Is he that much better than who we have, at this point?

---

Is he so much different from Ahmad Brooks last year? I'm fine with signing vets for depth when available I'm just not sure there's much left in the tank. I rather see Gilbert/Biegal get their shot at least they might still be in the league a couple years from now.

They must have supreme confidence in Biegel. 👍

---

He had 5 sacks in 14 games. Our sack leader had 7.5. Maybe he has lost a step, but he is younger than Clay. I want the young guys to get reps as well, but when Clay or Nick get hurt I wouldn't mind a vet in the mix.

The Packers always seem to have more faith in unproven young players than I do. Unfortunately, my concerns often become a reality more often than not.

I know how you feel, but the difference is that you don't have $177.2 million to blow taking chances on marginal players. [twocents]

---

Talent wise, no.

Availability wise, he's missed two games in the last 7 years. While Matthews has a recent broken nose and Nick Perry is one of two Packers in camp that didn't pass the physicals (Bulaga is the other, and both are on the PUP list).

---

Don't forget Clay will "pull a hammy" in a couple weeks once he gets tired of training camp.

---

Considering I have very little faith in anyone not named Perry or CM3 (and even that faith is tenuous at best), I think Barwin (or someone of his caliber) would absolutely offer more talent wise. I think all the other pass rushers on the Packers roster are just guys. I'd be surprised if any of them even end up average. Hope I'm wrong.

And you might be very correct about that. If you're correct then they should of signed him. But for some reason (gut, hope, something else) I have some a little hope in Biegel (and less-so in Gilbert) as they looked better than I thought they would last year. But Barwin is best being a jack of all trades and being used in multiple ways... and I think the same is true for Matthews and Biegel.

Also it depends on scheme. So far, it sounds like the Packers are running mostly a 3-3. Which I'm assuming means OLB line up close to the line and it has the standard 4-2 nickel look that almost all teams are running out of their nickel packages.

The 3-3 means more pressure on the DL and less pressure on the OLB, which might be great considering the fans think the Packers have DL depth and have concerns with lack of OLB depth. And Capers ran a sub-package to that had a 4-3 look. With Perry, Daniels, Clark and Lowry all on the DL and Matthews, Martinez and Ryan at LB. Only two changes are Wilkerson for Lowry and a nickel CB for one of the LBers.

---