Barnett Refuses to Move?

[Deputy Nutz]

Packers: Barnett tackles talk of switch
JASON WILDE
608-252-6176
jwilde@madison.com
GREEN BAY - Nick Barnett wanted to get something off his chest Tuesday afternoon.

The Green Bay Packers middle linebacker - for now, anyway - does not want to move to another position. Period.

Not that Barnett has anything against rookie Abdul Hodge, whose play during the first two weeks of training camp has been eye-opening. In fact, Barnett is all for the Abdul-a-palooza that camp has become over the past week, as the youngster has stood out to coaches, teammates, reporters and fans alike during practice and Saturday night's intrasquad scrimmage.

But Barnett, the team's 2003 first-round draft pick and leading tackler each of the past three seasons, doesn't just dislike the idea of moving outside from mike (middle) to the less glamorous sam (strong-side) spot, he hates it.

So when approached by a reporter after practice Tuesday, Barnett didn't even wait until the question was asked.

"I really get offended sometimes when you guys ask me about moving. Why would I move?" said Barnett, who set a franchise record with 194 tackles last season. "I'm the vet in this defense. I've been playing the middle linebacker position for three years. I haven't (played poorly). I've been balling ever since I've been here. Let's be honest.

"There's been some plays here or there where I've made mistakes. I'll give you that. But that happens to all players. After playing three straight years, it starts to irk me, talking about this. It's not going to happen. I ain't playing sam."

Uh, Nick - don't be so sure about that.

Asked after practice whether he thought Barnett was capable of moving outside to sam, coach Mike McCarthy said, "I have no reason to think that he's not (able to play sam). ... I think it's been obvious that there is a comfort level (Hodge) does have so far at the mike linebacker. So that's something we may explore."

See, here's the crux of the problem: Hodge played mike linebacker at Iowa, and was terrific in that role. But because he's not as adept in pass coverage and there are questions about his lower-body strength against the run, there are those - Iowa coach Kirk Ferentz being one of them - who think he can only play in the middle in the NFL.

Meanwhile, the coaches have vowed to play their three best linebackers, and if Hodge is one of them and joins Barnett and fellow rookie A.J. Hawk, the No. 5 overall pick, someone has to play at sam.

Throughout camp, Hawk has worked outside at the will (weak-side) linebacker spot, Barnett at his customary mike spot and free-agent pickup Ben Taylor at sam - though Hodge did take a few snaps there during Tuesday's practice.

And, as Barnett admitted Tuesday, the Packers aren't going to move the high-profile Hawk to the lowest-profile linebacker position.

"They need A.J. at will. When you draft somebody that high, you want to put him at the mike or the will so they'll have productive numbers," Barnett said. "And I understand the reasoning of wanting to move me to the sam, because I can cover and I'm a smart player, but I think Abdul's smart enough to play that position, too.

"I don't think they're giving him enough credit. I think he can play sam. It's not that hard of a position. But what's wrong with Ben (Taylor)? Ben's been excellent at sam. Why are we even talking about this?"

Barnett said neither McCarthy nor defensive coordinator Bob Sanders has broached the subject of moving him to sam, even though the preseason opener is Saturday at San Diego and the regular-season opener is a month away, Sept. 10 against Chicago.

"Right now, we're trying to keep all scenarios open, but we haven't played a preseason game yet," Sanders said. "There's a lot of practice time left."

The other thing that bothers Barnett is that, although he's playing for his fourth coordinator in four years, Sanders at least kept the same scheme as Jim Bates. Moving to a new position would mean whatever year-to-year continuity Barnett had coming into this season would be out the window.

On top of that, Barnett says moving to sam would hurt him at the free-agent bargaining table, since his contract expires after the 2007 season and his numbers would nosedive from the 490 tackles, six sacks, five interceptions and five forced fumbles he's had the past three years.

"Look, I can play it. I can play any linebacker position we've got," Barnett said. "But you start to think about other things as well, as far as your future. My free-agent year is coming up. You move me to sam, (and it's) really an unproductive position, doesn't get a lot of opportunities to make tackles.

"They talk to me about being a leader, and that's what I'm trying to do. You move me to sam, I go to being a quiet player in the back of the huddle, just by nature of the position. I don't see it happening, honestly."

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't have a problem with him wanting to stay at MLB. I wish he wasn't so frontal about it, and I wish he didn't bring up his stats and future contract (although it's only natural to think it). Maybe the Packers should give him a nice tidy extension with the cap room. That should alleviate his worries about a future contract.

[Partial]

That's irritating. His entire reason for not wanting to move is he wants the payday and notoriety all do himself. He is putting himself above the team. Ridiculous.

[Deputy Nutz]

He is right Ben Talyor is doing a fine job at SAM, thats why I want Nick to get the starting Nickel and Dime position.

[Tony Oday]

I like the honest answers from the guy no fricken politiking! Why would we move him? because fans dont like him or his 194 tackles last year? I think this is getting too much press however after this year when he excels again we need to ink him to another deal.

[woodbuck27]

I don't have a problem with him wanting to stay at MLB. I wish he wasn't so frontal about it, and I wish he didn't bring up his stats and future contract (although it's only natural to think it). Maybe the Packers should give him a nice tidy extension with the cap room. That should alleviate his worries about a future contract.

Nick Barnett has to learn to take one for his team. I am a fan of Nick Barnett but MM will decide what he needs most from Nick to help us get to the level we deserve to enjoy.

Winning football games and re-establishing the Packers - as contenders ASAP.

[chewy-bacca]

can anyone put the team first any more?

Also, sence when do "D" player have bigger egos than "O" players? for the past 3+ years we have had issues with selfishness on the D. They seem to forget its an honor to be able to play the game at the level they do, let the coaches decide where they should line up.

[Creepy]

Ih Hodge pick up the pass defense, then they will make a change, but not until they are certain he has agraps of it. Unless he blows everybody up and plays good pass defense Hodge will be situational this year at the MLB position. He may replace Barnett on short yardage third downs and goal line stands. When it come to the nickel they expect Barnett & hawk to be in and Hodge out, thus having two good LBs in pass defense. I still say by the end of the season Hodge is in the middle and Barnett is either outside or on bench until the nuckel is called for.

If Barnett thinks his price will go down if he is moved to SAM, how much will he be worth if they decide that Hodge is better on short yardage situations than the starting MLB. The MLB is the run stuffer, if he has to be preplaced on short yardage (and I tell you he will be), then he isn't going to get the money he wants. The only way Barnett stays inthe middle is if he plays a lot better than he has in the past.

Making a lot of tackles does not make you the best on defense, being in the right place and stopping first downs do. Barnett was not doing it and should be replaced by Hodge, and moved to SAM.

[Tony Oday]

This is the funniest thing that is discussed by Packer fans. Barnett is a solid MLB. He isnt moving end of story.

[red]

i just lost a lot of respect for nick as soon as he brought up money

hodge doesn't have the speed or the cover skills to play outside, i don't think. nick does. hodge brings hard hitting toughness and fear to the middle, nick doesn't. hodge looks like he's capable of making game changing plays, barnett just knows how to tackle when needed

if the coaches feel that hodge is better inside then nick, then nick can either move outside, sit his ass on the bench, or learn another new system after he gets tradded somewhere else

if nick refuses to move and hodge continues to look good in the middle then nicks time in green bay is almost up

preseason will tell us a lot more

[red]

This is the funniest thing that is discussed by Packer fans. Barnett is a solid MLB. He isnt moving end of story.

he's solid, but he's nothing special

[TheRaven]

Ih Hodge pick up the pass defense, then they will make a change, but not until they are certain he has agraps of it. Unless he blows everybody up and plays good pass defense Hodge will be situational this year at the MLB position. He may replace Barnett on short yardage third downs and goal line stands. When it come to the nickel they expect Barnett & hawk to be in and Hodge out, thus having two good LBs in pass defense. I still say by the end of the season Hodge is in the middle and Barnett is either outside or on bench until the nuckel is called for.

If Barnett thinks his price will go down if he is moved to SAM, how much will he be worth if they decide that Hodge is better on short yardage situations than the starting MLB. The MLB is the run stuffer, if he has to be preplaced on short yardage (and I tell you he will be), then he isn't going to get the money he wants. The only way Barnett stays inthe middle is if he plays a lot better than he has in the past.

Making a lot of tackles does not make you the best on defense, being in the right place and stopping first downs do. Barnett was not doing it and should be replaced by Hodge, and moved to SAM.

Agreed. :cool:

[Partial]

i just lost a lot of respect for nick as soon as he brought up money

hodge doesn't have the speed or the cover skills to play outside, i don't think. nick does. hodge brings hard hitting toughness and fear to the middle, nick doesn't. hodge looks like he's capable of making game changing plays, barnett just knows how to tackle when needed

if the coaches feel that hodge is better inside then nick, then nick can either move outside, sit his ass on the bench, or learn another new system after he gets tradded somewhere else

if nick refuses to move and hodge continues to look good in the middle then nicks time in green bay is almost up

preseason will tell us a lot more

put very, very well. I think he made such harsh statements since he's a little worried himself :mrgreen:

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Ih Hodge pick up the pass defense, then they will make a change, but not until they are certain he has agraps of it. Unless he blows everybody up and plays good pass defense Hodge will be situational this year at the MLB position. He may replace Barnett on short yardage third downs and goal line stands. When it come to the nickel they expect Barnett & hawk to be in and Hodge out, thus having two good LBs in pass defense. I still say by the end of the season Hodge is in the middle and Barnett is either outside or on bench until the nuckel is called for.

If Barnett thinks his price will go down if he is moved to SAM, how much will he be worth if they decide that Hodge is better on short yardage situations than the starting MLB. The MLB is the run stuffer, if he has to be preplaced on short yardage (and I tell you he will be), then he isn't going to get the money he wants. The only way Barnett stays inthe middle is if he plays a lot better than he has in the past.

Making a lot of tackles does not make you the best on defense, being in the right place and stopping first downs do. Barnett was not doing it and should be replaced by Hodge, and moved to SAM.

Amen

[RashanGary]

I knew Barnett would be against this. It's just common sense. The MLB gets all the tackles in this defense. Paris Lenon could have had 180 tackles starting 16 games.

Barnett is a good MLB. Hodge is a good MLB. The problem is that Barnett is also a good OLB and Hodge is not. This discussion is not being brought about because Barnett is not good. It's being discussed because Hodge is also good and only fits one position.

[RashanGary]

It's only a matter of time before Hodge takes the middle. Barnett can complain all he wants. Hodge won't be on the bench for 2 years and he won't be on the SLB EVER.

Has this become the most heated roster battle? I think so.

[red]

plus, i think this offseason showed us that, if you are a good LB you are going to get a 50 some million dollar deal, no matter what position you play.

could it be like gregjennings (nick) is saying? is nick realising that a lot of his tackles came because of where he played, not how good he is? and does he figure without the huge tackle counts he's really not a special player worth the huge $$$$$

[RashanGary]

On a side note, Widle likes to stir the pot, but boy is it entertaining. This is a great approach to sports jourelism. This is what we all wanted to hear. This is what we all suspected but never saw in words. I take back my distaste for Wilde. He brings it when everyone else is affraid.

[Row 67]

Why can't some of these dickheads just say "heck yeah- if moving me outside gets our three best players on the field, I'm all for it." If Hodgie earns it, I'll move. That would really make us a devastating defense. I know that whatever position I play, I'm going to take care of my assignment and shut down my man or my zone. That will just make it easier for the other guys. I probably won't be able to pad my stats as well outside, but I'm going to get rewarded for my total body of work when my contract is up, so a year or two at the other position shouldn't be an issue. I'll just use the opportunity to show my versatility. Who knows, if our defense really gels and is the catalyst for a Super Bowl run, who knows, I might make even more money"

Part of this is the press's and the fans fault. They constantly hound these guys with interview after interview. Every play in practice is scrutinized.

The interesting thing about this whole issue is how TT is stocking the team through the draft. We have depth at linebacker, safety, cornerback, RB, fullback, TE and D-line. We're a little thin at offensive line due to injuries, and because no receiver stepped up, we're weak there. We have depth at punter and kicker (although quality at kicker is still a question), and we're a bit thin at QB depth. However, after another draft or two, this team will be DEEP at almost all positions. So when (or if) a guy like Barnett wants to be a problem, you can let him walk in FA, or trade him, or cut him. And you still have a Hodge to pick up slack, with Taylor and Poppinga or some other guys still around.

[red]

It's only a matter of time before Hodge takes the middle. Barnett can complain all he wants. Hodge won't be on the bench for 2 years and he won't be on the SLB EVER.

Has this become the most heated roster battle? I think so.

at least he's fighting for it. for that i'll give him credit. unlike roman, who as soon as the team brought in someone to compete with him, he threw a little hissy fit and said he wanted out

we haven't heard nick bitch yet about the team not talking to him about drafting another MLB

its just that if he losses this battle for MLB at some point, then he needs to move outside and do whats best for the team

[Packnut]

I've been pretty neutral on Barnett but his latest comments really tick me off. He should have stated he would do whatever was best for the team. He brought up his past record but really, how many game changing plays has he had? How many times has he blown up a RB in the hole?

Until the hitman can understand coverages, we're stuck with Barnett.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Barnett also lost respect with me after his comments about money. I would have respected him alot more if he said he didnt want to move b/c he likes the middle and left it at that.

As for the notion of trading him, hell no! If we lose one more star player, I will need to take my anger out on someone and it will be TT. If one more of my favorite players leaves this team I will be to pissed off. :evil:

[RashanGary]

TT inherited Shermans roster and it's quite clear he wants tough guys on defense. Barnett in the middle is not a tough guy. Maybe McCarthy can have a chat with Barnett and convince him to move but Barnett isn't stupid. When this defense was brought in everyone talked about how it funneled plays to the MLB. Barnett does not want to have to do the little things that go unnoticed. He wants the stat-line. It's comparable to a chucker at PG...It might seem helpfull when looking at the statline, but the guy who just does the little things changes the game in the positive direction. I'm not a fan of Barnett at this point. I would love to see him traded next off season.

[4and12to12and4]

Wow. What a statement. We were all kind of waiting for something like this to happen. The writing has been on the wall since draft day. I totally understand Nick's thinking on this. I mean, if any of us were up for a new contract at our jobs and a newcomer came in and wowed the company with a couple of weeks of good work, and we were in jeapordy of losing our position after giving the company our all for three years, we would be pissed too. Would we just take it on the chin and say "Well, it 'might' be what's best for the company's gross numbers, so I'll take the back seat, even though it's going to jeapordize the rest of my career". It's a tough pill to swallow for anyone.

So, I don't fault him for his position on this, I do however fault him for taking it to the press and saying "I'm not moving". This is the biggest problem with these guys today in the NFL. He should have just kept his mouth shut and dealt with it privately with TT and MM. Why these guys blow up to the press is beyond me. I know that to be as good as Nick is, to be good enough to simply play in the NFL means you have a very high level of competitiveness and pride, but, I wish these guys would handle the press with more class. Barnett just put his coach and GM in a tight spot by saying he "won't". No player has that right, and I hope MM takes him aside and reprimands him for that. He put himself above the team and his coach with that 'public' statement.

As fans, we want to win. That's all we care about in the end. As players, this is their livelyhood, their legacy. Most players want to win, just as we all want our company to be successful, but all players are, by nature, going to be more selfish to their own future than their teams success, just as we are more worried about our own individual success and future than our companys. I think we can all agree on that. So, IMO, I don't look badly on Nick for his position on this, I just wish he would have stated it behind closed doors.

[red]

As for the notion of trading him, hell no! If we lose one more star player, I will need to take my anger out on someone and it will be TT. If one more of my favorite players leaves this team I will be to pissed off. :evil:

but lets say hodge beats him out for MLB sometime this year, or next year, and nick refuses to play anywhere else. that would mean he's the backup and a ST player. would it be worth it to keep a guy on the team with that much trade value who is only a ST player, only to lose him to fre agency after 2007, and get nothing for him?

i'm guessing we can get a 1st or 2nd rounder for him, at least.

[RashanGary]

I know why Barnetts pissed. If he was secure in his position he wouldn't have said this. He would have said "the best player will win" or soemthing like that. This just shows that his whole story has validity. Barnett has been a good player but Hodge truely is pushing for playing time in the middle. I would like to see HOdge in on Goaline and short yardage and then start next year. I see no reason to stir the pot right now. I think Hodge is a year away from earning it anyway. Maybe you give Barnett a raise next eyar adn move him to the outside. I'd be happy with that resolution.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think everyone knows how I feel about Barnett in the middle. I could make 120 tackles in this system and having 350 pound linemen eat blocks for me. When Barnett becomes a free agent the majority of the teams will watch film of him, and determine that he will be best suited to play on the outside. He is absolutely horrible fit in a 3-4 defense, and in a base 4-3 he just isn't physical enough to take on blocks, and then defeat blocks from fullbacks and tight ends, much less offensive guards and centers.

The one thing that Barnett brings is speed. He uses that to make up for the fact that he has trouble getting through traffic, and getting off blocks. As a middle linebacker he is one of the worst blitzers I have ever seen, absolutely no instincts what so ever. His coverage skills are good, but lets not flatter him, they are not great. He is an arm tackler, a drag down type guy, who will miss tackles or get dragged for several yards by bigger ball carriers.

Just the little I was able to see of Hodge at training camp on Monday, spoke volumes about they way the game comes to him. He has fantastic instincts. Hodge isn't real big but he is able skip around blocks but still maintain his position to make the play. He has an excellent dip and rip move, where he drops his shoulder enough to make himself narrow enough where blockers have a hard time hitting him and driving him off the ball. He might not need Barnett's speed, but if he doesn't make mistakes he won't need Barnett's speed.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

As for the notion of trading him, hell no! If we lose one more star player, I will need to take my anger out on someone and it will be TT. If one more of my favorite players leaves this team I will be to pissed off. :evil:

but lets say hodge beats him out for MLB sometime this year, or next year, and nick refuses to play anywhere else. that would mean he's the backup and a ST player. would it be worth it to keep a guy on the team with that much trade value who is only a ST player, only to lose him to fre agency after 2007, and get nothing for him?

i'm guessing we can get a 1st or 2nd rounder for him, at least.

You guys are not giving Barnett enough cerdit. I remember mouths ago people were saying how they love Barnett and how hes one of the best line backers in the league, and all of a sudden hodge does good for two weeks in practice and were talking about a trade.

If we keep trading away our first round picks when will we ever be good? Whats the piont of having a young guy develop into a good player and then trade him away, that is retarded.

My whole piont is we should make it work, before talking about trading another young star.

[Packnut]

He just is'nt a game changing punnishing LB. However, I still think we bring hitman along slowly and see if he can pick up pass coverage. Once he does, then it's time to make the change.

[red]

the one thing i noticed at family night that i've never seen out of barnett, is hodge was blowing up plays, and getting to the RB before he got accross the line

i think what i'm trying to say is, he looks a lot more aggressive and capable of playing with that aggresion

[Packnut]

the one thing i noticed at family night that i've never seen out of barnett, is hodge was blowing up plays, and getting to the RB before he got accross the line

i think what i'm trying to say is, he looks a lot more aggressive and capable of playing with that aggresion


My memory is'nt that great but I don't remember ever seeing Barnett blow up a RB like hitman did family night.

[red]

As for the notion of trading him, hell no! If we lose one more star player, I will need to take my anger out on someone and it will be TT. If one more of my favorite players leaves this team I will be to pissed off. :evil:

but lets say hodge beats him out for MLB sometime this year, or next year, and nick refuses to play anywhere else. that would mean he's the backup and a ST player. would it be worth it to keep a guy on the team with that much trade value who is only a ST player, only to lose him to fre agency after 2007, and get nothing for him?

i'm guessing we can get a 1st or 2nd rounder for him, at least.

You guys are not giving Barnett enough cerdit. I remember mouths ago people were saying how they love Barnett and how hes one of the best line backers in the league, and all of a sudden hodge does good for two weeks in practice and were talking about a trade.

If we keep trading away our first round picks when will we ever be good? Whats the piont of having a young guy develop into a good player and then trade him away, that is retarded.

My whole piont is we should make it work, before talking about trading another young star.

but my point was that IF nick refuses to let it work and he gets beat out. then its better to trade him and get some nice competition rather then just letting him play backup and leave for a huge contract and get nothing in return

i don't think any of us want nick traded, well maybe nutz. but nicks brought it up by saying he won't move outside.

if he gets beat out for MLB and refuses to play outside, then sadley, we really have no use for him

[HarveyWallbangers]

Too funny! This has turned into Barnett sucks again. Barnett is a good player. I don't see the need to keep ripping into him. He's also made for this scheme at MLB. I'd like to see Hodge against other teams before knowing if he's fast enough for this scheme (he ran a 4.79 40). He likely is, but he's hardly proven himself. Plenty of guys have been big hitters who didn't have the speed to start in the NFL. If Hodge can't cover a TE or RB, he won't see the field. I'll withhold judgement until I see a couple of preseason games.

[gbgary]

if hodge is the best man for the middle i think the coaches will put him there and barnett will just have to get his head right with ball. i also think it wouldn't be a big deal to him if it wasn't thrown in his face everyday.

[red]

Too funny! This has turned into Barnett sucks again. Barnett is a good player. I don't see the need to keep ripping into him. He's also made for this scheme at MLB. I'd like to see Hodge against other teams before knowing if he's fast enough for this scheme (he ran a 4.79 40). He likely is, but he's hardly proven himself. Plenty of guys have been big hitters who didn't have the speed to start in the NFL. If Hodge can't cover a TE or RB, he won't see the field. I'll withhold judgement until I see a couple of preseason games.

is it possible that hodge could just drill the rb or TE before they are even able to get down the field?

lol

just a thought, but if he went full bore into a guy going out for a pass i doubt that guy would want to keep going out there

does that count in the 5 yard buffer? can you just destroy a guy?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I really dont think Barnett is in love with the middle line backer spot, its all about money. In college he play outsude and if we extended his contract with all this money we have, he would have a more open mind.

If TT can give C-Wood 10 mil this year, he can give Nick(a young good player) a contract extention.

[Deputy Nutz]

Too funny! This has turned into Barnett sucks again. Barnett is a good player. I don't see the need to keep ripping into him. He's also made for this scheme at MLB. I'd like to see Hodge against other teams before knowing if he's fast enough for this scheme (he ran a 4.79 40). He likely is, but he's hardly proven himself. Plenty of guys have been big hitters who didn't have the speed to start in the NFL. If Hodge can't cover a TE or RB, he won't see the field. I'll withhold judgement until I see a couple of preseason games.

Well Barnett ran like a 4.75 forty so in straight line speed there isn't much of a difference. Seriously Harv, Barnett is simply not in the mold of a middle linebacker. You said he was taylor made for this defense, well in my opinion Hodge is the one made for this defense. I compare him favorably to Zac Thomas, explosive, tough, and great instincts.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Too funny! This has turned into Barnett sucks again. Barnett is a good player. I don't see the need to keep ripping into him. He's also made for this scheme at MLB. I'd like to see Hodge against other teams before knowing if he's fast enough for this scheme (he ran a 4.79 40). He likely is, but he's hardly proven himself. Plenty of guys have been big hitters who didn't have the speed to start in the NFL. If Hodge can't cover a TE or RB, he won't see the field. I'll withhold judgement until I see a couple of preseason games.

Well Barnett ran like a 4.75 forty so in straight line speed there isn't much of a difference. Seriously Harv, Barnett is simply not in the mold of a middle linebacker. You said he was taylor made for this defense, well in my opinion Hodge is the one made for this defense. I compare him favorably to Zac Thomas, explosive, tough, and great instincts.

Barnett ran a 4.64. At least, that's what's listed on his draft bio on JSO. Are we really going to overhype Hodge before he's even played a preseason game? This sounds like Mike Hawkins from last year. Sure, he could end up being mint, but to compare him to Zach Thomas at this point is a stretch. I would think the coaches would have gotten him into the starting lineup already if he was that impressive. I imagine they'll wait to see what he does in games before determining if they should juggle their LBs. I saw him give up two receptions on two attempts in the passing game during the scrimmage. I'd like him to prove that he's at least adequate in coverage before annoiting him Zach Thomas.

[FritzDontBlitz]

wasn't barnett an outside linebacker in college?

[Packnut]

I think the best term that describes Barnett is average. For where he was drafted and the money paid to him, he really has'nt proved he was worth it.

He's had enough time to pick up blitz techniques but he's brutal getting to the QB. He has no instinct for it. However, let's see how his play improves with what should be a solid D line.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Too funny! This has turned into Barnett sucks again. Barnett is a good player. I don't see the need to keep ripping into him. He's also made for this scheme at MLB. I'd like to see Hodge against other teams before knowing if he's fast enough for this scheme (he ran a 4.79 40). He likely is, but he's hardly proven himself. Plenty of guys have been big hitters who didn't have the speed to start in the NFL. If Hodge can't cover a TE or RB, he won't see the field. I'll withhold judgement until I see a couple of preseason games.

Well Barnett ran like a 4.75 forty so in straight line speed there isn't much of a difference. Seriously Harv, Barnett is simply not in the mold of a middle linebacker. You said he was taylor made for this defense, well in my opinion Hodge is the one made for this defense. I compare him favorably to Zac Thomas, explosive, tough, and great instincts.

Barnett ran a 4.64. At least, that's what's listed on his draft bio on JSO. Are we really going to overhype Hodge before he's even played a preseason game? This sounds like Mike Hawkins from last year. Sure, he could end up being mint, but to compare him to Zach Thomas at this point is a stretch. I would think the coaches would have gotten him into the starting lineup already if he was that impressive. I imagine they'll wait to see what he does in games before determining if they should juggle their LBs. I saw him give up two receptions on two attempts in the passing game during the scrimmage. I'd like him to prove that he's at least adequate in coverage before annoiting him Zach Thomas.

Exactly. Before people start talking about trading Barnett how about seeing how this guy can play against some of the starting QBs in the league in live action.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I really do hope Hodge is another Zach Thomas. That would be mint. Then, I'd say move Barnett and don't worry about his feelings. I just have to see more of Hodge before making this call. I'm thinking the coaches are feeling the same way.

[Rastak]

As for the notion of trading him, hell no! If we lose one more star player, I will need to take my anger out on someone and it will be TT. If one more of my favorite players leaves this team I will be to pissed off. :evil:

but lets say hodge beats him out for MLB sometime this year, or next year, and nick refuses to play anywhere else. that would mean he's the backup and a ST player. would it be worth it to keep a guy on the team with that much trade value who is only a ST player, only to lose him to fre agency after 2007, and get nothing for him?

i'm guessing we can get a 1st or 2nd rounder for him, at least.


If he refused to play he'd get suspended. He'd most likely play then leave via free agency.

[HarveyWallbangers]

wasn't barnett an outside linebacker in college?

He was also a safety in college. Apples to oranges. Different schemes. Fast MLBs are a must in this scheme, and it doesn't really matter how big they are. At least, that's what the defensive coaches state.

[Packnut]

Yep, no way they can make that move now. Hitman is gonna need some time.

