Stevetarded
13 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:



Hawk wasn't just recently signed though, that makes it a tad different. If you already have a player signed for the next couple years at a reasonably high dollar amount (Barnett) and you sign 2 other players at the same position to big deals at the same time it's pretty safe to say you plan on using those two as your starters.

You can talk about depth at ILB all you want but your "depth" shouldn't be paid a starters salary. The depth from Barnett and Chillar at ILB is going to KILL depth at other positions. You don't have to admit it but all of the signs point to Barnett not being a Green Bay Packer next year (unless he takes a pay cut and can handle sitting on the bench).
blank
DakotaT
13 years ago
I think anybody holding on to the hope that Barnett is going to be a Packer next year is fooling himself, for the reasons Stevetarded just said.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago
It didn't "kill our depth at other positions" last year when salaries were actually higher at ILB. Looks like they have a even more room because of salary structure this year. The numbers are off sportrac.com and some other website, so I can't vouch for their accuracy. When talking salaries, it is difficult to get accurate numbers.

Year 2010 2011
Hawk LB $4,124,000 $1,150,000
Barnett LB $4,000,000 $5,500,000
Chillar LB $2,350,000 $2,000,000
Bishop LB $550,000 $1,188,000

The question Mike McCarthy brought up about Chillar being able to come back from another surgery on that same shoulder makes having depth more important. Do you remember having 7 LBs miss games last year? That depth came in pretty handy then. If we had 2 fewer experienced LBs to start with, we would have been in some deep trouble.

I am not saying I want Barnett back. I think he is kind of a tool just like every one else. But the way Mike McCarthy made it sound, Bishop isn't even penciled in as the starter yet when he said, "Bishop would start if we played today. Luckily we don't play today." When asked who would start when we do play, he said that it depends on how well Barnett comes back.

I wouldn't say all signs point to Barnett being gone. The Coach isn't. I think he has a lot more credibility than reading the omens in the way salaries fall.

Here is a hypothetical. We dump Barnett, Chillars shoulder doesn't come back and Bishop pulls another hamstring and is out for 5 more games. How does our Psycho package look? Hawk, Wilhelm and Francois in the middle?
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
Can't really speak about the amount of a salary effecting positions when there was no cap during the 2010 season. 🙂
UserPostedImage
Stevetarded
13 years ago

It didn't "kill our depth at other positions" last year when salaries were actually higher at ILB. Looks like they have a even more room because of salary structure this year. The numbers are off sportrac.com and some other website, so I can't vouch for their accuracy. When talking salaries, it is difficult to get accurate numbers.

Year 2010 2011
Hawk LB $4,124,000 $1,150,000
Barnett LB $4,000,000 $5,500,000
Chillar LB $2,350,000 $2,000,000
Bishop LB $550,000 $1,188,000

The question Mike McCarthy brought up about Chillar being able to come back from another surgery on that same shoulder makes having depth more important. Do you remember having 7 LBs miss games last year? That depth came in pretty handy then. If we had 2 fewer experienced LBs to start with, we would have been in some deep trouble.

I am not saying I want Barnett back. I think he is kind of a tool just like every one else. But the way Mike McCarthy made it sound, Bishop isn't even penciled in as the starter yet when he said, "Bishop would start if we played today. Luckily we don't play today." When asked who would start when we do play, he said that it depends on how well Barnett comes back.

I wouldn't say all signs point to Barnett being gone. The Coach isn't. I think he has a lot more credibility than reading the omens in the way salaries fall.

Here is a hypothetical. We dump Barnett, Chillars shoulder doesn't come back and Bishop pulls another hamstring and is out for 5 more games. How does our Psycho package look? Hawk, Wilhelm and Francois in the middle?

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



Just because you don't have Nick Barnett on your bench doesn't mean you can't have any depth. There are plenty of places you can go (draft, FA) for a back up that wont cost you $6m.

Since there is a possibility that Woodson won't be 100% and Shields might injure his calf again does that mean they should go sign a back up CB to a $6m/year contract (so they can get a good one)? Of course not because that's way too much money.

here's the only quote I could find on it by McCarthy
"I asked McCarthy if his expectation was that Hawk would be a three-down player again next year given that former starter NIck Barnett and key backup Brandon Chillar are expected back from injuries.

