wade
100% (Exalted)
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#36

What's the chances of signing Jenkins with Barnetts $$$?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

About the same as Jenkins then paying Barnett's bills.

"shield4life" wrote:

I think the question was more on the lines of "if they don't sign Barnett, how much more might the Packers be willing to pay Jenkins than if they do."

I think it's a reasonable question. Though that might be wishful thinking on my part, since I think they should risk overspending on Jenkins anyway.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Zero2Cool
100% (Exalted)
Elite Member

14 years ago

#37

I think the question was more on the lines of "if they don't sign Barnett, how much more might the Packers be willing to pay Jenkins than if they do."

I think it's a reasonable question. Though that might be wishful thinking on my part, since I think they should risk overspending on Jenkins anyway.

"Wade" wrote:

I think Barnett is already signed for this year and possibly the next.

bozz_2006
56.25% (Neutral)
Registered

14 years ago

#38

I think that's correct too, Zero.

get_louder_at_lambeau
50.25% (Neutral)
Registered

14 years ago

#39

I think the question was more on the lines of "if they don't sign Barnett, how much more might the Packers be willing to pay Jenkins than if they do."

I think it's a reasonable question. Though that might be wishful thinking on my part, since I think they should risk overspending on Jenkins anyway.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I think Barnett is already signed for this year and possibly the next.

"Wade" wrote:

Yeah, that should read, "If they don't PAY Barnett..."

http://packersnews.net

Greg C.
50.25% (Neutral)
Registered

14 years ago

#40

I think the question was more on the lines of "if they don't sign Barnett, how much more might the Packers be willing to pay Jenkins than if they do."

I think it's a reasonable question. Though that might be wishful thinking on my part, since I think they should risk overspending on Jenkins anyway.

"get_louder_at_lambeau" wrote:

I think Barnett is already signed for this year and possibly the next.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Yeah, that should read, "If they don't PAY Barnett..."

"Wade" wrote:

If they trade Barnett, his salary will go with him, which will mean more money for other players. If they cut Barnett, they may have to pay him anyway, though, depending on how his contract is structured.

blank

Important Information: