hawk and bishop starters going into 2011

[gbgary]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/117738113.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

signal to barnett.

[packerbacker1234]

Signal to what, that you won t have a chance?

MM said if they had to play today, Hawk and Bishop are the starters because that is how they ended the year, so you keep the continuity. Yes, they are both penciled in heading into camp, but pencils have erasers. They are going to see how Barnett looks afte rthe wrist injury and then decide if they should shop him or let him compete for a starting spot and then shop him if he doesn't iwn it.

MM didn't seem completely sold on keeping Hawk as a 3 down player. Of course, capers is the man making the calls, but MM points out that between the 4 MLB's we have, they will settle who does what and in what role on the field (aka, practice).

Could barnett be shopped? Yes. Is this really a surprise or a signal to him? Nope. Just a pretty standard answer.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Yes, they are both penciled in heading into camp, but pencils have erasers.
Unless you have children, then none of the pencils have erasers.

[pbmax]

I dunno. If a guy is a clear cut favorite to retake the job, you normally hear about how injuries don't cause starters to lose their jobs, we look forward to him being healthy, we think he's going to be fine so no need to find a replacement, etc.

This sounds more like "he'll have a chance to earn playing time like anyone else" verbiage. For a seven year starter/vet, that is quite a change. McCarthy hasn't committed to anything yet, but its not exactly a hug and slap on the butt either.

[Deputy Nutz]

You simply don't re-up Hawk and Bishop to then have an open competition. Too much money for two spots in your defense. Hawk is going to make 11 million this year, Bishop 4 million, and Barnett 6 million dollars, not to mention Chillars 2 million. Unless someone moves to the outside Barnett will be competing for a starting spot on a different team. It doesn't take a rhode scholar to figure this out.

B

[MJZiggy]

Unless you have children, then none of the pencils have erasers.

If you bite on the little metal piece, you can usually get just enough to correct a mistake or two...

[mraynrand]

If you bite on the little metal piece, you can usually get just enough to correct a mistake or two...

I tried that - I still have both kids.

[MJZiggy]

I tried that - I still have both kids.:lol::lol::lol:

I once saw a cartoon where the insurance adjuster asked the customers if they'd had any accidents. They replied "only two out of our three kids."

[Fritz]

I dunno. If a guy is a clear cut favorite to retake the job, you normally hear about how injuries don't cause starters to lose their jobs, we look forward to him being healthy, we think he's going to be fine so no need to find a replacement, etc.

This sounds more like "he'll have a chance to earn playing time like anyone else" verbiage. For a seven year starter/vet, that is quite a change. McCarthy hasn't committed to anything yet, but its not exactly a hug and slap on the butt either.

More like a pencil in the butt.

[swede]

More like a pencil in the butt.

Reminds me of the constipated mathematician that worked it out with a pencil.

[Fritz]

Reminds me of the constipated mathematician that worked it out with a pencil.

Did you hear about his colleague who worked it out with a graphing calculator?

[swede]

But it wreckt'um.

[MJZiggy]

But it wreckt'um.

For godssakes, just go to Starbucks and be done with it.

[swede]

I apologize. I have violated at least three times tonight the minimum standards for gross to funny ratio.

[packerbacker1234]

You simply don't re-up Hawk and Bishop to then have an open competition. Too much money for two spots in your defense. Hawk is going to make 11 million this year, Bishop 4 million, and Barnett 6 million dollars, not to mention Chillars 2 million. Unless someone moves to the outside Barnett will be competing for a starting spot on a different team. It doesn't take a rhode scholar to figure this out.

B

Hawk's salary this year isn't 11 million. That was the entire point of cutting him and then signing a longer term contract. So we don't have to pay him 11 million and because he isn't actually worth that sort of money year to year. It's like 5 years and 35 million overall, so around Nick Barnett money.

Chillar was reupped last season and appeared to be taking over for hawk - then got hurt. Likewise Hawk and Bishop may enter as the starters, but things happen and if Barnett or Chillar prove to be better players than either one of those two, it wouldn't be shocking to see them leap frogged on the depth chart. I know contracts and money can say a lot, but they don't guarentee playtime. If anything I am happy ot have those two on the team long haul because while not great players, they are solid - and that's great to have. Be ncie to have a GREAT LB running the D in the middle, but we don't really have that. Not even Barnett is great, though most agreed he was better than Hawk pre-injuries. We'll see how it pans out.