"I hope so," he said. "Thats up to the players. If he plays the way he did this year theres no reason he shouldnt be (a three-down player). (Desmond) Bishop played very well, too. We line up tomorrow, its A.J. and Bishop, and thats the way we finished."

If you seriously think they are going to pay a back up LB $6m then more power to you I guess.
blank
Greg C.
13 years ago

Can't really speak about the amount of a salary effecting positions when there was no cap during the 2010 season. :)

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Sure it does. This is real money we are talking about, and the amount is limited. Even with no salary cap, it doesn't make good business sense to overspend at any one position.

As for McCarthy's comment (quoted by Dexter), it was probably just tactical. He wouldn't want to damage Barnett's trade value by saying he's not in contention for a starting position next year.
blank
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

Can't really speak about the amount of a salary effecting positions when there was no cap during the 2010 season. :)

"Greg C." wrote:



Sure it does. This is real money we are talking about, and the amount is limited. Even with no salary cap, it doesn't make good business sense to overspend at any one position.

As for McCarthy's comment (quoted by Dexter), it was probably just tactical. He wouldn't want to damage Barnett's trade value by saying he's not in contention for a starting position next year.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



I was never under the impression the NFL was playing with Monopoly money. Obviously every team has a self imposed financial limit. What I am saying, again, is we can not speak on how the salary cap effected other positions when there was no salary cap in 2010. In reading his comment again, he didn't even mention salary cap so I don't even have a clue where I pulled that from in the first place.


If Nick Barnett stays a Packer, I wouldn't be surprised to see him restructure his contract with some kind of an out clause. I think he feels the Packers have a solid chance of winning it all next season and wants to be a part of that, and if it happens, I think he'll bolt for a payday.
UserPostedImage
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

It didn't "kill our depth at other positions" last year when salaries were actually higher at ILB. Looks like they have a even more room because of salary structure this year. The numbers are off sportrac.com and some other website, so I can't vouch for their accuracy. When talking salaries, it is difficult to get accurate numbers.

Year 2010 2011
Hawk LB $4,124,000 $1,150,000
Barnett LB $4,000,000 $5,500,000
Chillar LB $2,350,000 $2,000,000
Bishop LB $550,000 $1,188,000

The question Mike McCarthy brought up about Chillar being able to come back from another surgery on that same shoulder makes having depth more important. Do you remember having 7 LBs miss games last year? That depth came in pretty handy then. If we had 2 fewer experienced LBs to start with, we would have been in some deep trouble.

I am not saying I want Barnett back. I think he is kind of a tool just like every one else. But the way Mike McCarthy made it sound, Bishop isn't even penciled in as the starter yet when he said, "Bishop would start if we played today. Luckily we don't play today." When asked who would start when we do play, he said that it depends on how well Barnett comes back.

I wouldn't say all signs point to Barnett being gone. The Coach isn't. I think he has a lot more credibility than reading the omens in the way salaries fall.

Here is a hypothetical. We dump Barnett, Chillars shoulder doesn't come back and Bishop pulls another hamstring and is out for 5 more games. How does our Psycho package look? Hawk, Wilhelm and Francois in the middle?

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Just because you don't have Nick Barnett on your bench doesn't mean you can't have any depth. There are plenty of places you can go (draft, FA) for a back up that wont cost you $6m.

Since there is a possibility that Woodson won't be 100% and Shields might injure his calf again does that mean they should go sign a back up CB to a $6m/year contract (so they can get a good one)? Of course not because that's way too much money.

here's the only quote I could find on it by McCarthy
"I asked McCarthy if his expectation was that Hawk would be a three-down player again next year given that former starter NIck Barnett and key backup Brandon Chillar are expected back from injuries.

"I hope so," he said. "Thats up to the players. If he plays the way he did this year theres no reason he shouldnt be (a three-down player). (Desmond) Bishop played very well, too. We line up tomorrow, its A.J. and Bishop, and thats the way we finished."

If you seriously think they are going to pay a back up LB $6m then more power to you I guess.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



There was much more to that interview. He went on to say, luckily we don't line up tomorrow. Like he was making a point about something. He also said he was more concerned about Chillar coming back from another surgery on the same shoulder. You left out the most important parts. Like most of the Bishop fans trying to make it sound like he is going to be the starter. He also said, we'll see when Barnett comes back.

If you think 9.8 mil to pay our ILBs is too much to pay when last year we paid 11 mil, more power to you.

Again, last year people said the exact same thing about Hawk. He was making 5 mil sitting on the bench with a starter in front of him making 2 mil. What makes it different that Barnett will make 5.5 and Bishop makes 1.2? The total ILB salaries will be lower, so it doesn't effect the depth any where else.

You can't even say it just isn't done, because they did it last year.

If you think it is just conventional wisdom, when did Thompson start that? He never did it before. In fact, that is a bigger support to my suggestion they may keep him than your, they have to get rid of him. If it is expected, Thompson probably won't do it.

The truth is, I don't care which one starts or who is with the team. Just that the best player starts and we keep decent depth. I would also think if they believe Bishop was better than Barnett, they would have paid him more.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Stevetarded
13 years ago



There was much more to that interview. He went on to say, luckily we don't line up tomorrow. Like he was making a point about something. He also said he was more concerned about Chillar coming back from another surgery on the same shoulder. You left out the most important parts. Like most of the Bishop fans trying to make it sound like he is going to be the starter. He also said, we'll see when Barnett comes back.

If you think 9.8 mil to pay our ILBs is too much to pay when last year we paid 11 mil, more power to you.

Again, last year people said the exact same thing about Hawk. He was making 5 mil sitting on the bench with a starter in front of him making 2 mil. What makes it different that Barnett will make 5.5 and Bishop makes 1.2? The total ILB salaries will be lower, so it doesn't effect the depth any where else.

You can't even say it just isn't done, because they did it last year.

If you think it is just conventional wisdom, when did Thompson start that? He never did it before. In fact, that is a bigger support to my suggestion they may keep him than your, they have to get rid of him. If it is expected, Thompson probably won't do it.

The truth is, I don't care which one starts or who is with the team. Just that the best player starts and we keep decent depth. I would also think if they believe Bishop was better than Barnett, they would have paid him more.

"Dexter_Sinister" wrote:



-I think you are taking the "luckily" thing out of context if he even said that (because I cannot find it anywhere). Likewise where he says "We have to see how he comes off the wrist," seems like more of a negative at Barnett due to how not very serious his injury was (his wrist was not career threatening as far as I know). If you want to go the "way it sounds" route McCarthy has been more supportive of Bishop than he has of Barnett.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/117738113.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed 


http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/117119398.html 
-quotes from here don't sound much like Bishop isn't planned to be the starter
"Although contractual factors loom large at the position, the Packers enter the off-season with Bishop as the starter at one of the two inside positions and with A.J. Hawk and Nick Barnett competing for the other berth in both the 3-4 base and 4-2 nickel defenses.

"Correct," coach Mike McCarthy said at the NFL scouting combine. "Given the full opportunity to play, I thought Desmond had a heck of a year. You always saw it in spurts. He's probably the most instinctive guy in the defensive front seven."

-he also states about the salary factor:
"We'll see what happens," McCarthy said. "The financial part of it is something we're going to have to address."

-I'm not sure about your numbers either because the article also says
"Under the old economic system, those four players would count an astronomical $28.035 million against the Packers' salary cap in 2011: Hawk ($12.372 million), Barnett ($6.9 million), Bishop ($5.782 million) and Chillar ($2.981 million)."
-Now that is with Hawk's old contract but in order for your 9.8m to be correct that means Hawk's huge contract will only cost about -$6m towards the cap.

Why would they pay Bishop more than they did? That is stupid. They got an absolute steal on Bishop salary wise and they should have offered extra in the deal just because they think he is better? That just doesn't make any sense.
blank
doddpower
13 years ago
Yeah, I think Dexter is reaching here. There's no doubt Barnett would be nice depth, and I hope we can find a way to make it work. It's just that many of us don't see it happening. The combination of Bishop and Hawk was better than Barnett and Hawk. I'm not sure exactly why, but it was true. I see no reason to disrupt that making Barnett a luxury.
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (1h) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
    dfosterf (4h) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
    beast (5h) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
    Zero2Cool (22h) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
    Zero2Cool (23h) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
    beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
    beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
    wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
    wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
    wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
    Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
    Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
    dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
    beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
    beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
    beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
    beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
    beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
    wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
    wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
    wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
    beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
    beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
    beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
    Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
    Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
    Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    30 - 17
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    31 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    30 - 13
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    34 - 0
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    25 - 27
    Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    22 - 24
    Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
    Eagles
    10 - 22
    Recent Topics
    4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

    21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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