Dexter_Sinister
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
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.

"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.
14 years ago

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
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.

"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
14 years ago

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.
14 years ago

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
14 years ago
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
14 years ago
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
14 years ago

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.
14 years ago
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.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (3h) : I do very much appreciate when Beast and others pick up my slack 😊
dfosterf (3h) : I accept Beast's admonishment regarding my failure to link stuff I reference. I simply never learned to link from my cell phone.
beast (3h) : That's not what your she said 😌, she said keep going 😏
Mucky Tundra (6h) : Anything over 4 hours means he needs to get to the hospital
Mucky Tundra (6h) : Someone might want to check on Hafley and make sure his erection has gone down
Zero2Cool (8h) : LaFleur texts "bleep me I cannot sit down"
Zero2Cool (8h) : YouTube has had me last hour or two lol
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Ugh this trade happened right as my shift started and it's killing me
Zero2Cool (9h) : Parsons wore 23 in high school.
Zero2Cool (9h) : Packers just cost Lions more money with Hutchinson too huh
Zero2Cool (10h) : That is fair by me.
buckeyepackfan (10h) : Kenny Clark is the player, 2 1st rnd picks
Zero2Cool (10h) : umm... what?
wpr (11h) : I am stunned
Mucky Tundra (11h) : RICKEY SCOOPS WAS RIGHT AGAIN!!!
Mucky Tundra (11h) : ITS HAPPENING
buckeyepackfan (11h) : DEAL IS DONE
buckeyepackfan (11h) : MICAH IS COMING TO GREEN BAY!!!!!!!!!
wpr (17h) : Me do-ed it gooderly,
Zero2Cool (28-Aug) : Bahah, I was like WTF why isn't anyone posting on PP.com ... oops no one has permissions
dfosterf (27-Aug) : tell her I reckon
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Micah Robinson cut. Probable PS player tomorrow. Has to call mom back and t
Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : New site so much better. Might make switch and deal with it.
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Mecole Hardman to our practice squad
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Nick Nieman from Texans our 5th linebacker. Special teams signing
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : Looks like we signed Clayton Tune as QB3
wpr (27-Aug) : TKT people lose their minds over QB3. Point is almost none of them are ready that's why they are on the PS and other teams don't take them.
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : Unfortunately he doesn't seem ready to be an emergency QB.
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : As a Canadian and a follower of Canadian University football. I am rooting for him
dfosterf (27-Aug) : I bet a lot of us will follow the Taylor Elgersma journey with interest. Personally, got a Kurt Warner vibe goin' on. I like him
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : Not sure if either will be claimed though.
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : Tune or Hooker would make sense
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Clayton Tune cut by the Cards? Don't know if that's the guy, we shall see
TheKanataThrilla (27-Aug) : Per Bill Huber, the Packers will not be bringing back Taylor Elgersma or Sean Clifford on the practice squad, so a new third quarterback
Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : Schefter must have deleted his tweet
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Hopefully Jerry reaches under the seat cushions and ashtrays of his jet and scrapes up the 45 million apr and spares us further nonsense
dfosterf (27-Aug) : Have to admit the PO'd Cowboy fan videos would be fun to watch. Problem with draft picks is half their fanbase barely knows what that is
beast (27-Aug) : I think Cowboys fans are ready to get their pitch forks and burning sticks if Jerry were to trade Micah
dfosterf (27-Aug) : If Jerry traded Micah to GB, here in northern Va. they would have to quick build yet another data center to handle the internet hate traffic
Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : its signing and trades that you don't hear about, other then announced
Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : If you hear rumors about Packers sign or trade, won't happen. Not how they work
dfosterf (27-Aug) : 19 players in a contract year. Jones called loss to us worst loss in Cowboy history. Forget Parsons trade. Not happenin' Cap'n
packerfanoutwest (27-Aug) : The Packers, meanwhile, are the youngest team in the league for the third consecutive year.
dfosterf (27-Aug) : That it was darkest before the dawn in Bengals and Commanders before they got deals done
Zero2Cool (27-Aug) : what is Schefter saying?
dfosterf (27-Aug) : He was getting Dorito infusion therapy
dfosterf (27-Aug) : He's outta shape. Why, just the other day I saw him splayed out on the trainers table
Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : Parsons has followed Rasheed Walker on Twitter. Quite the choice
Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : Kuhn is a former player who works for the team, if somethings going down, he would be close to it
Mucky Tundra (27-Aug) : @kuhnj30 Micah Freaking Parsons
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
5m / Green Bay Packers Talk / jdlax

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

28-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

27-Aug / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

27-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

27-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

26-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

26-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

25-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

24-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.