Even when the RB is basically a WR? They are a number of RB through out the NFL who are small, especially quick and pretty fast, who don't go up the middle like a normal RB, but are much better in the open field like a WR.... I think there are a lot of ILBers who struggle to cover those WR type RBs and the reason why a number of teams (including the Packers) have used a nickel back to coverage the WR type RBs... like the Packers have used a DB to cover Reggie Bush when he was with the Lions at times.

I don't think Barrington will be asked to be covering those guys man on man as much once the real games start as the Packers might sub to have an extra DB on the field to help cover the WR type RB.

Originally Posted by: beast 

Sproles is good yes, but he's a key cog in one of the NFC Competitors and linebackers will be asked or forced to cover players like that occasionally. I think you're missing the bigger point anyway. My point is that Barrington is very poor in coverage. I expect many teams to abuse him this season. He's just not good enough in coverage at this point in his career. They don't have to be Sproles to beat him. Dom can only do so much to cover up for his weaknesses. Just because most teams struggle to cover a player doesn't make me feel any better about my favorite teams poor ability to cover said player types.

Forte will be a good test, but the Bears don't have too many healthy weapons to spread the Packers thin.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

I get your point... I'm just suggesting that when a WR type of RB goes into the backfield, Barrington maybe coming off the field... or at least not asked to cover him one on one.

Now Forte type is different, as he's a true RB who can run routes and catch very well.... but there doesn't seem to be a ton of those types of true RBs in the NFL either.... I mean their are those type of RBs who can catch, but they normally can't run routes or get that much space running routes like a WR type could or like that of Forte might be able to.

Originally Posted by: beast 

I still don't understand why they are seriously considering Richardson as a coverage linebacker.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Are the Packers official considering using Richardson as a coverage LB?

Or did you mean to say why they aren't considering Richardson as a coverage LB?

I've been supporting the idea of testing Richardson for coverage LB for years, at the very least test it in practice and if he looks good, trying it in a game. While he's not 240+ lbers, he seems like he's just as physical as Brad Jones and Palmer and a better wrap up tackler. Though he's not always fluid in his movement he's got good straight line quickness and speed and tackling skill.

Originally Posted by: beast 

We need someone physical to cover their TE Bennett, who could have a huge day if we don't accomplish that.

Originally Posted by: DarkaneRules 

I don't have much faith in Barrington covering running backs or tight ends.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Gunter's inactive.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann