wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
13 years ago
Packers Looking To Trade Nick Barnett: National Football Post  

With the lockout close to over, rumors about potential trades, cuts, and free agent signings are starting to spread across the traditional media and social media like wildfire. One such rumor about a particular Green Bay Packers player is hardly a juicy one, as it's something we've been speculating about since February, but it's still worth noting that the Packers are looking into trading Nick Barnett. Dan Pompei addresses this issue and many others in his NFP Sunday Blitz post, which is worth reading independent of the Barnett news.

Last season, Nick Barnett went out with an injury after playing just four games for the Packers. Without him in the lineup, Desmond Bishop thrived and, as you all know, the Packers won the Super Bowl. The Packers have also made great strides towards filling their roster with high-quality character guys who don't punch women outside of night clubs, which Barnett has a mild reputation for.

****

On top of his questionable actions in his personal life - which are, admittedly, mild by NFL standards - the Packers owe Barnett a lot of money. The combination of the personnel, money, and character factors might cause Barnett to be shown the door shortly after the lockout ends. From the NFP post: 

The Packers are all ears when it comes to talking about trading Nick Barnett. Moving him would save them more than $4 million on the salary cap, and they could use that space. Barnett is a versatile, valuable defender who can start in multiple schemes and at multiple positions, but he's now behind Desmond Bishop and A.J. Hawk on the Packers' depth chart. If the Packers can't get what they want for Barnett before camp or early in camp, they may hang onto him to see if teams increase their offers as camp and preseason go on. Releasing him also could be an option at some point.



Wow, releasing him is an option, even after the draft and with a compressed free agency period coming up? How the mighty have fallen.


UserPostedImage
beast
13 years ago
Does "all ears" = "Looking To Trade" ? ...

I can understand the idea of wanting to trade Barnett but I don't think it's as simple as some make it out to be. Like if the Packers trade Barnett then who's the #1 back-up at ILB?

Chillar? Is he healthy after he's 3rd shoulder surgery? Is he good enough to step up as a starter if needed?

Brad Jones? Is he healthy? Is he going to be moved to ILB or not? If yes, would he just replace Chillar as a coverage LB? Or could he step up and be a started if needed?

Robert Francois, D.J. Smith, Matt Wilhelm or Poppinga? ...

I think Poppinga in his prime would of made a good physical 3-4 ILB (in Hawk's role) but he's past his prime and doesn't seem to be as physical as he used to be and he's also going off injury.


Thompson has shown in the past to keep a vet like KGB or Bubba Franks at a big price if they're willing to be a team guy and keep helping the team even if it's only in a small role. It's possible Barnett could stay IF he can be a team guy. If he can't then chances go up he's traded. But I think a lot of that will be dealt with in behind the door talks before training camp.
UserPostedImage
nerdmann
13 years ago
Chillar, Jones, Smith.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Greg C.
13 years ago
If Barnett is gone, the #1 backup at ILB could be Chillar, Francois, Wilhelm, or some new guy that they bring in. Ted has enough confidence in his ability to find good backups that he's not going to pay millions of dollars for a veteran backup. I doubt that any GM would do that.
blank
porky88
13 years ago
Barnett is a very emotional player. Regardless of what he says, I hardly doubt he would be content with his role as a backup. He's also making four or five million this year. If he doesn't restructure his contract, a trade is likely, and I think Green Bay gets something for him.

As far as depth goes, I think Brandon Chiller is going to be just fine as the third ILB. Keep in mind; he played that role in 09 and did it very well. Also, special teams obviously play a role. Is Barnett really going to make an impact on special teams?

I think the numbers start to catch up. Chiller is cheaper and has a defined role. The other spot(s) probably needs to go to a special teams contributor. The majority of the factors point toward Barnett not playing for the Packers this season.
13 years ago
His salary makes him difficult to trade.

Getting anything would be a good thing.

If released, the Lions would sure want him.
blank
dhpackr
13 years ago
why would any team trade for a player who is going to be released?

why can't Bishop and Barnett compete for a starting job?

IMO... Barnett is going to make $4 million as a back up ILB on the Packers, and be an impact player. I think Barnett's ability to run players down in between the sidelines will allow him to make the GB roster.
So if you meet me Have some courtesy, Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse, Or I'll lay your soul to waste
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

why would any team trade for a player who is going to be released?

why can't Bishop and Barnett compete for a starting job?

IMO... Barnett is going to make $4 million as a back up ILB on the Packers, and be an impact player. I think Barnett's ability to run players down in between the sidelines will allow him to make the GB roster.

Originally Posted by: dhpackr 



To ensure they GET the player they want. Obviously.

Good question, and I don't think anyone said it couldn't happen.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
13 years ago

To ensure they GET the player they want. Obviously.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



[stupid]

I don't think Uncle Ted will cut him for cap space. He will want some value, and I don't think we give him away on the cheap either.

I do think Barnett would have a hard time accepting a back up role.
UserPostedImage
DanJustDan29
13 years ago
I think he have enough quality LB that trading Barnett would not hurt.
Teamwork is what the Green Bay Packers were all about. They didn't do it for individual glory. They did it because they loved one another. -Vince Lombardi
Fan Shout
beast (4m) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (5m) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (15m) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (27m) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (36m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (57m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (1h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (1h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (2h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (2h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (2h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (5h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (5h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (5h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (5h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (5h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (5h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (5h) : Packers will get in
beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
26m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

54m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.