[woodbuck27]

I think everyone knows how I feel about Barnett in the middle. I could make 120 tackles in this system and having 350 pound linemen eat blocks for me. When Barnett becomes a free agent the majority of the teams will watch film of him, and determine that he will be best suited to play on the outside. He is absolutely horrible fit in a 3-4 defense, and in a base 4-3 he just isn't physical enough to take on blocks, and then defeat blocks from fullbacks and tight ends, much less offensive guards and centers.

The one thing that Barnett brings is speed. He uses that to make up for the fact that he has trouble getting through traffic, and getting off blocks. As a middle linebacker he is one of the worst blitzers I have ever seen, absolutely no instincts what so ever. His coverage skills are good, but lets not flatter him, they are not great. He is an arm tackler, a drag down type guy, who will miss tackles or get dragged for several yards by bigger ball carriers.

Just the little I was able to see of Hodge at training camp on Monday, spoke volumes about they way the game comes to him. He has fantastic instincts. Hodge isn't real big but he is able skip around blocks but still maintain his position to make the play. He has an excellent dip and rip move, where he drops his shoulder enough to make himself narrow enough where blockers have a hard time hitting him and driving him off the ball. He might not need Barnett's speed, but if he doesn't make mistakes he won't need Barnett's speed.

Good post and observation Dr. Nutz.

[No Mo Moss]

It's only natural for Barnett to say the things he did IMO. It's not like he's just been a stop-gap player at MLB because he has certainly been better then that. I think if Barnett plays MLB this season he may very well go to the pro-bowl (as long as he continues to improve as he has done each of the previous seasons). If you move him to OLB I don't think that happens. How can a guy not think about those implications in regards to the future contracts, it's only natural. That said I think we take what a player says and make it their truth for life, much like politics. He may have just been steamed at all the questions, possibly defensive. I think regardless of where Barnett ends up it would be wise to get him out of his rookie contract and into a new long term deal. Comments aside I have seem nothing to indicate BArnett is anything other than a team player and %100 GB football material.

[Partial]

How much is Barnett making now? How much should they pay to keep him?

[Joemailman]

I don't see any reason to rush Hodge into the starting lineup. Let him come into the game in short-yardage situations, and as the season goes on, gradually involve him in other game situations. If Hodge can master pass coverage, it will be obvious by the end of the year that he has more potential at MLB than Barnett. At that point, Nick can decide if he wants to battle for the starting SAM position, or be Hodge's backup. This whole issue is a problem to be solved next year, not this year.

[MJZiggy]

I JUST finished watching Coaches pc this morning and he said almost the same thing. He said he knows how Barnett feels and would think of changing his position without talking to him about it first. They are happy with his play in the mike and didn't see any reason to do anything about it right now.

[vince]

McCarthy should sit Nick down immediately and have a serious discussion about the type of attitude that is required to play on this team.

This whiny-ass talk about his free agenct year is ridiculous.

If his attitude keeps up, trade him when you can get something for him.

[FritzDontBlitz]

wasn't barnett an outside linebacker in college?

He was also a safety in college. Apples to oranges. Different schemes. Fast MLBs are a must in this scheme, and it doesn't really matter how big they are. At least, that's what the defensive coaches state.

well, the reason i asked is because barnett has never really looked like a natural in the middle. mlb's should be more stout against the run game than he is. i like barnett as a player too, but i think he would be much more suited to the outside than the middle. hodge has played the middle for years and apparently has the better feel for playing through the traffic.
barnett is a better lb in space than he is in traffic, and his ability to blitz is nonexistent.

i know its still early, but the best combination so far seems to be barnett at strong, hodge in the middle and hawk at the weakside. a combination like that would give you the big hitter/sure tackler you want in the middle and quickness/speed on both edges. barnett wouldn't need to worry about his stats because all three would shine by creating more big plays as a group.

[FritzDontBlitz]

I think everyone knows how I feel about Barnett in the middle. I could make 120 tackles in this system and having 350 pound linemen eat blocks for me. When Barnett becomes a free agent the majority of the teams will watch film of him, and determine that he will be best suited to play on the outside. He is absolutely horrible fit in a 3-4 defense, and in a base 4-3 he just isn't physical enough to take on blocks, and then defeat blocks from fullbacks and tight ends, much less offensive guards and centers.

The one thing that Barnett brings is speed. He uses that to make up for the fact that he has trouble getting through traffic, and getting off blocks. As a middle linebacker he is one of the worst blitzers I have ever seen, absolutely no instincts what so ever. His coverage skills are good, but lets not flatter him, they are not great. He is an arm tackler, a drag down type guy, who will miss tackles or get dragged for several yards by bigger ball carriers.

Just the little I was able to see of Hodge at training camp on Monday, spoke volumes about they way the game comes to him. He has fantastic instincts. Hodge isn't real big but he is able skip around blocks but still maintain his position to make the play. He has an excellent dip and rip move, where he drops his shoulder enough to make himself narrow enough where blockers have a hard time hitting him and driving him off the ball. He might not need Barnett's speed, but if he doesn't make mistakes he won't need Barnett's speed.

Good post and observation Dr. Nutz.

agreed

[woodbuck27]

I had three thoughts after I read Rastak's post regarding the possibility of losing a disenchanted Nick Barnett to Free Agency following 2006:

One. Does Nick Barnettt really want to be a Green Bay Packer? We'll see. He's a Free Agent after the 2007 season. Maybe, it's time to extend him now or certainly consider it based on his play in 2006.

Two. Does this situation with Nick Barnett, remind anyone of the Alfonso Soriano situation in Spring training and before that with the AL Washington Nationals of MLB?

Soriano absolutely wasn't moving from second base to left field - no way would he put up with that. Well he's playing outfield and enjoying a productive season with - 35 HR's, 72 RBI's and a .290 BA.

My third thought was Ernest Hemingways wonderful book -

"For Whom The Bell Tows".

HOLD THE FAITH - PACKERS in 2006 !

[Partial]

wasn't barnett an outside linebacker in college?

He was also a safety in college. Apples to oranges. Different schemes. Fast MLBs are a must in this scheme, and it doesn't really matter how big they are. At least, that's what the defensive coaches state.

well, the reason i asked is because barnett has never really looked like a natural in the middle. mlb's should be more stout against the run game than he is. i like barnett as a player too, but i think he would be much more suited to the outside than the middle. hodge has played the middle for years and apparently has the better feel for playing through the traffic.
barnett is a better lb in space than he is in traffic, and his ability to blitz is nonexistent.

i know its still early, but the best combination so far seems to be barnett at strong, hodge in the middle and hawk at the weakside. a combination like that would give you the big hitter/sure tackler you want in the middle and quickness/speed on both edges. barnett wouldn't need to worry about his stats because all three would shine by creating more big plays as a group.

Put perfectly

[Tony Oday]

FOr all of you who think he sucks or is just ok ask the Viking fans how much they have liked their MLBs in the last couple of years! If your argument is Barnett is only good because he has the fat guys eating up o linemen then why the hell dont the vikings have a STUD MLB that is in the probowl every year because they have a GREAT DT tandem.

I like Hodge but he is an unpolished rookie that made plays in a scrimmage and ALSO got pancaked at least once on a run up the right side. Barnett is a good solid MLB and with Taylor and Hawk they will be a great LB corp with depth.

[BallHawk]

Nick has stated before that he likes it in Green Bay. If he stays... we'll see.

IMO, there is no reason to move Barnett. Since he's got here he's had tackle totals of 109, 121, and 139. He's not a guy that will deliver the bonecrushing tackle to the RB, but he is consistent. Hodge has looked great in camp, but what has he done on the field yet? Barnett has done all he's been asked of and more since he's been here, why should he move. If I was Nick I'd be pissed to. The Preseason will be very revealing in Hodge's play, but I see no reason to move Barnett.

P.S. Woodbuck, I think you mean ALFONSO Soriano. :mrgreen:

[FritzDontBlitz]

one thing i REALLY LIKE about all this.

i like the idea of a rookie coming in and shaking up the complacent attitude of a guy like nick barnett, because it sends a message to everyone else on the team that you can be moved or replaced entirely at any time. i'm not saying that either will happen to barnett, i just like the idea of making him worry a lil bit.

[Joemailman]

It could just be that Barnett's problems with the Green Bay police and City Council already have him thinking about leaving Green Bay. If that's the case, it might not be surprising that he is already thinking about how attractive a free-agent he will be. I hope this isn't the case, but you never know how situations like this will affect a guy's attitude.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

How much is Barnett making now? How much should they pay to keep him?

I think he deserves a 6 year 25 mil.

[RIPackerFan]

FritzDontBiltz - Great point!

I love the competition that's already being generated. The coaches have not been shy about replacing an established veteran with a rookie who can play, and we have a bunch of rookies that have promise. In the past, there was little competition, especially for established players. Now, no one is safe.

From a fan's standpoint, this is good all around. The competition will push all players to do better instead of letting complacency settle in.

[Partial]

How much is Barnett making now? How much should they pay to keep him?

I think he deserves a 6 year 25 mil.

4 mil a year. Perhaps. That seems like a lot though for his production and position. We'll have to see.

[red]

It could just be that Barnett's problems with the Green Bay police and City Council already have him thinking about leaving Green Bay. If that's the case, it might not be surprising that he is already thinking about how attractive a free-agent he will be. I hope this isn't the case, but you never know how situations like this will affect a guy's attitude.

you might be on to something. i read something in his interview that didn't sit to well with me
this is from the interview

"On top of that, Barnett says moving to sam would hurt him at the free-agent bargaining table, since his contract expires after the 2007 season"


he's already talking here about being a free agent, meaning he doesn't resign with the packers. if he was big on staying with the team wouldn't he have phrased it something like

"when it comes time to resignl" or something like that, to include the packers in the process.

to me, when he says "free agent" it means somewhere other then here. if he really wants to stay with the team, and the team wants him, then he would have a new deal, before he becomes a free agent. i would think

[Deputy Nutz]

Bottom line they didn't draft Hodge to be Barnett's backup for the next 5 years. Barnett will either be resigned to play on the outside, or he will be allowed to leave via free agency.

Harvey, how many times have you seen Barnett hit a guy hard enough to force a fumble? Barnett likes to brag about how many tackles he can get, how come he isn't bragging about his ability to create turnovers?

Basically Barnett is suitable in the middle, but would probably demonstrate an ability to be flexible both on and off the field when it came time to sell himself during free agency.

It basically doesn't matter if Hodge is one of the best 3 linebackers, because if he isn't better than Barnett in the middle, or if he is not better than Taylor on the edge, then he isn't gonna start. Those are his only options right now. If Hodge has the ability to unseat Barnett then tough shit for Nick, but just because Hodge is thought of as on of the 3 best Backers on this team doesn't give him the middle linebacker job.

[Pacopete4]

what Barnett is not getting is, he needs to do whats best FOR THE TEAM and not for him. If Hodge, Hawk, and him are the best 3.. and Hodge is better at MLB and Barnett can play SAM.. then be happy and move ur ass out there and join the pro bowl at that position.

[red]

How much is Barnett making now? How much should they pay to keep him?

I think he deserves a 6 year 25 mil.

i don't think theres anyway he signs for that. rom his statements he obviously feels like he is a top MLB that can't be replaced. other top lB's this offseason got 50 million dollar deals

however, if all this is done right it would be possible to keep all three

barnett doesn't count much against the cap now, and won't next year. hawk has his big cap hit next year, then after that his numbers should be managable. hodge should count little money for the next 4 years

now all this is based on all three ending up being really good

hawk takes his big hit in 2007

barnett gets a new deal next year and takes the big cap hit the next year in 2008

and hodge wouldn't get his big money until the 2010 season

so if it is worked out right it would be possible to keep and even resign all three to keep them for the long hall

[FritzDontBlitz]

oh yeah. one more thing i forgot to bring up in the middle of all this:

ITS NOT NICK BARNETT'S DECISION WHERE HE PLAYS, THAT WOULD BE THE HEAD COACH'S CALL?

i like the way maccarthy answered the question about nick barnett's comments by saying “I understand how Nick feels. Frankly when a decision is to be made, we’ll talk to the player first. A lot of that is kind of unnecessary, his reaction to it. He’ll be the first to know if there ever is a consideration for a position change.”

without tipping his hand either way, mccarthy basically said "WE will let YOU know" if we decide different. doesn't sound like they'd be asking his opinion....

[Tony Oday]

Yup lets move Barnett to a position he isnt suited for sounds great. I would also like Favre at WR, Taucher at FB, Clifton at DT and Woodson at Qb.

Move a 194 tackle guy outside for a rookie that may have had a decent scrimmage against guys he sees every day. Sounds like madden football on Xbox not the NFL...

[Partial]

what Barnett is not getting is, he needs to do whats best FOR THE TEAM and not for him. If Hodge, Hawk, and him are the best 3.. and Hodge is better at MLB and Barnett can play SAM.. then be happy and move ur ass out there and join the pro bowl at that position.

Welcome to the forum dog!

[HarveyWallbangers]

Sure. It would be nice to have a fumble causing LB, but really I think fumbles come down to circumstance (fumble prone offensive player) and luck. Urlacher caused 1 fumble last year and recovered 0. Barnett caused 1 fumble last year and recovered 3. Would you say Urlacher isn't a hitting machine? I realize Urlacher has done it more throughout his career (he has 7 career forced fumbles in 6 years), but it's not like he forces 4 or 5 fumbles/year. More than anything, I want a MLB that gets tackles near the line of scrimmage. Barnett does that--despite the myth that all of his tackles are downfield. In 2004 that was the case. That wasn't the case in 2005, and I think patler had the stats to prove it.

[Deputy Nutz]

Yup lets move Barnett to a position he isnt suited for sounds great. I would also like Favre at WR, Taucher at FB, Clifton at DT and Woodson at Qb.

Move a 194 tackle guy outside for a rookie that may have had a decent scrimmage against guys he sees every day. Sounds like madden football on Xbox not the NFL...


"Look, I can play it. I can play any linebacker position we've got," Barnett said. "But you start to think about other things as well, as far as your future. My free-agent year is coming up. You move me to sam, (and it's) really an unproductive position, doesn't get a lot of opportunities to make tackles.

Care to edit your above post? He can play outside linebacker, but apparently he would rather not because of his up coming free agency in two years, and he doesn't want to be thought of as an unproductive strong side linebacker.

Another quote by Barnett, "They need A.J. at will. When you draft somebody that high, you want to put him at the mike or the will so they'll have productive numbers," Barnett said. "And I understand the reasoning of wanting to move me to the sam, because I can cover and I'm a smart player..."

Gee seems like he believes he has all the traits to move to the strongside!

[woodbuck27]

Nick has stated before that he likes it in Green Bay. If he stays... we'll see.

IMO, there is no reason to move Barnett. Since he's got here he's had tackle totals of 109, 121, and 139. He's not a guy that will deliver the bonecrushing tackle to the RB, but he is consistent. Hodge has looked great in camp, but what has he done on the field yet? Barnett has done all he's been asked of and more since he's been here, why should he move. If I was Nick I'd be pissed to. The Preseason will be very revealing in Hodge's play, but I see no reason to move Barnett.

P.S. Woodbuck, I think you mean ALFONSO Soriano. :mrgreen:

Thanks. I don't know where that came from. :mrgreen:

Nelson, Uhhhh !??

[HarveyWallbangers]

Q: Dave of Beloit - Silverstein made some interesting observations about Hodge's strenghts and weaknesses in his article Monday. Since we have a new coaching regime why is there still a refusal to recognize that Barnett is better suited to play outside with his speed/pursuit talent and Hodge to man the middle with his shorter burst speed and more punishing hitting? We all know Barnett made a lot of tackles in years past but precious few were at the line of scrimmage or of the bell ringing variety that middle linebackers should make...

A: Cliff Christl - Speed at middle linebacker offers some real advantages in scheming in today's game. And Barnett has speed. I'm not sure you're right: That he'd be better outside. I think he's better suited for middle linebacker than the weak-side. I don't know about strong side in this defense. Never seen him there.

[woodbuck27]

Yup lets move Barnett to a position he isnt suited for sounds great. I would also like Favre at WR, Taucher at FB, Clifton at DT and Woodson at Qb.

Move a 194 tackle guy outside for a rookie that may have had a decent scrimmage against guys he sees every day. Sounds like madden football on Xbox not the NFL...

I don't want Charles Woodson at QB. Don't even suggest it !

shhhh. :mrgreen:

[Deputy Nutz]

Q: Dave of Beloit - Silverstein made some interesting observations about Hodge's strenghts and weaknesses in his article Monday. Since we have a new coaching regime why is there still a refusal to recognize that Barnett is better suited to play outside with his speed/pursuit talent and Hodge to man the middle with his shorter burst speed and more punishing hitting? We all know Barnett made a lot of tackles in years past but precious few were at the line of scrimmage or of the bell ringing variety that middle linebackers should make...

A: Cliff Christl - Speed at middle linebacker offers some real advantages in scheming in today's game. And Barnett has speed. I'm not sure you're right: That he'd be better outside. I think he's better suited for middle linebacker than the weak-side. I don't know about strong side in this defense. Never seen him there.

I guess if Cliff Christl believes in Barnett than this topic is now muted. Good find Harvey

[red]

Yup lets move Barnett to a position he isnt suited for sounds great. I would also like Favre at WR, Taucher at FB, Clifton at DT and Woodson at Qb.

Move a 194 tackle guy outside for a rookie that may have had a decent scrimmage against guys he sees every day. Sounds like madden football on Xbox not the NFL...

his college coaches seemed to think he was a perfect fit for OLB

it was sherman that thought he should be a MLB

that right there should be enough to prove that #56 should be outside lol

and i don't think anyone is saying hodge should just be handed the MLB spot now. he does have to prove himself against real teams in real situations. but if he does prove to be a very good or dominate MLB in preseason and in the backup role, and better at it then barnett, then we have a problem.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I guess if Cliff Christl believes in Barnett than this topic is now muted. Good find Harvey

Ironically, he posted that in today's chat--while we were having this discussion. I'm sure you meant that sarcastically, but I like Uncle Cliffy. Although I don't agree with everything he says, I think he often gives a non-homeristic view of the team.

[Tony Oday]

Red you just put me in a box ;) Sherman thought he would be good there ;) hehe :smile:

[Partial]

I guess if Cliff Christl believes in Barnett than this topic is now muted. Good find Harvey

Ironically, he posted that in today's chat--while we were having this discussion. I'm sure you meant that sarcastically, but I like Uncle Cliffy. Although I don't agree with everything he says, I think he often gives a non-homeristic view of the team.

Can you post the chat good sir?

[HarveyWallbangers]

his college coaches seemed to think he was a perfect fit for OLB

His college coaches also seemed to think he was a good fit at S. Different scheme. Different level of competition. If we played Shurmur's defense, I'd say move him to OLB. I just think he's a better fit at MLB than OLB in this scheme. Mainly because you need a sideline-to-sideline guy at MLB. I'm guessing Hodge will start getting reps at SLB to challenge Taylor before Barnett is moved outside.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Chat with Uncle Cliffy today:

Q: Terry Williams of Green bay - Hi Cliff, Amad Carrol reminds me of Terel Buckley in many ways. As it turned out, T-Buck was a better nickle player than out in space on the corner. Do you think that may also be the case with carroll?

A: Cliff Christl - Carroll is playing on the corner and Woodson in the slot in the nickel. In the dime, Woodson and Carroll are both in the slot. So I don't know how to answer your question. Frankly, I don't see a lot of similarities between Carroll and Buckley other than that they are both under 5-10. Thanks for all the questions. Q: Walter of Kenosha - Hey Cliff, thanks for taking my question. I think on the defensive side if players are used in the right situations, we could really have much more improved defense than we are expecting. How has Brady Poppinga looked since returning? If I remember correctly he has a good motor and can be an effective 3rd down rusher. Do you think the Packers will use him as a compliment to KGB in passing situations. And does Mongomery look good enough to be a 1st-2nd down guy to keep KGB fresher for what he does best?

A: Cliff Christl - Poppinga hasn't done much yet. Montgomery didn't show much early, but has made some plays in the last few days. Q: Dave of Beloit - Silverstein made some interesting observations about Hodge's strenghts and weaknesses in his article Monday. Since we have a new coaching regime why is there still a refusal to recognize that Barnett is better suited to play outside with his speed/pursuit talent and Hodge to man the middle with his shorter burst speed and more punishing hitting? We all know Barnett made a lot of tackles in years past but precious few were at the line of scrimmage or of the bell ringing variety that middle linebackers should make...

A: Cliff Christl - Speed at middle linebacker offers some real advantages in scheming in today's game. And Barnett has speed. I'm not sure you're right: That he'd be better outside. I think he's better suited for middle linebacker than the weak-side. I don't know about strong side in this defense. Never seen him there. Q: Dave of Minneapolis - hey Cliff, I read the article the other day about Ferguson coming to camp "rippled" with muscles and running 4.3's. Is this just training camp gibberish? Or does he actually look better? Had the Packers cut him last year, I wouldn't have lost any sleep.

A: Cliff Christl - I wrote in mini-camp that he seemed to be playing a little faster and looked healthier, and I still see that. But I don't see him making a lot of plays or being consistent. He made a nice catch over Woodson yesterday, but there have been more times where I thought a defender out-fought him for the ball. Q: Brittany of Goshen - Cliff, The NFL season is a journey and not an instant hit or miss proposition. Take last year...The Bears were no better than the rest of the division through 7 games but then looked awesome once they gained confidense and got a couple wins under thier belt. The 92 Packers were 0-2 and 3-5 before coming back under young Brett to win 6 straight and get in the hunt.Even the 2000 Super Bowl champion Ravens went all of October without scoring an offensive TD and looked like a playoff longshot before they erupted in mid-November. All that being said, isn't it possible that theis Packer team will start out trying to feel its way and may struggle early but as the "O" line gets the knack of the zone scheme and the defense starts to jell the team could be in the hunt by November? It seems to me thats what happened last year to the Dolphins. What is your take on my theory?

A: Cliff Christl - You're absolutely right. You never know. A team can get on a roll, gain confidence and surprise, as you noted. But, again, I think it takes some special players and I don't see any playmakers on this team yet. Q: Sam of Nigeria - Come on Packer fans! Cliff how can our fans already be worrying about Hawk? My gosh if he hasn't shown anything by mid-season it may be time to worry but at least give the kid an exhibition game to prove himself. As I recall Sterling Sharpe did not catch a pass until his 2nd or 3rd regular season game and Favre wasn't exactly the 2nd coming of Joe Montans when he got into the Tampa Bay game in week 2 of 1992 and that was his SECOND season. So chill out guys and let Hawk find his game. I watched him a lot at Ohio St. and the guy will be good!

A: Cliff Christl - You're right. It's way too early to judge a player. He could be so-so all season and be an all-pro in two or three years. But you expect the fifth pick in the draft to jump out at you on the practice field. I think from day one, everybody knew James Lofton was a stud even though he endured some growing pains. I never thought that of Sharpe. But I also don't think Sharpe was in Lofton's class. He was a very good player, but not a great player. Q: Travis Kloehn of New London, WI - Cliff- Did you happen to read (fellow HOF voter) Paul Zimmerman's CNN/SI article on future HOF'ers? I thought it was pretty interesting and gave a little insight into the selection committee's thought process. I have a couple of questions. First, do you feel that too much stock is placed on players who are on championship teams? Personally, I think there is, particularly at the "non-skill" positions. More than likely, too many 60's Packers (Henry Jordan) made the HOF simply because they were on that team. Conversely, someone like Mike Tingelhoff might never make it. Had the Vikings won one or two of those SB's, I feel he'd have been a lock. Second question: Could you take me inside the room and present to me some of the arguments against Tingelhoff? I'm a huge Packer fan, but his omission seems particularly glaring.

A: Cliff Christl - I could spend a half-hour answering your question. But in a nutshell, I wrote detailed scouting reports for much of Tinglehoff's career where I interviewed scores of coaches and scouts. I never got the impression that anybody thought he was special. He was a good player on a good team who lasted a long time. Is that a Hall of Famer? But I agree that players on non-championship teams and especially lineman are at a disadvantage. Mike Kenn, for example. There was a lineman that most of the scouts and coaches that I talked to thought was special. Q: Danl of Hudson, WI - Are you detecting what the difference is in tone, pace, or focus from the new coaching staff? This would seem to be why a team changes coaches, as in "we need a different direction". Also, does the coaching staff seem to be on the same page with each other?

A: Cliff Christl - I'm not qualified to judge coaches. I think this staff has cut back some on contact, which can be a good thing. I know one observer with a football background told me that he thinks there's less indivdiual teaching. But maybe they're doing more of it in meetings and less on the field. One veteran player told me the other day, they had good coaches before and they did it one way; they've got some good coaches now and they're doing some things a different way. But one wasn't wrong and the other right. And I think what he was saying was that players and luck will determine McCarthy's fate, just as they did Sherman's. I think that's having a pretty realistic handle on the situation. Q: Mike of State College - Hey Cliff, I read two conflicting stories about Favre. Dr. Z called him the most over-rated sure fire hall a famer playing. He argued that Brett was a good QB that played on some great teams. (As an aside, I would have argued that much more strongly about Aikman). At the same time The Sporting News had a brief spot that --- through a comparision of his stats at different times in the game --- argued he is still outstanding and most of his errors and bad plays last year were a function of him taking additional risks to bring the team back from deficits. Thoughts on either story?

A: Cliff Christl - I enjoy reading or listening to Dr. Z's opinions. But I don't always agree and that would be the case here. I find it hard to believe that Favre isn't a sure Hall of Famer. I don't think he has ever been surrounded with great talent and especially in recent years. Remove Favre from the equation and I don't think the '90s and the last six years would have been much different than the '70s and '80s. That's my opinion. At the same time, I don't think Favre is the qb he was five or 10 years ago. He's slipping. How much? It was hard to tell last year when he was playing with the likes of Antonio Chatman. You're playing with an Arena League receiver, he can drag a quarterback down to his level. Q: mr. ed of geneva, NY - i remember the year first round pick jamal reynolds came to his first camp. lots of hubbub when he got here and then i remember seeing very little said about him for about a week of camp. i remember wondering why there was not much being said about him. and then the bad news started trickling out. i haven't heard much about Hawk lately. Ominous?

A: Cliff Christl - I don't remember the hubbub over Reynolds. I don't think he showed much early, either, but I can't tell you everything that was written. What about Hawk? I think he plays a position where it's harder to get an early read. One thing about Reynolds was that he looked so undersized when only the linemen were working together. Hawk isn't big, but that doesn't jump out as a shortcoming at that position. Q: Wade of Orlando - All I here is about how bad the Pack will be this year. I don't get it. We upgraded our Defense with Hawk, Woodson, Hodge etc. Although the offense remains the same, it shouldn't be any worse than last year with Green and Davenport back and upgraded Guard play. If I remember correctly, we were in every game last year except one. The way I see it, we have a shot at 8-8 or 9-7 with our last place schedule. Why are you so down on the Pack?

A: Cliff Christl - Because I base my opinions on what I see on the field, not what I see on paper. Green really hasn't practiced yet. I see nothing from Davenport. Hawk obviously is more talented than Paris Lenon, but he hasn't looked like a big improvement on the practice field as of yet. Maybe it'll come together and this team will surprise because, as I said, it has a lot of solid players. I just don't see any special ones and you can't win without them. But Favre has done it before. Woodson has done it before. Maybe I'm missing something. That's why they play the games. But remember they play those on the field, too, not on that piece of paper of yours where you've written down the names and they look better, so you're assuming they're playing better. Q: Doug G. of Minneapolis - Hodge or Hawk?? From what I have read to date, Hodge seems like a real stud out there on the field while Hawk seems a bit lost in the pro game. Your observation, please. And thank you for the insight.

A: Cliff Christl - I wouldn't call Hodge a real stud. He looks like a good prospect. And so far, he's looked better than Hawk. But they haven't even played an exhibition game yet. Let's not put one player in the Hall of Fame and dismiss the other as another Tony Mandarich just yet. Three weeks from now, we all might hold an opposite view. That's life in the NFL. One day, Therrian Fontenot can look like the worst cornerback they've had in camp in some years; and the next day, he can come out and have a good practice, which was what happened from Saturday to Monday. It's not unusual for coaches and scouts to be high on a player one day and ready to write him off the next. That's life. Q: cory of No. St Paul MN - I can't believe people thank you for answering there questions. You get paid to do that. I will give you the honor of talking to me. Driver will make more plays this year because he has known for three months he's the man. I agree with you AG performance this year must be asewome this year for the pack to win the div. The packers will win the div this year. You're welcome! Don't get cocky Cliff you're no smarter then the rest of us.

A: Cliff Christl - I agree there is no reason to thank me. You're right, I get paid for this. And I'm honored that people seek my opinion. I also think these mid-week and off-season chats draw a lot of excellent questions. And I just try to give candid, honest answers without mincing words. And my response to your prediction would be that I don't see it happening. Q: john h of vancouver - Wow, it looks like there could be 5 rookie starters this year on day 1. Do these guys look good, or do the Packers Gs, LBs, and WRs just look that pathetic? Also, which rookies do you see getting significant playing time this year? Thanks!

A: Cliff Christl - The guards had nobody to beat out. The team had only one receiver after last season. They cleaned house at linebacker. So they were all basically handed jobs. But I think, in time, some of them could be not just good players, but even a little better than that. Q: Bill of Austin - Everyone is raving about Jennings. From the media reports, it appears as though Favre is developing some rapport with him. Based on your observations, will he be the real deal when the bullets fly and he has to read defenses and adjust routes?

A: Cliff Christl - I think he's a player. I think I wrote in the last chat that I thought he could maybe catch 25 balls this year. He might have a chance to do even better. Will he be a Pro Bowl receiver some day? I'm not sure if he has the size and speed to be that good. But he certainly seems to have a special feel for the game, running routes, soft and quick hands. And, so far, the speed of the game hasn't been too much for him. So maybe he even has a higher ceiling than I think. Q: Robby of trenton - Cliff - The Packers lost a young WR with a lot of potential when Murphy was hurt on a kick return. Does Jennings really have to be put in the same position? Find a less valuable commodity and let him get leveled by 250-pounders running down the field at full speed. How about Fergy? It's one way to help get your money's worth from an overpaid underachiever.

A: Cliff Christl - It's football. I don't mean to be insulting. But if that's your mindset, watch bowling. Q: Blog Watcher of Cyberspace - Cliff: I have read your blogs for many years it seems, and I must say I don't recall ever seeing Favre in the Thumbs-down portion once - let alone twice in 10 days. Is it a combination a new system, receivers, etc... or is he in severe decline?

A: Cliff Christl - Good question. There were times in the past where he'd just be firing completions all over the field, one pass after another. I haven't seen that yet this year. I think starting last Friday, he looked better for a stretch. But I think he threw two interceptions again this morning. Q: Dewey of New Mexico - Sounds as though Hawk has not made any eye-popping plays yet, but does his athleticism stand out in practice?

A: Cliff Christl - No. You can tell he's a good athlete, but he doesn't stand above the crowd. Q: Brett of Orlando - Not much has been said of Tollefson and Johnny Jolly. How do they look through the first ten days of camp?

A: Cliff Christl - I've seen a couple flashes from Tollefson. But I think Jason Hunter is faster and a better athlete. Jolly hasn't shown much in the one-on-ones and that's about the only time I've really watched him. I don't see anything to get excited about with either one. But it's early. Q: Charles of La Crosse - With Hodge's Strong play so far do you think it is possible for him to be a starter in the middle or is his best chance to start on the outside?

A: Cliff Christl - I've never seen him on the outside. But he certainly has the potential to be a starting middle linebacker in the NFL and maybe a pretty good one. Q: Al Mancheski of Green Bay - Cliff, in all your years covering the team what would you consider the absolute nadir - the darkest hour - of the Packers?

A: Cliff Christl - Tough question. Maybe the period around the Lofton and Cade trials. Q: Helsinki Hannah of Helsinki Finland - Cliff: Thanks for the chats. Please tell me if Im way off here. I hope I am. This years coach came from one of the two teams worse than the Packers last year, the 49ers. The receiving corps looks atrocious. Ferguson's a stiff and Driver is no more than a serviceable WR, despite his positive attitude and work ethic. The tight ends are horrible. The running backs are decimated by injury and aging fast. (I predict Gado will lead the NFL running backs in fumbles if he starts.) The O line is potentially better than last year because of the two rookie guards but not by much. How's the DEPTH of the OL when, not if. someone gets hurt down there? Special teams, without Longwell, are worse than last year. (Plus, he is kicking for the Vikings which almost guarantees two losses right there!) The D Line is about the same, maybe better because attitude isnt poisoned by lazy fat guys like Cletidus Hunt and Grady Jackson. The secondary is only slightly better. Woodson is an upgrade over Carroll but all else is the same, plus Harris is disgruntled. The only area I see significant upgrade is at linebacker, and thats all based on POTENTIAL. (I think Hodge, not Hawk, will one day end up the bigger star.) Is the defensive improvement, along with a last place schedule and #4 behind center, enough to put them at 8-8, which I would consider a very successful season? What am I missing here? Is it just typical Packer Fan Optimism I keep reading that they may be 8-8 or 9-7 this year? As I see it, this may be the worst team in the NFL right now that the Saints have Brees and Reggie Bush and the Niners got the hot shot tight end. I mean, really, who is worse? Jets?

A: Cliff Christl - Al Harris doesn't act like a disgruntled player. He's a pro on the practice field. Driver, Franks, Tauscher, Clifton, Favre, Kampman, KGB, Barnett. They are all good reliable players who go about their jobs with a real professionalism. And I think there are some young players following suit: Jennings, the two new guards, Wells, Cole and some others. But there are hundreds of players like that in the NFL. So I agree with much of what you said. I was talking to someone on the sidelines this week who has been in football and the league for a number of years and he told me that he saw the same thing I do: Just a lot of bodies and nobody special. His prediction? That the Packers will be even worse this year than last year. Q: Jeff Matchette of Maple Grove, MN - Hi Cliff, What's the plan with the offensive line (awfully thin and young) and how serious is Clifton's injury? I'm not buying that this is a minor deal. Also, any chance of Hodge starting at Mike and Barnett moving to Sam? Keep up the great work! --Jeff

A: Cliff Christl - Let's face it, Clifton had a traumatic leg injury early in his career. I'm not a doctor. But my life experiences tell me that when people suffer serious injuries, it'll eventually catch up to them and cause problems down the line even though they might think they've fully recovered. And Clifton is playing pro football; he's not just some guy on the streets. He may play 16 games this year. But my hunch is that his career may be shortened by the toll that pelvic injury took on other parts of his body. He hit 30 this year. So we'll see. I don't know if they'd move Barnett or not. To this point, I don't think Hodge has shown that he's a better middle linebacker. Until he does, how do you make that move? Do you have a job where you work for somebody else? How would you like it and what do you think it would do for morale at your company, if the boss came up and said, "You're better than this other worker, but we're going to give him your job and move you elsewhere to a position of lesser stature?" How many businesses do you think operate that way? And do you think the NFL is any different? Q: BZ in Buenos Aires of Buenos Aires - Cliff, I always enjoy your objective insights - thanks! What do you consider to be this year's teams strengths? Weaknesses? Do you think that there is a chance that TT still has some roster surprises in store for us before the season gets started? Thanks and regards, BZ.

A: Cliff Christl - Strengths? More good, hard-working, tough players. Weaknesses? No playmakers, no great defenders, no difference makers. Don't look for any surprises. This is the NFL, not your fantasy league. Q: david of los angeles - though it's early, have u seen anything promising from some of the players on the fringe -- kurt campbell, mike hawkins, aj cooper, etc.?

A: Cliff Christl - Hawkins has a lot of talent. Cooper might make a run at a roster spot or a spot on the practice squad. Campbell is hurt and I didn't notice him at all early. I think there are maybe more good young players competing for jobs. That's probably been one of the pluses of this camp. Q: jeff of spencer - is there a good chance that the packers can get another wide reciever before the start of the season such as jerry porter ashlie lalie

A: Cliff Christl - To get Porter, the price figures to be steep. I don't know what kind of camp Lelie is having, but if he's availabe, Denver might want to dump him. How good is he? Q: Eric of Germantown - Cliff, I know its early but how do you see the WR postion breaking down. I wonder if Ferguson's talents will fit McCarthy's offense better with its emphasis on crossing patterns and slants, or am I just being foolishly optimistic? Also how has R. Martin progressed since the pads went on. I cant imagine the Packers keeping Ferguson, Boerigter and Gardner at the cost of anyone who shows any potential. In any case it seems like TE's Martin and Lee might be be featured more simply due to the lack of talent at the WR position as a whole.

A: Cliff Christl - They've been running crossing patterns and slants in Green Bay since Ferguson arrived. He has made two or three catches this camp that have been impressive. He'll also drop one right in his mitts. I remember one night early in camp, they were simulating a two-minute drill with no defense. The first play, Favre throws Ferguson a perfect strike on a little hook pattern. He dropped the ball. I think that was the day before I read about how Ferguson knew he was at a crossroads and ready to prove himself. Gardner has been inconsistent, too. Boerigter has been mostly invisible. Ruvell Martin started slow, then picked it up. He's probably not as talented as Ferguson and Gardner, but he's not that far behind. Just goes to show how mediocre the talent is at that position. Other than Driver and Jennings, I just see bodies. And Driver and Jennings aren't even close to being in Lofton's class. Q: Leo of Minneapolis - Cliff, I've always enjoyed your realistic perspective on the Packers...a hard thing to find in sports or any field of journalism. I've been a giddy Packer fan my whole life and can't help but be optimistic every year at this time. So many years the disappointment of a poor Packer season has hurt...regardless even of how worth it Favre has made watching the Packers for so many years. Can you give me 3 of your top reasons that may help me mellow my optimistic view point. Why can't the Packers be the Rams of 1999?

A: Cliff Christl - If you're over 30, what the heck was there to get giddy about during the Lindy Infante or Forrest Gregg years? Why can't the Packers be the '99 Rams? Well, do you see a Marshall Faulk on the roster? An Isaac Bruce and a Torry Holt? An Orlando Pace? Or how about a Kevin Carter, someone capable of getting 17 sacks this season? When the Packers had James Lofton and nothing else, I'd watch practice and see at least one stallion out there. With Favre having an ordinary camp for him, I don't see a stallion out there this year. The '99 Rams had three or four of them. Q: Otto of Palatine - Thanks for all the camp updates Cliff. Let's get this season started!! My plan is starting to work. Hodge will be in the middle by the end of camp. Poppinga will step up. Then we trade Barnett to Oakland for Porter, or to New Orleans for Stallworth.

A: Cliff Christl - Let's not go overboard on Hodge or Poppinga just yet. I think Hodge, in particular, has a chance to be a good, solid player. But it's only two weeks into camp. Q: Jack of Denver - Has anything Hawk has done jumped out at you where he looks like a dominant LB? After watching the scrimmage,the other top picks all made some plays and looked pretty solid, I struggled to find Hawk on many plays, and the big run by Herron looked to be his fault.

A: Cliff Christl - Haven't seen anything to this point. Q: Crazy Dave of Lunatic Fringe, WI - Hi Cliff, Quite often you write about how there are simply no good players available this time of year to help a team with a weakness. With talk coming out of Oakland that Joey Porter is available via trade, do you view this as an exception to your general rule? If so, with the cap room available, should GBP make a run at him, or would it retard the development of Jennings? Porter has to be a huge upgrade to Ferguson, Gardner or Boerighter. Other than draft picks, is there any player on the team with any trade value that might be expendable (Ferguson, Davenport, one of the DT's, etc.) to package with a mid level pick?

A: Cliff Christl - Sure, there are players available, if a team wants to pay the price. I read somewhere that the Raiders want a No. 1 for Porter. Would you do that? And what if that No. 1 turns out to be the top pick in the draft next spring? How smart a deal would that be? Again, come to grips with reality. What do you think you could get for a Ferguson or a Davenport and a mid-round pick? What's your going to get is what you're giving up. Not much. Q: kwed of dubuque - Cliff--from your early obvservations--whom would you keep if forced to make a choice: al harris vs charles woodson ahmad carroll vs mike hawkins Barnett vs Hawk(I know it's early), but talent is talent consider this year and the future.

A: Cliff Christl - Woodson is more talented than Harris and has made more plays. But that might be because the qbs don't throw much in Harris' direction. He usually has his man blanketed. Carroll and Hawkins are both talented. Carroll probably has had a better camp. From what I've seen, Barnett is as athletic as Hawk if not more so or at least he runs as well if not better. Q: Tim of Batavia - How much (if any ) are you encouraged by Aaron Rodgers progress this preseason so far? Also what is your early prognosis on Hawk - impact player or just another starter?

A: Cliff Christl - I think Rodgers looks much better. He has had some good practices, but he hasn't been consistent. As for Hawk, he hasn't shown much yet. I plan to write about him in tomorrow's camp report. Q: Terry of Chicago - Hi Cliff, Aren't the Packers just one starting OL injury away from disaster? Especially at Tackle. I would expect Thompson to make a trade for a solid back up, wouldn't you? As much as he hates to give away picks, he might have to , no?

A: Cliff Christl - I'm guessing that the personnel staff is working overtime looking at and pursuing possibilities at offensive tackle. But good luck. Where do you think a team is going to find a good left tackle at this point? The bottom line is it's not likely unless they develop someone on the roster. Q: george of san diego - i have a non-packer question, you said there was a quarterback who was playing in high school. I thought it was northern wisconsin, who was hearded at the best young quarterback ever from wisconsin. i would like to keep track this player and would you please reply with his name.... thanks

A: Cliff Christl - George, your question was in first and so even though it's a non-Packer question, Ill answer it. The qbs name was Jeff Donovan and he played at Wauwatosa East. Since I've been naming our all-state football team, going back to the early '90s, he's the best qb prospect I've seen in Wisconsin. But he didn't go to camps and he didn't get an offer from Wisconsin, even though he's five inches taller and has a better arm than his cousin, Tyler, current backup at UW. Thus, Jeff went to UW-Whitewater, where he'll play football and baseball. I believe his dad played some minor league ball and apparently some colleges thought Jeff wanted to pursue baseball. That also might have been a factor in why he didn't get any big-time offers. One footnote here. When I say the best qb prospect in Wisconsin over the past 12-15 years, keep in mind that there haven't been many that have gone on to successful careers at the college level. John Navarre played at Michigan. But most of the others that have gotten NFL tryouts, including Brian Wrobel, who is in the Packers' camp, played at smaller schools. Anyway, Jeff is going to play for a Division III power. I, too, will be interested to see how he does. Did I overrate him? Or did UW miss on another qb? The school doesn't have much of a track record at the position. How many good ones have they gotten out of the state? Bud Keyes maybe? Actually, the last standout was Ron VanderKelen in the early '60s. So because UW snubbed Donovan doesn't tell me much. I don't know if they'd know a good quarterback if they saw one.

[Deputy Nutz]

I guess if Cliff Christl believes in Barnett than this topic is now muted. Good find Harvey

Ironically, he posted that in today's chat--while we were having this discussion. I'm sure you meant that sarcastically, but I like Uncle Cliffy. Although I don't agree with everything he says, I think he often gives a non-homeristic view of the team.

Come on, me sarcastic?

Cliff is all right, but I think he prides himself in not being a homer, I don't really care for that, I think you lack a bit of passion with your writing if you don't care about the outcome.

[red]

his college coaches seemed to think he was a perfect fit for OLB

His college coaches also seemed to think he was a good fit at S. Different scheme. Different level of competition. If we played Shurmur's defense, I'd say move him to OLB. I just think he's a better fit at MLB than OLB in this scheme. Mainly because you need a sideline-to-sideline guy at MLB. I'm guessing Hodge will start getting reps at SLB to challenge Taylor before Barnett is moved outside.

i gotta ask the question. do you really need a MLB that can go sideline to sideline when you have two very capable guys playing outside?

and as the numbers you guys give out show. straight line, hodge is in the same ballpark as barnett

[No Mo Moss]

Money talks. He likes it here. If you offer him a deal he'll stay.

[red]

ok, sideline to sideline

lets crunch some numbers

40 yards= 120 feet

nfl football field= 160 feet wide

now a MLB should be about 80 feet away from the sideline at any time

#56= 4.65 second 40 time (we think)

Hodge= 4.70

#56= 120 feet in 4.65 seconds or 25.806 feet per second

hodge= 25.53 feet per second

so it takes #56 3.1 seconds to get to the sideline from the middle of the field. it takes hodge 3.13 seconds to get there

so in the time it take barnett to get to the sideline (80 feet). hodge would be only about 9 or 10 inches further away (3.1 seconds x 25.53 fps = 79.153 feet)

of course thats just based on flat out speed, not taking into account natural instincts, ability to figure out where the play is going and figure out the best line to get ther, and ability to get around guys in your way

[RashanGary]

Here is the big question that the coaches have to figure out;

What is the best LB trio that we can put on the field.

Maybe they think Hodge is worse than Taylor on the outside so they don't even train HOdge on the outside at all.

Hawk-Barnett-Hodge < Hawk-Barnett-Taylor

But then they might conclude that Barnett is > Taylor on the outside and Hodge is = to or comparable to Barnett on the inside. In that case,

Hawk-Hodge-Barnett > Hawk-Barnett-Taylor

It's not up to us anyway although it appears to me the pro HOdge middle people are arguing that Hodge can only paly one position and he does it at a high level where as Taylor does not play at a high level so it's not replacing Barnett for Hodge but rather replacing Hodge for Taylor in the only way possible. I see alot of logic in this thinking. I don't know that HOdge is better right now than Taylor so it's not something that has to happen right away. Hodge can sneak in as the MLB on short yardage and slowly earn his way in. Poppinga can take Taylors spot in certain blitz packages. There are a bunch of things that can happen that won't force Barnett outside right now. Next year I'm affraid it might be unavoidable. Hodge has to play inside if he's going to play according to the coaches/common sense and Barnett is fleixbile to play outside. IF Hodge falls on his face and cannot play football then this won't be a problem. IF he proves to be the 3rd best LB and has to be starting in the coaches eyes, I'm affraid there is only one way to do that and that is to put him in the middle. Barnett will just have to suck it up. McCArthy doesn't seem willing to play a group that he believes is less productive to placate Barnetts feelings.

[Tony Oday]

This is really a non-issue. Barnett is the MLB this year barring injury.

NEXT year Hodge will play MLB and after Barnett signs the kids-kids-kids are taken care of contract he wont care if he moves outside because he is taken care of. Then we have Pop replacing him at OLB to blitz and he gets his money and takes less punishment.

I still want to see Favre at WR :)

[MJZiggy]

Harv, Helsinki Hannah makes Wist look like King Kool-Aid.

[wist43]

Harv, Helsinki Hannah makes Wist look like King Kool-Aid.

Who makes me look like what???

Ya gotta cut me slack... I'm wildly optimistic - I'm inching my prediction toward 7-9!!!! :mrgreen:

[Bretsky]

McCarthy should sit Nick down immediately and have a serious discussion about the type of attitude that is required to play on this team.

This whiny-ass talk about his free agenct year is ridiculous. When Hodge learns his assignments, he will be a better MLB than Barnett ever thought about being. Get Hodge in there as soon as he's ready and move Barnett to SLB.

If his attitude keeps up, trade him when you can get something for him.

I CAN'T AGREE MORE.

This is MM's first challenge to shape attitudes and anything that could turn into the me mentality.

Talk to Nick
Let him know he's important to GB's success
But let him know it's the coaches job to decide where players play and all decisions are made for the best interests of the TEAM.

A strong coach should be able to get that accross far better then TT massaging Javon Walker's ego along the route to his departure.

[MJZiggy]

Harv, Helsinki Hannah makes Wist look like King Kool-Aid.

Who makes me look like what???

Ya gotta cut me slack... I'm wildly optimistic - I'm inching my prediction toward 7-9!!!! :mrgreen: Read the middle of the Cliff chat Harvey posted. Then again, don't--she may sour your opinion of the team!!

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

McCarthy should sit Nick down immediately and have a serious discussion about the type of attitude that is required to play on this team.

This whiny-ass talk about his free agenct year is ridiculous. When Hodge learns his assignments, he will be a better MLB than Barnett ever thought about being. Get Hodge in there as soon as he's ready and move Barnett to SLB.

If his attitude keeps up, trade him when you can get something for him.

I CAN'T AGREE MORE.

This is MM's first challenge to shape attitudes and anything that could turn into the me mentality.

Talk to Nick
Let him know he's important to GB's success
But let him know it's the coaches job to decide where players play and all decisions are made for the best interests of the TEAM.

A strong coach should be able to get that accross far better then TT massaging Javon Walker's ego along the route to his departure.

I agree it seems like theres no communication b/w players and coaches anymore. They let the press do all talking for everyone.

[MadtownPacker]

Damn I thought this thread was about Barnett moving his club!
Show him the $$$ cuz he has been a good LBer for the last 3 years, never out hurt, fast, but his only downfall, can't smell the ball! So dont overpay!

Besides, gotta make nice for all that club mess and keep the teams rep clean.

[Bretsky]

Wonder if Abdul Hodge could be this teams Odell Smash Mouth Thurman cause he looks like a mean one as well.

Gotta love the name ABDUUUL for a MLB if he ends up there.

[Brainerd]

A: Cliff Christl - You're absolutely right. You never know. A team can get on a roll, gain confidence and surprise, as you noted. But, again, I think it takes some special players and I don't see any playmakers on this team yet.

Cliff Cristl is a blind boob who takes anti-homerism to a ridiculous level. If he doesn't see any playmakers on this team then he doesn't understand the concept.

He always covers himself with not yet or not so far or that guy isn't what he was 10 years ago. Oh really, an athelete isn't what they were 10 years ago. Who would have thought? He's a plain, boring simpleton with one of the best jobs in the world and every word he writes pisses me off.

As for Barnett, I could care less if he stays or if he goes. He doesn't do much wrong but he doesn't do anything great either. Just a guy. A guy with some speed and speed fades with age (see Cliff Christl).

[pbmax]

Wonder if Abdul Hodge could be this teams Odell Smash Mouth Thurman cause he looks like a mean one as well.

Gotta love the name ABDUUUL for a MLB if he ends up there.
Bretsky, I just hope Hodge stays eligible longer than Odell has. Nice collection of headcases in Cincy.

Wist, its good to know you are still upright. When I heard talk on the way home of moving Barnett and installing the harder hitting Hodge in the middle I thought you were a goner, having nearly had back to back answers to prayers coming round the corner for your defensive concerns.

And just my two cents, I am much less worried that Barnett is going to cause a stink because his problem is internal competition. Losing a starting position by being beaten out and sitting on the bench wil do more to depress his salary than moving outside, if Hodge makes it happen.

Unlike Harris, Walker and McKenzie, the problem isn't a complete lack of depth giving the player leverage, it the competition. I like this position better, and it will aid in keeping people in line, especially of the team is really on the upswing this year.

[HarveyWallbangers]

#56= 4.65 second 40 time (we think)

Hodge= 4.70

According to JSO, Barnett = 4.64 and Hodge = 4.79. That's a pretty meaningful difference. It's not a few hundredths. Now, Hodge appears to have a quick burst, but so does Barnett. No matter how much you hate Barnett, it's pretty easy to tell he's a damn fast LB.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Snippeet from the JSO:

For new Packers like linebacker Ben Taylor, it was a bit of a culture shock, too. Taylor thought he had seen serious fans during his four seasons with the Cleveland Browns.

"You know, Cleveland, they're supposed to have these great fans. They had like only 30-some (thousand)," Taylor said of his scrimmages with the Browns. "This looked like a regular season home game to me. It's just amazing. When you talk about the Packers there is no question about the support. It's just amazing.

"It's just the aura. You can feel the aura from Green Bay. . . . Lambeau Field. You're playing for the Packers, it's something special that you're a part of. I'm thrilled to be a Packer. It's been absolutely awesome. A fresh start for me. I'm really looking forward to the season. . . . big things. I'm really excited."

[RashanGary]

Barnett is a very good all around LB. He's better than Hodge IMO but Hodge might be better than Taylor and not flexible enough to play on the outside. I don't really like the Barnett sucks arguement, but I definitly don't like the idea of Hodge playing on the outside and I don't think it's fair to the team for McCarthy to placate Barnett at the expense of the team. Is Hodge better than Taylor right now? I don't know but he very well could be sooner than later and when that day comes, I'd liek to think the coaches would field the best possible team.

[red]

#56= 4.65 second 40 time (we think)

Hodge= 4.70

According to JSO, Barnett = 4.64 and Hodge = 4.79. That's a pretty meaningful difference. It's not a few hundredths. Now, Hodge appears to have a quick burst, but so does Barnett. No matter how much you hate Barnett, it's pretty easy to tell he's a damn fast LB.

damnit, someone gave the wrong number and screwed up all my hard work

ok, just to make it right i redid the numbers

in the time it takes barnett to get to the sideline (80 feet-ish). hodge would have gone 77.6 feet. so instead of 10 inches he would be about 1 yard behind. or about an arms length. he would also get to the same spot 1 tenth of a second after #56

so its still not that big of a deal and can easily be negation by things like reading were the play is going, sheading blocks etc. and preseason will show us who is better at those things. but i would say those things are more important then 40 times

and neither time is blazing, and neither one is going to be running down a rb in the open field.

thats what we have nick collins for :)

[Green Bud Packer]

hey nutz whats a debuty?

[Zool]

Man why do i bother to read anything by Cristl. Every time someone brings up playmakers, he brings up Lofton. The guy hasnt been on the team in 2 decades. Time to let him go.

He didnt think Sharpe was a special player? He was the only one teams had to even worry about covering in '93 and he still caught 112 passes. 108 in '92.

Does he even watch football?

[woodbuck27]

Wait just a minute
Possible position shift doesn't excite Barnett

By BOB McGINN
bmcginn@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Aug. 9, 2006
Green Bay - Nick Barnett's future is tied to his next contract with the Green Bay Packers.

Barnett, 25, has this season and next season remaining on his original rookie deal. He has done his fair share. Now he hopes the club does likewise.

