Nick Barnett is ahead of schedule

[packers11]

www.rotoworld.com

Packers coach Mike McCarthy reiterated at the March Owners' Meetings that
ILB Nick Barnett is ahead of schedule in his rehab from a torn ACL.

Barnett is now 17 weeks removed from surgery. Green Bay's switch to a 3-4 could bode well for him, as Barnett probably won't have to run sideline to sideline as much. He remains a strong bet to lead the team in tackles.

Source: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

[Partial]

Excellent news. Hope he is back at full speed, but the old saying goes that it takes two years to fully recover.

[SnakeLH2006]

Excellent news. Hope he is back at full speed, but the old saying goes that it takes two years to fully recover.

Not anymore...that shit was 10 years ago...Guys come back from devastating type injuries all the time in less than a year in the advanced state of medicine nowadays.

Barnett will be fine.

[Zool]

He'll be dragging ball carriers down from behind by training camp.

[wist43]

He'll be dragging ball carriers down from behind by training camp.

lol... he's forte :)

[ThunderDan]

He'll be dragging ball carriers down from behind by training camp.

As much as I dislike Barnett; I was surprised how fast the defense dropped off with him not in at Mike.

[Joemailman]

I don't think the defense did drop off all that much without Barnett. They weren't very good with him or without him. The Packers gave up 24.0 ppg with Barnett in the lineup, and 24.9 ppg without him. Through 9 games Barnett was on pace to have his worst season statistically with 49 total tackles, 0 INT, 0 sacks and 1 FF. That's not to say I'm not glad he'll be back, but the Packers need him and Hawk to return to their 2007 form, not what we saw last year. I think a lot of Hawk's problems were injury related, but Barnett's performance puzzled me.

[sharpe1027]

I think a lot of Hawk's problems were injury related, but Barnett's performance puzzled me.

Perhaps the two are closely related. Perhaps Hawk was the reason for Barnett's success. Perhaps Hawk was the unsung hero of the D and not just-another-guy as some suggest. Perhaps. :wink:

[KYPack]

Excellent news. Hope he is back at full speed, but the old saying goes that it takes two years to fully recover.

Not anymore...that shit was 10 years ago...Guys come back from devastating type injuries all the time in less than a year in the advanced state of medicine nowadays.

Barnett will be fine.

Hold on there, Snake.

Your whipper is snapping.

You are being a whippersnapper.

You aren't back in full form in about 18 months. It takes a lot less than it used to to get back on the field, but the body takes a lot longer to get in full wortking order, modern sports medicine advaces aside.

[mission]

He'll be dragging ball carriers down from behind by training camp.

Classic!

Hopefully he'll be dragging them down from behind, behind the LOS a little more this season.

[ThunderDan]

I don't think the defense did drop off all that much without Barnett. They weren't very good with him or without him. The Packers gave up 24.0 ppg with Barnett in the lineup, and 24.9 ppg without him. Through 9 games Barnett was on pace to have his worst season statistically with 49 total tackles, 0 INT, 0 sacks and 1 FF. That's not to say I'm not glad he'll be back, but the Packers need him and Hawk to return to their 2007 form, not what we saw last year. I think a lot of Hawk's problems were injury related, but Barnett's performance puzzled me.

I disagree. Why Barnett is no superstar and I have been calling for his head for years; the defense had so many blown assignments after Barnett went out. We were 4-5 when he started and 2-5 when he was out.

[MadtownPacker]

I think this goes back to him not beating on hoes and being angry enough. Look at the good MLBs, they all have issues. We need Barnett pissed off and hateful. For the money he is making I dont give as damn how it affects him. Just give him a reason to feel violent.

[Fritz]

Mad, Partial seems to piss off a lot of people when he talks about Aaron Rodgers. Why don't we put Barnett in contact with Partial?

Can you hook that up?

