zombieslayer
12 years ago

Barnett missed a lot of games during his last three seasons as a Packer. He played in something like 29 out of a possible 48. I liked Barnett, but he was another grab an drag tackler who seemed to be getting fragile. I think Hawk was the better choice over Barnett.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Understood about the injury thing.

This is another case where hindsight's 20/20. Barnett ended up playing the full season for the Bills and had a better year than Hawk.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
PackerTraxx
12 years ago

Barnett missed a lot of games during his last three seasons as a Packer. He played in something like 29 out of a possible 48. I liked Barnett, but he was another grab an drag tackler who seemed to be getting fragile. I think Hawk was the better choice over Barnett.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



This is why I was never a big Barnett fan. He was great at making sure the back didn't gain 10 yards, but he seldom stopped them from gaining 5.
Why is Jerry Kramer not in the Hall of Fame?
buckeyepackfan
12 years ago

I'm too fricken tired to rattle your cage today Buckeye, so I'll let this one slide.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



😂 🤐 😂
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
nerdmann
12 years ago
Demovsky 

“Watching film I felt like I got stuck on blocks a little too much,” Hawk said Thursday after the team’s mandatory minicamp concluded. “When I was able to blitz, a lot of times I’m blitzing up the middle or going against a center or a guard, and I feel like I got Velcroed or stuck to them a little too much. So I’ve focused on working on my hands and getting off (blocks) and get to the ball more.”


“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.”
Dexter_Sinister
12 years ago

This is why I was never a big Barnett fan. He was great at making sure the back didn't gain 10 yards, but he seldom stopped them from gaining 5.

Originally Posted by: PackerTraxx 



One of these days someone is going to have to prove that to me. I have seen that argument quite a few times, but nobody has anything concrete to back it up besides opinion. Since it tends to be people who already didn't like Barnett, I am thinking the eye test won't be unbiased.

I made some attempt to see how many yards down field Barnett made his tackles on running plays, I had nothing to compare it too, but it didn't look that bad. Certainly not 5 yards per carry. Barnett had the most tackles on the team but a wide margin most years, if he was consistently failing to make stops, the Packers yard per carry allowed would have been worse.

In the last 3 years Barnett was a starter the whole year, the Packers YPC allowed on D was 4.1 in '06, 3.9 in '07 and 3.6 in '09.

When he wasn't in for most of the year the D allowed 4.6 and 4.7 ypc in '08 and '10.

If Barnett was getting carried 5 yards, he was initiating contact over a yard before the line of scrimmage consistently.

Now I thought Barnett was a tool as much as anybody else. But if anybody knows me, they know I want to see the numbers. To me, the accusation that Barnett couldn't make a tackle and using the eye test as evidence makes me trust that measure of a player even less. And I don't trust it in the slightest already.

Basically I am saying, until you show me, I don't believe it.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
porky88
12 years ago

Even if Hawk manged to get knocked down to 2nd string there is no point in cutting him. You are still on the hook for almost all of his salary and he's a great teammate/locker room guy and would be a great back up as long as he didn't get too disgruntled about it. Either way the fact that they like DJ Smith that much is great news.

Originally Posted by: Stevetarded 


Players know how much their teammates make. I can't imagine Desmond Bishop appreciating that Hawk (a second stringer) makes more than him, especially if he leads the team in tackles. There are so many variables that goes into the 53-man roster. In Hawk's case, I think you cut your losses if Smith beats him for the starting job. Maybe you try to trade him before cut down day. I can't justify hanging onto him at his salary unless he's a starter.
zombieslayer
12 years ago

One of these days someone is going to have to prove that to me. I have seen that argument quite a few times, but nobody has anything concrete to back it up besides opinion. Since it tends to be people who already didn't like Barnett, I am thinking the eye test won't be unbiased.

I made some attempt to see how many yards down field Barnett made his tackles on running plays, I had nothing to compare it too, but it didn't look that bad. Certainly not 5 yards per carry. Barnett had the most tackles on the team but a wide margin most years, if he was consistently failing to make stops, the Packers yard per carry allowed would have been worse.

In the last 3 years Barnett was a starter the whole year, the Packers YPC allowed on D was 4.1 in '06, 3.9 in '07 and 3.6 in '09.

When he wasn't in for most of the year the D allowed 4.6 and 4.7 ypc in '08 and '10.

If Barnett was getting carried 5 yards, he was initiating contact over a yard before the line of scrimmage consistently.

Now I thought Barnett was a tool as much as anybody else. But if anybody knows me, they know I want to see the numbers. To me, the accusation that Barnett couldn't make a tackle and using the eye test as evidence makes me trust that measure of a player even less. And I don't trust it in the slightest already.

Basically I am saying, until you show me, I don't believe it.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



Yes. People let their personal biases get in the way of facts. Like the Favre fiasco, people took sides and there wasn't much of an honest appraisal on Favre's abilities. They were either exaggerated good or exaggerated bad, depending on which side of the fence you took.

I know, bad example and my apologies for bringing him up. But he's immediately who comes to mind when biases get in the way of facts.

I showed Barnett's stats last year with Buffalo. They weren't too shabby and he's certainly missed here. I know he had personality issues. That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing his actual abilities.

I think the best criticism of Nick Barnett comes down to availability. 🇲🇲 talks about accountability and availability. Barnett's raw numbers spoke for themselves. However, he did miss a lot of games in the past few years and that was a valid argument for letting him go. His performance wasn't.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

One of these days someone is going to have to prove that to me. I have seen that argument quite a few times, but nobody has anything concrete to back it up besides opinion. Since it tends to be people who already didn't like Barnett, I am thinking the eye test won't be unbiased.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



I said it, I like Nick Barnett and have since the day he was drafted. Remember when he was at someones house and fell into a metal fence giving him a black eye before he even donned a Packers uniform?

It's also convenient to say you want that proven to you because so many websites have the stat "point of contact" and "point of tackle" so you can measure it up against others, lol.

I'm probably guilty of holding to high of a standard on middle/inside linebackers. The games I've seen Ray Lewis play, he seems to always knock the guy backward or they are tackled quick. Nick Barnett it seems he's out of position, not shedding blocks and gets guys from behind while they have momentum going forward and they drag him a bit. I want linebackers to make the contact, not react to it.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

I think the best criticism of Nick Barnett comes down to availability. 🇲🇲 talks about accountability and availability. Barnett's raw numbers spoke for themselves. However, he did miss a lot of games in the past few years and that was a valid argument for letting him go. His performance wasn't.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



lol, just realized this thread is about Smith and Hawk haha oops. Anyhow, I think Barnett led the Packers in tackles most of his years as a Packer.

Edit, stats + curiosity = my weakness. Barnett led the team every year he played except three times, two of which he was injured.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
12 years ago

lol, just realized this thread is about Smith and Hawk haha oops. Anyhow, I think Barnett led the Packers in tackles most of his years as a Packer.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Well he should have, he was the fricken MLB in a 4-3. The thing that always bugged me about Barnett besides the samurai dance, was that anybody he tackled never went backward. Just never any thump to him. Hawk has the same problem.


UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
beast (21m) : 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 (22m) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (32m) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (44m) : 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 (53m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (1h) : 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 (4h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (4h) : 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 (5h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (5h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (5h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (5h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (5h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (5h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (5h) : 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 (6h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (6h) : Packers will get in
beast (6h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (6h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (6h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (9h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (9h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (9h) : 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 (19h) : 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
43m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

4h / 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.