If the Packers want Barnett to shift from middle linebacker (Mike) to the strong-side (Sam) to accommodate the comfort level of rookie Abdul Hodge, then Barnett implied that to keep him on board as a happy camper a contract extension should soon follow.

"When I think about a switch happening, my contract years are coming up," Barnett said. "You know what I mean? And you want to move me to an unproductive position at Sam, which isn't really a tackle position? I'd say, 'Let's talk about it right now.' "

Barnett was adamant that he doesn't want to play anywhere other than middle linebacker, where he has started all but one game over the last three seasons since being drafted with the 29th pick in the first round.

"The only position that I would give 10% thought to is Will (weak-side linebacker)," he said. "But that's not going to happen because we got A.J. (Hawk) at the Will. Honestly, I'd be successful at whatever position they put me in. But I've grown to love that position (Mike)."

By now, Barnett has outperformed what in effect was a five-year, $6 million deal that he signed as a rookie. His base salary this year is $601,000, just $101,000 more than the minimum. And his cap salary of $1.11 million ranks 22nd on the team.

The Packers, who are 15th among National Football League teams in available cap room at $7.919 million, have what it takes financially to lock up Barnett with a lifetime contract. Barnett probably would be looking at a deal averaging in the $5.3 million range like those signed by Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila in April 2003, Chad Clifton in March 2004 and Aaron Kampman in March 2006.

Barnett's value to the Packers hinges on his health, his performance and his production.

His durability has been exceptional. It's why he was able to play 87% of the defensive snaps in 2003, 99% in '04 and 97% in '05.

His performance has been pretty good, never great, although this has been perhaps his finest training camp.

"I think his best ball is still ahead of him," linebackers coach Winston Moss said. "He's had a great attitude. We can coach him hard. He tries to get it done every single practice."

For as many snaps as Barnett has played, his big-play production (five interceptions, six fumble recoveries, one fumble forced) has been pedestrian. However, he has put up big numbers of tackles, including a club-record 194 last season.

Just like the 4-3 "under" defense of Ed Donatell and Bob Slowik was designed for the weak-side linebacker to make the most tackles, the 4-3 "over" defense of Jim Bates and now Bob Sanders is geared for the middle linebacker to make the most.

If Barnett were moved to the strong side to make way for Hodge, the rookie probably would make most of the tackles in base. Barnett's numbers still would be high because of his presence in the nickel and dime defenses, just not as high.

"I'm balling," Barnett said. "I'm the leader of this team. I'm playing Mike, man. Coach (Mike) McCarthy hasn't come to me to ask me to move. I don't think it will happen. But if you're going to move to Sam after three years in a row let's talk about the future - not just about that position but my future here."

The Packers undoubtedly will be looking to extend Barnett within the next 12 months. A position change could hasten those negotiations.

In the first 11 days of camp, all of both Barnett's and Hodge's snaps in the base defense had come in the middle. But on Tuesday Sanders said Hodge received a few snaps on the strong side, where Ben Taylor has been starting.

No one knows if Hodge can play anywhere but the middle. But Sanders didn't sound like a man unwilling to step on toes when he said the best three would be on the field Sept. 10 against Chicago.

"I'm not going to take nothing away from Hodge," Barnett said. "I think he's a great young player. Is he ready to get on the field? I think he's excellent against the run. I think he's got to do some work in coverage. They're in that quandary. They want to get him on the field because (reporters) and the public wants to see him on the field."

The Packers already have another viable candidate on the strong side in Brady Poppinga.

"I think people are just looking past Ben Taylor," said Barnett. "Ben Taylor is a smart player. He has been playing real good Sam."

The highest-paid linebacker is Hawk, whose six-year, $37.5 million deal includes a cap salary of $2.185 million that ranks 12th on the club. But after two weeks of camp, Barnett still is the team's best linebacker and Hodge has flashed more than Hawk on a day-in, day-out basis.

Barnett said Hawk and Hodge still have to earn their positions in the exhibition season. Then he caught himself and said, "Hawk has. The $37 million earned it."

A scenario in which Hawk would move to the strong side, with Barnett and Hodge occupying the two inside posts, seems unlikely.

"We've thrown a year's worth of stuff at (Hawk) in two weeks," Sanders said. "He's doing 45 (nickel), 46 (dime) and we got a rush package for him we just installed. All of a sudden, to put anybody into another position in 44 (base), I don't know that that's fair."

Soon, however, all the defenses will be in. The players will be judged on what they can do to defeat the Bears. And then that conversation involving Barnett, McCarthy and GM Ted Thompson might take place.

"As far as general philosophy, you're always going to do what's in the best interests of your football team," McCarthy said. "I understand how Nick feels . . . I think a lot of that's kind of necessary. He'll be the first to know if there ever is a consideration."


From the Aug. 10, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

[Terry]

I think Red has a point. It's not that speed isn't important, but there are other qualities that are just as important, perhaps sometimes more important. When I was a kid, I was as slow as molasses, but I was always getting interceptions from much faster players. Ok, pro quarterbacking is a whole different ballgame than children throwing passes, but then too, the distinctions in speed are significantly less between pro football players, as Red points out. Smart play will always be more of a difference than speed. Remember Eugene Robinson?


A: Cliff Christl - You're absolutely right. You never know. A team can get on a roll, gain confidence and surprise, as you noted. But, again, I think it takes some special players and I don't see any playmakers on this team yet.

Cliff Cristl is a blind boob who takes anti-homerism to a ridiculous level. If he doesn't see any playmakers on this team then he doesn't understand the concept.

He always covers himself with not yet or not so far or that guy isn't what he was 10 years ago. Oh really, an athelete isn't what they were 10 years ago. Who would have thought? He's a plain, boring simpleton with one of the best jobs in the world and every word he writes pisses me off.

As for Barnett, I could care less if he stays or if he goes. He doesn't do much wrong but he doesn't do anything great either. Just a guy. A guy with some speed and speed fades with age (see Cliff Christl).

You beat me to it and I agree with you completely. Christl made two points that I had issues with, plus one general, overall point.

Firstly, the same quote that you referred to about Cliff not seeing playmakers. He repeated that theme a few times, when he said he didn't see 'special' players and when he said he didn't see even one 'stallion' out there. Like you, apparently, I think Christl is totally lacking in imagination. I don't know if Cliff would recognize a potential playmaker if one jumped up and bit him in the arse.

Similarly, he made that snide remark about Chatman ("...when he was playing with the likes of Antonio Chatman. You're playing with an Arena League receiver, he can drag a quarterback down to his level.") Man, that's just huge disrespect, even contempt. For a guy who played quite well for us, overall. No star, to be sure, but he never fumbled a punt and he was quite reliable as a receiver. Things like that piss me off too.

But the other thing that really hit me was, "And I think what he was saying was that players and luck will determine McCarthy's fate, just as they did Sherman's." Man, that's just codswallop. I wonder what Lombardi would have to say about Christl's take on coaching - Lombardi felt that ALL the difference between teams in the NFL was coaching.

That leads me to my general point too. Christl keeps talking about playmakers, about player talent, and his only comment about coaching was that the coaches are at the mercy of the talent and luck. He sure gives Sherman a free pass. Actually, Sherman got much more out of his players during regular season than most coaches would have. Where he fell apart was in the post season.

I wonder what Christl would have thought about watching the practices in Lombardi's first season. Especially if he'd been watching the same players in training camp over the previous few years. Lombardi takes a 1-10-1 team and turns them into a 7-5 team in his first season, with the same players! In his second year, he has the team in the championship game and he nearly won it (he ran out of time when Jim Taylor was stopped at the nine yard line as time expired). I don't remember if there were new players that year, but there certainly weren't many.

I'm not suggesting that McCarthy is a good coach, never mind great coach. I think we have yet to find that out. But if he is a good coach, you can be sure that the group of non-players the Packers have will go a lot further this year than Cliff Christl or any of his genius friends (worse than last year, my ass) could ever conceive of. And if the season goes bad, it won't prove Christl right, imo, but will be more a reflection on the coaching. On the other hand, if the team actually manages to go something like 9-7 or even, especially, 10-6, you can be sure that Christl will be dancing all year.

[Tarlam!]

I would do EXACTLY what Vince would do, in this situation, if I were TT.

I would call Barnett into my office and tell him he's been traded to Buffalo.

[woodbuck27]

Don't like Mr. "C" then wrap your legs around this:

Posted August 10, 2006

Barnett feels he belongs in the middle

By Rob Demovsky
rdemovsk@greenbaypressgazette.com

The Green Bay Packers will have one unhappy linebacker on their hands if they try to move Nick Barnett out of the middle linebacker position.

Barnett on Wednesday said such a move would not sit well with him.

"I would not be happy with that decision," said Barnett, who has been the Packers' starting middle linebacker since he was their first-round draft pick in 2003. "I do want to do what's best for the team, don't get me wrong, but I do like playing middle linebacker. I feel like I'm a leader there. I don't want to move. It's like my home. I've been living there for three years, and I don't want to get evicted."

The fourth-year veteran has played nothing but middle linebacker during the first week and a half of training camp, but some shifting at his position group remains a possibility, in large part because of the eye-catching play of rookie Abdul Hodge.

Though Hodge began taking some reps at the strong-side (or Sam) linebacker on Tuesday, he also is a natural middle linebacker. That's where he played throughout his college career at the University of Iowa. The third-round draft pick has been serving as Barnett's primary backup at the middle (or Mike) spot throughout the offseason and in camp.

If the Packers deem Hodge one of their top three linebackers, coach Mike McCarthy and defensive coordinator Bob Sanders will have to decide whether to try him at the Sam spot, where free-agent pickup Ben Taylor has been playing, or put him in the middle and move Barnett to Sam. First-round draft pick A.J. Hawk appears locked into the weak-side (or Will) position.

"Is the coaching staff saying he's one of the best three?" Barnett said of Hodge. "I think Taylor is doing well. I think some people are underrating him. He's a solid, mistake-free guy. That goes a long way in that position. If we can get guys out there not making mistakes, that's big.

"I've been playing the Mike position pretty well through two or three different schemes. I don't see any reason why we would even be discussing it, but if that was a decision the coach would make, I'd certainly want to talk to the coach about it."

Barnett, who met with Sanders on the field after practice on Wednesday, said no one in the organization has broached the possibility of moving with him.

"We're very happy with the production Nick's given us at the middle linebacker position," McCarthy said. "He's been consistent. He's one of our leaders on defense, and that's what you're looking for in a Mike linebacker. As far as the general philosophy, you're always going to do what's in the best interest of your football team. I understand how Nick feels and, frankly, when decisions are to be made, we'll obviously talk to the players."

Barnett is under contract through the 2007 (the final two years of his original contract were voided because he met the 45 percent playing time clause), and a move from middle linebacker could hurt his value either on the free-agent market or in negotiations with the Packers on an extension.

He said on Monday that he would like to continue his career in Green Bay beyond 2007, but he wouldn't say whether he'd feel the same way if that was at a position other than middle linebacker.

"I don't want to say that it's time, but I would like to talk about a contract extension," Barnett said. "I think I've been playing well here."

Barnett has led the Packers in tackles in each of his first three seasons. Last year, he set the franchise record with 194 tackles (including 128 solo stops). It broke Mike Douglass' mark of 180 set in 1981. Part of that can be chalked up to the position Barnett plays. The middle linebacker spot is historically a play-making position.

"Look at the numbers. That's not a myth," Sanders said. "In our defense, that's the guy in the middle. Nick did a good job, and he's getting better."

Meanwhile, Hodge said he believes he could learn the SAM spot but didn't know how long it would take him.

"Will it be a smooth transition? I don't know," Hodge said. "I know I'm coachable. I don't know what they're going to do. That's what our coaches are here for. They're here to make those decisions."

Comment:

There's two more writers stories on Nick's discontent as to the possibility that Abdul Hodge should step right into the MLB spot.

TC distractions, jeeesssshhh ! :mrgreen:

Life's tough.

FAITH - PACKERS in 2006 !!

[woodbuck27]

Excellent take Terry. Your a strong addition to OUR Forum. :cool:

The press (local) that covers "the Packers" are really tough.

We had one - count it - ONE lousy season since Favre became OUR QB. The press needs to relax some.

I really believe this is a better team than last season. Will be better prepared for the season (only real concern still - ST's and of course injuries and depth on OUR OL), and we'll see some decent Packer football - overall in 2006.

I don't expect OUR team to challenge deep into the playoffs or even "make the DAM playoff's" . . .now that fella Mora - was funny :mrgreen:

I do expect us to crawl out of the deep hole, OUR TC and lack of preparation left us in, before Game ONE in 2005.

GO PACKERS !!

[Partial]

I think Red has a point. It's not that speed isn't important, but there are other qualities that are just as important, perhaps sometimes more important. When I was a kid, I was as slow as molasses, but I was always getting interceptions from much faster players. Ok, pro quarterbacking is a whole different ballgame than children throwing passes, but then too, the distinctions in speed are significantly less between pro football players, as Red points out. Smart play will always be more of a difference than speed. Remember Eugene Robinson?


A: Cliff Christl - You're absolutely right. You never know. A team can get on a roll, gain confidence and surprise, as you noted. But, again, I think it takes some special players and I don't see any playmakers on this team yet.

Cliff Cristl is a blind boob who takes anti-homerism to a ridiculous level. If he doesn't see any playmakers on this team then he doesn't understand the concept.

He always covers himself with not yet or not so far or that guy isn't what he was 10 years ago. Oh really, an athelete isn't what they were 10 years ago. Who would have thought? He's a plain, boring simpleton with one of the best jobs in the world and every word he writes pisses me off.

As for Barnett, I could care less if he stays or if he goes. He doesn't do much wrong but he doesn't do anything great either. Just a guy. A guy with some speed and speed fades with age (see Cliff Christl).

You beat me to it and I agree with you completely. Christl made two points that I had issues with, plus one general, overall point.

Firstly, the same quote that you referred to about Cliff not seeing playmakers. He repeated that theme a few times, when he said he didn't see 'special' players and when he said he didn't see even one 'stallion' out there. Like you, apparently, I think Christl is totally lacking in imagination. I don't know if Cliff would recognize a potential playmaker if one jumped up and bit him in the arse.

Similarly, he made that snide remark about Chatman ("...when he was playing with the likes of Antonio Chatman. You're playing with an Arena League receiver, he can drag a quarterback down to his level.") Man, that's just huge disrespect, even contempt. For a guy who played quite well for us, overall. No star, to be sure, but he never fumbled a punt and he was quite reliable as a receiver. Things like that piss me off too.

But the other thing that really hit me was, "And I think what he was saying was that players and luck will determine McCarthy's fate, just as they did Sherman's." Man, that's just codswallop. I wonder what Lombardi would have to say about Christl's take on coaching - Lombardi felt that ALL the difference between teams in the NFL was coaching.

That leads me to my general point too. Christl keeps talking about playmakers, about player talent, and his only comment about coaching was that the coaches are at the mercy of the talent and luck. He sure gives Sherman a free pass. Actually, Sherman got much more out of his players during regular season than most coaches would have. Where he fell apart was in the post season.

I wonder what Christl would have thought about watching the practices in Lombardi's first season. Especially if he'd been watching the same players in training camp over the previous few years. Lombardi takes a 1-10-1 team and turns them into a 7-5 team in his first season, with the same players! In his second year, he has the team in the championship game and he nearly won it (he ran out of time when Jim Taylor was stopped at the nine yard line as time expired). I don't remember if there were new players that year, but there certainly weren't many.

I'm not suggesting that McCarthy is a good coach, never mind great coach. I think we have yet to find that out. But if he is a good coach, you can be sure that the group of non-players the Packers have will go a lot further this year than Cliff Christl or any of his genius friends (worse than last year, my ass) could ever conceive of. And if the season goes bad, it won't prove Christl right, imo, but will be more a reflection on the coaching. On the other hand, if the team actually manages to go something like 9-7 or even, especially, 10-6, you can be sure that Christl will be dancing all year.

Great post!

[Tony Oday]

#56= 4.65 second 40 time (we think)

Hodge= 4.70

According to JSO, Barnett = 4.64 and Hodge = 4.79. That's a pretty meaningful difference. It's not a few hundredths. Now, Hodge appears to have a quick burst, but so does Barnett. No matter how much you hate Barnett, it's pretty easy to tell he's a damn fast LB.

damnit, someone gave the wrong number and screwed up all my hard work

ok, just to make it right i redid the numbers

in the time it takes barnett to get to the sideline (80 feet-ish). hodge would have gone 77.6 feet. so instead of 10 inches he would be about 1 yard behind. or about an arms length. he would also get to the same spot 1 tenth of a second after #56

so its still not that big of a deal and can easily be negation by things like reading were the play is going, sheading blocks etc. and preseason will show us who is better at those things. but i would say those things are more important then 40 times

and neither time is blazing, and neither one is going to be running down a rb in the open field.

thats what we have nick collins for :)

In a game of inches 36 of them is a lot to give up.

Barnett is being rightly so selfish in his view of this. Move me to a lower profile spot, keep me in Green Bay because I have earned my money. Which I agree he has. Sign the sucker to a nice extension right now. Pay dat man his money! Barnett has outplayed his contract unlike some people that have left the team. IF Barnett is moved and Hodge is the second coming of ray lewis then say thank you Barnett you played well for us here is your nice check now go play the filler LB position and knock that one out.

I would Love to see Hodge be in the top because that would give us the best young LB corp in a LONG TIME. Taylor as the backup with Pop we would be in a solid position to murder RBs...no really murder them!

[red]

i think i do agree that nick should probably get a new deal, and that as soon as he gets it he wouldn't mind moving

if we're talking about something in the 5-year 25 million range, then i'd say he's well worth it when other big named LB's are pulling in 50 million dollar deal.

thats even a good price for a SAM, which i'm guessing he would quickly become one of the better ones in the league

what he's making this year is way too little for the leader of our d.

give him some more money with all the extra cap we have. or else wait until next year (his final year to give him the new deal, that gives hodge 1 year to get adjusted to the pro level

[Tony Oday]

And the clouds parted and I agree ;)

hehe pay him the cash and he will be happy.

Use some of the 7million we still have and give harris a little more and some playing incentives and Barnett a nice little 5 year 30 million deal that is more frontloaded than anything and have a nice LB locked up for the better part of his career.

[Creepy]

IF GB keeps him in the middle the whole year and IF he plays so well that we don't want to move him, then pay him the money.

IF he should be average like he has been the last two years, IF he is moved outside and doesn't play all that well, then don't extend and make him play out his contract or trade him.

IF he moves to SAM, IF he plays well at that position, then again show him the money and keep him at Sam.

Too many IFs to be giving any extension at this time. By mid or 3/4 season we will know if we need or want to extend or resign Barnett.

[Tony Oday]

IF GB keeps him in the middle the whole year and IF he plays so well that we don't want to move him, then pay him the money.

IF he should be average like he has been the last two years, IF he is moved outside and doesn't play all that well, then don't extend and make him play out his contract or trade him.

IF he moves to SAM, IF he plays well at that position, then again show him the money and keep him at Sam.

Too many IFs to be giving any extension at this time. By mid or 3/4 season we will know if we need or want to extend or resign Barnett.

Average MLB=Sam Cowert and the like.

Barnett is above average at the MLB not great but there are few that are. He is solid and I would rather have 11 solid guys than two great guys. He WILL get his money and should because even in this defense and AVERAGE MLB doesnt get 194 tackles. It just doesnt happen! Face it we have been spoiled having him step up and play MLB for us. If we can upgrade because Hodge is that much better Im all for it, but that wont be the case in a guys rookie season.

[Noodle]

I'm glad to see folks are agreeing on the idea of paying Barnett.

You always see this crap about "he should do what's best for the team," but then you rarely hear anyone say, "the team should do what's best for the player" as far as money goes.

Barnett's point makes perfect sense to me -- if you want me to sacrifice and go to a new position where I'll have lower production numbers for a rook who hasn't played a down, then pay me now and don't come at me in a few years and say, "gee Nick, your production numbers have gone down, no brass ring for you."

[RashanGary]

McGinn stated in his artical and I've been stating for a while that the Middle in this scheme gets all the tackles. In many schemes is the WLB but not this one. Of course Hawk gets less chance, he's eating up KGB's blockers and Hodge is running free. The reason Hodge looks better than Hawk is the same reason Barnett refuses to move.

Hodge fits in the middle nicely but I see where Barnett is coming from. Barnett should get paid and then asked to move. I completely see Barnetts view but I don't even think it has to happen right now. They can get through this season with Hodge in short yardage situations and deal with this problem next year. By then hopefully Barnett will be secured for the long haul and have no reason not to make the team oriented move. Right now he's concerned iwth his contract and that is just understandable. Get him tied up and then ask him to do what's best for the team. He hinted that he'd be happy to.

[pbmax]

But the other thing that really hit me was, "And I think what he was saying was that players and luck will determine McCarthy's fate, just as they did Sherman's." Man, that's just codswallop. I wonder what Lombardi would have to say about Christl's take on coaching - Lombardi felt that ALL the difference between teams in the NFL was coaching.
There were many good players (Hall of Famers) on Lombardi's squad his first year, and good coaching helped turn that into seven wins. Starr, Hornung, Taylor and McGee were already there. And next year he had Dowler and Ron Kramer as his TE.

There are not nearly that caliber of offensive players on this team.

The offensive talent on the 2005 Packers (esp. post injuries) was very close to what you would expect on a 4 win team. The 1959 Packers had better O talent to start with.

[Partial]

McGinn stated in his artical and I've been stating for a while that the Middle in this scheme gets all the tackles. In many schemes is the WLB but not this one. Of course Hawk gets less chance, he's eating up KGB's blockers and Hodge is running free. The reason Hodge looks better than Hawk is the same reason Barnett refuses to move.

Hodge fits in the middle nicely but I see where Barnett is coming from. Barnett should get paid and then asked to move. I completely see Barnetts view but I don't even think it has to happen right now. They can get through this season with Hodge in short yardage situations and deal with this problem next year. By then hopefully Barnett will be secured for the long haul and have no reason not to make the team oriented move. Right now he's concerned iwth his contract and that is just understandable. Get him tied up and then ask him to do what's best for the team. He hinted that he'd be happy to.

The question is though, if he's not in the middle, is he going to make 5.5 million dollars per year in impact? If he's not in the middle, you could likely get a player for 1 mil a year that will have the same impact, since he is arguing the SLB is a position that affects fewer games. I haven't read the thread, but I don't know if anyone has brought this point up.

If Ben Taylor is doing a good job on that side for veteran minimum, the 4.9 million dollar jump at that position may not be worth it. That money might be better suited at a higher impact position.

Clear as mud?

[pbmax]

Coaching can make you champions rather than just very good. It can take a weak squad and make it mediocre.

But this team is talent bereft enough, on O, that coaching alone won't solve all the problems unless every if is answered by: plays full season at near Pro Bowl level (Favre, Green/Davenport, Jennings or another WR and someone on the interior of the O Line and Clifton with bad knee).

Two years from now it might be clear that the talent was all here. But we can't know that now.

[MJZiggy]

I think that either you are misinterpreting what Barnett is saying or I am. After watching the video of this, I didn't get the impression that he was having an attitude about it. He said that he would do what's best for the team though he admitted that he wouldn't like it. Coach has said that he has no current plans to move him, and about the extension thing, I love the way he's handling that. Basically what he's saying is not that he wants the money, but that he wants to be in GB after 2007. It is the same way that DD handled it. He did not say I want more cash. He said I wanna retire in GB and how do we make that happen.

[RashanGary]

The question is though, if he's not in the middle, is he going to make 5.5 million dollars per year in impact? If he's not in the middle, you could likely get a player for 1 mil a year that will have the same impact, since he is arguing the SLB is a position that affects fewer games. I haven't read the thread, but I don't know if anyone has brought this point up.

If Ben Taylor is doing a good job on that side for veteran minimum, the 4.9 million dollar jump at that position may not be worth it. That money might be better suited at a higher impact position.

Clear as mud?

Good point...We'll see how this all pans out. I do think Barnett would be more than a role player at SLB. He can take TE's out of the passing game and that counts for something. HE's also a very effective nickle/dime LB. I don't think you can get a minimum guy to do what he does in the nickle and dime. As far as the running game goes, I agree. YOu can get a minimum guy to do what Barnett does.

[Partial]

The question is though, if he's not in the middle, is he going to make 5.5 million dollars per year in impact? If he's not in the middle, you could likely get a player for 1 mil a year that will have the same impact, since he is arguing the SLB is a position that affects fewer games. I haven't read the thread, but I don't know if anyone has brought this point up.

If Ben Taylor is doing a good job on that side for veteran minimum, the 4.9 million dollar jump at that position may not be worth it. That money might be better suited at a higher impact position.

Clear as mud?

Good point...We'll see how this all pans out. I do think Barnett would be more than a role player at SLB. He can take TE's out of the passing game and that counts for something. HE's also a very effective nickle/dime LB. I don't think you can get a minimum guy to do what he does in the nickle and dime. As far as the running game goes, I agree. YOu can get a minimum guy to do what Barnett does.

That's true. Plus, in the scheme we're running, the linebackers are supposed to be the playmakers. I don't think he'll have much impact in the running game other than stealing tackles from Hodge since he's lightening quick, but he certainly would be quite skilled in the passing game, and would definitely still handle the nickel and dime situations. I guess we should look at him as a playmaker and good linebacker instead of by what position he'd play. 5.5 mil is steep, though. That's gotta be approaching the franchise number for a linebacker, i'd imagine.

[HarveyWallbangers]

"I think that either you are misinterpreting what Barnett is saying or I am."

I agree. I just listened to the video, and either the words come out on paper harsher than he sounds or they only took bits and pieces of his interview. The first sentence he said he'll do what's best for the team.

[MJZiggy]

I'm thinking this may be a case of bloodthirsty reporters looking for offseason controversy. There is a lot of "interpretation" and "paraphrasing" in those articles, IMO. (I am so harsh on the media, but it's their job to give me the real story, not the attention grabbing headline.

[wist43]

What Barnett does, or does not get paid when it comes time for him to get a new contract is irrelevant. If the team is better by moving him, they move him. It's not subject to debate... except by fans in the forums.

Barnett is not a blue chip calibur player of the sort where they should care one wit about what he thinks about his possibly being moved. He thumps his chest about his tackle numbers, but the reality is he's a very, very flawed player. To me, it's remarkable that he's able to fool so many people into thinking that he's a good player.

I challenge any of you to name me one instance in Barnett's 3 years at MLB where he shot the gap and blew up the ball carrier the way that Hodge did in last Saturday's scrimmage.

Hodge had more impressive hits/stops in one scrimmage than Barnett has had in 3 years. Hodge is limited as well, but as a run defender he's lights out, and Barnett is a liability. It's that simple.

In pass coverage it's a different story, but what we're talking about here is the base defense, i.e. primarily run defense... Barnett hasn't a leg to stand on in this argument.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Whatever. Like Barnett has never had a big hit in the backfield. I'm not going to argue that Barnett is a bigger hitter, but that's far from the only thing that is important in a LB. How about we see Hodge actually play against another team before annointing him the second coming. That's about as knee jerk as determining A.J. Hawk as a bust after one scrimmage.