[Gunakor]

I don't think the defense did drop off all that much without Barnett. They weren't very good with him or without him. The Packers gave up 24.0 ppg with Barnett in the lineup, and 24.9 ppg without him. Through 9 games Barnett was on pace to have his worst season statistically with 49 total tackles, 0 INT, 0 sacks and 1 FF. That's not to say I'm not glad he'll be back, but the Packers need him and Hawk to return to their 2007 form, not what we saw last year. I think a lot of Hawk's problems were injury related, but Barnett's performance puzzled me.

I hate to sound like Partial here, but I'm going to anyway. What are the defensive statistics during the final 5 minutes of the game with Barnett in the game compared to the final 5 minutes of the game without him?

Missing Barnett mattered a great deal when it came down to crunch time. It's not the plays he made or did not make personally that is important. It's his ability to get his guys in the right position to make plays when it mattered. He made the entire defense better even if he himself was having a down year. That was extremely evident after he went down for the year.

[MadScientist]

Good news on Barnett. I had been a bit worried about it after the articles about Tauscher not being ready until October, when he had the same torn ACL injury, only one month later than Nick.

[ThunderDan]

I don't think the defense did drop off all that much without Barnett. They weren't very good with him or without him. The Packers gave up 24.0 ppg with Barnett in the lineup, and 24.9 ppg without him. Through 9 games Barnett was on pace to have his worst season statistically with 49 total tackles, 0 INT, 0 sacks and 1 FF. That's not to say I'm not glad he'll be back, but the Packers need him and Hawk to return to their 2007 form, not what we saw last year. I think a lot of Hawk's problems were injury related, but Barnett's performance puzzled me.

I hate to sound like Partial here, but I'm going to anyway. What are the defensive statistics during the final 5 minutes of the game with Barnett in the game compared to the final 5 minutes of the game without him?

Missing Barnett mattered a great deal when it came down to crunch time. It's not the plays he made or did not make personally that is important. It's his ability to get his guys in the right position to make plays when it mattered. He made the entire defense better even if he himself was having a down year. That was extremely evident after he went down for the year.

Isn't that what I just stated above about the blown assignments?? I totally agree.

[Gunakor]

I don't think the defense did drop off all that much without Barnett. They weren't very good with him or without him. The Packers gave up 24.0 ppg with Barnett in the lineup, and 24.9 ppg without him. Through 9 games Barnett was on pace to have his worst season statistically with 49 total tackles, 0 INT, 0 sacks and 1 FF. That's not to say I'm not glad he'll be back, but the Packers need him and Hawk to return to their 2007 form, not what we saw last year. I think a lot of Hawk's problems were injury related, but Barnett's performance puzzled me.

I hate to sound like Partial here, but I'm going to anyway. What are the defensive statistics during the final 5 minutes of the game with Barnett in the game compared to the final 5 minutes of the game without him?

Missing Barnett mattered a great deal when it came down to crunch time. It's not the plays he made or did not make personally that is important. It's his ability to get his guys in the right position to make plays when it mattered. He made the entire defense better even if he himself was having a down year. That was extremely evident after he went down for the year.

Isn't that what I just stated above about the blown assignments?? I totally agree.

That's why I quoted Joe and not you :D

[rbaloha1]

Screw the stats. Barnett played with passion and emotion oftentimes resulting in big plays. The defense was too passive in the fourth quarter lacking Barnett's leadership.

Hope Barnett is on the field as scheduled although concerned about how he fits in the new scheme.

[SnakeLH2006]

I think this goes back to him not beating on hoes and being angry enough. Look at the good MLBs, they all have issues. We need Barnett pissed off and hateful. For the money he is making I dont give as damn how it affects him. Just give him a reason to feel violent.

Well Snake does have Ahman Green's Xbox LIVE gamertag as I used to play Madden against him and whoop him handily....I'm sure he could fire up against some ho's. :shock: :lol:

Then again, we are best off calling some big white girls to fight over Nick and make him all Shaft-like in the clubs (as that was when Nick was at his NFL best). Anyone have some big white girls to call?...Fortunately for Snake and unfortunately for Nick, Snake has none in his Fab 5. 8-) :lol: