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.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (13h) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (19h) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (19h) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (23h) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Van Ness played most of season with broken thumb
wpr (9-Apr) : yay
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy says Steelers likely to protect Packers game. Meaning, no Ireland
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Struggling to figure out what text editor options are needed and which are 'nice to have'
Mucky Tundra (8-Apr) : *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP*
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : WR who said he'd break Xavier Worthy 40 time...and ran slower than you
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Who?
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Texas’ WR Isaiah Bond is scheduled to visit the Bills, Browns, Chiefs, Falcons, Packers and Titans starting next week.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Spotting ball isn't changing, only measuring distance is, Which wasn't the issue.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : The spotting of the ball IS the issue. Not the chain gang.
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Will there be a tracker on the ball or something?
Zero2Cool (1-Apr) : uh oh
Martha Careful (1-Apr) : Too bad camera's can't spot the ball as well.
Mucky Tundra (1-Apr) : So will the chain gang be gone completely or will they still be around as a backup or whatever?
Zero2Cool (1-Apr) : The method for measuring first downs in the NFL will switch from chain gangs to camera-based technology in 2025, the league announced.
Martha Careful (1-Apr) : A big step in the right direction. Just put in the college system is very very good.
Zero2Cool (1-Apr) : NFL has passed a rule that allows both teams to possess the ball in OT during the regular season
Zero2Cool (1-Apr) : Touchbacks on kickoffs will now bring the ball to the 35-yard line.
beast (31-Mar) : It might of gotten more popular recently, but braiding hair (even men) in certain cultures goes back for centuries.
Martha Careful (30-Mar) : Is men braiding their hair a new style thing? Watching the NCAA men's tournament many players have done
Zero2Cool (29-Mar) : Ha. Well, it'd be nice for folks to reset their own password. Via validated email 😏
beast (29-Mar) : Monopoly was supposed to be an educational game, that show how evil capitalism was and how we should avoid it
beast (29-Mar) : Lol, I was thinking username would be better, as then I wouldn't have to keep an email up to date lol 😂
beast (29-Mar) : Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : I was thinking email because I think it'll make folks keep it up todate lol
wpr (29-Mar) : sure is
Zero2Cool (29-Mar) : Monopoly is a rip off of The Landlord's Game
wpr (27-Mar) : 28 days until the draft
earthquake (27-Mar) : Which seemed strange to my 9 year old self, that you could be a fan for a team other than the one you play for
earthquake (27-Mar) : Nothing eventful happened, other than it being clear that he was a bengals fan
earthquake (27-Mar) : And we went and hung out with him one afternoon, I must have been 9 or so
earthquake (27-Mar) : That’s wild, when I was a kid my friend lived in the same apartment complex in De Pere
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : Only career highspot was a 200 yard rushing game while playing for the Cardinals
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : He is a former Packer. Drafted out of Northern Illinois. Didn't do much in GB.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Despicable
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Former NFL. I think Packers too
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : NFL RB Leshon Johnson has been charged in a massive dog fighting operation, with the FBI seizing over 190 Pit Bulls
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : Some real irony of a QB as short as Wilson playing for the Giants
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : Giants country, let's be the tall beings of lore!
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : Russell Wilson signs with the Giants.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : I was thinking email because I think it'll make folks keep it up todate lol
wpr (25-Mar) : I don't think there is a significant difference. I use a user name for many. Others email.
Martha Careful (25-Mar) : email
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : would it be better to use EMAIL or USERNAME to log into a site?
wpr (25-Mar) : Thanks Zero
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : New forum has the ability to Thank a post now.
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
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
6h / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

9-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

8-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

25-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

24-Mar / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

24-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

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