FOr now, let sjust worry about actually having a season next year.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hawk and Barnett have always been comparable in my mind, but now Barnett is injury prone and nearing 30. Hawk is durable and in his prime. Bishop plays Barnett's position, and he played it as well or better than Barnett. He's also much younger and looks to be durable. I'd be really surprised if Barnett plays another snap for the Packers. The writing is on the wall. Plus, Barnett is not one of Ted Thompson's guys. :)

[vince]

I'd say there's a really good chance we'll be down to one Shermanite (Wells) when play resumes. Even Wolf will still have two of his guys on the roster.

Speaking of non-Thompson guys, I've got the 53-man roster down to 49 existing players pending the draft, and more than four draftees/FA's will likely be added so the number of existing guys will go even lower.

What strikes me is how many quality guys were added last year to a team that I thought was pretty damn solid coming out of 2009. I'd never have dreamed that Thompson would add 19 new potential keepers to the 53-man roster last year. The chances are high that the 3 or 4 additional spots that will be needed for 2011 guys will come from the list of last year's new guys, but even to add 15 new guys is pretty amazing to me. This time last year, I wouldn't have thought there was enough room for all the draft picks to stick, much less all of them plus another 10 or so guys.

Here's where I have next year's roster currently. I'm obviously speculating on a few guys and we have to wait to see who's drafted at what positions to speculate more on who else won't make the cut.

Only 5 guys left from before 2006 is pretty unbelievable. And what happend to the early 2000's?:shock:

1999
WR Donald Driver D7b

2000
T Chad Clifton D2

2004
C Scott Wells D7 (FA-04)

2005
QB Aaron Rodgers D1
S Nick Collins D2a

2006
LB A.J. Hawk D1
WR Greg Jennings D2b
DE/NT Ryan Pickett UFA (STL)
CB Tramon Williams
CB Charles Woodson UFA (OAK)
CB Jarrett Bush (CAR)

2007
FB Korey Hall D6a
LB Desmond Bishop D6b
K Mason Crosby D6c
RB Ryan Grant (NYG)
RB John Kuhn (PIT)

2008
WR Jordy Nelson D2a
CB Pat Lee D2c
TE Jermichael Finley D3
G Josh Sitton D4b
QB Matt Flynn D7a
WR Brett Swain D7b (FA-08)
LB Brandon Chillar UFA (STL)
LS Brett Goode

2009
NT B.J. Raji D1a
LB Clay Matthews D1b
T/G T.J. Lang D4
FB Quinn Johnson D5a
LB Brad Jones D7
TE Tom Crabtree

2010
T/G Bryan Bulaga D1
DE Mike Neal D2
S Morgan Burnett D3
TE Andrew Quarless D5a
G/T*Marshall Newhouse D5b
RB James Starks D6
DE C.J. Wilson D7
S Anthony Smith (JAX)
C/G Evan Dietrich-Smith
QB Graham Harrell
TE Spencer Havner
P Tim Masthay
G Nick McDonald
S Charlie Peprah
CB Sam Shields
LB Erik Walden
LB Matt Wilhelm
LB Frank Zombo
NT Howard Green (NYJ)

[vince]

There's a chance that Chillar may have recurring troubles with his shoulder injury, which gives Barnett a better chance to stick. The problem with Barnett though is how he will handle being a sub-package player. I don't think he'd respond real well to it, nor do I think McCarthy will want to even take the risk of Barnett being disruptive to the team's chemistry.

Brad Jones also could have recurring problems with the shoulder, although that obviously doesn't impact Barnett.

[Tarlam!]

This whole CBA cluster f__k impacts even this. If, after the draft, a team is looking for an ILB that can play 3-4 or 4-3, then TT has a chance to trade. If free agency were in full swing, I doubt there'd be any takers.

Interesting, coming out of college, Barnett was a 4-3 OLB that moved to Mike under Sherman/Donatell. Maybe moving him opposite CMIII would be the best thing for him with his speed. He'd need to beef up.

It seems clear, though, that captaing the defensive huddle is not his forté, if reports are to be believed. Hawk seems to be more on the same page as Dom.

[vince]

Barnett played safety for a couple years in college. He's listed at 234 or so but my money's on closer to 225. If you've ever seen him in street clothes, he's not a big guy. They put 2" and 10 lbs. on his player listing I'd say. He doesn't have the body type to get big enough to play OLB IMO.

[Smidgeon]

Hawk's salary this year isn't 11 million. That was the entire point of cutting him and then signing a longer term contract. So we don't have to pay him 11 million and because he isn't actually worth that sort of money year to year. It's like 5 years and 35 million overall, so around Nick Barnett money.

Chillar was reupped last season and appeared to be taking over for hawk - then got hurt. Likewise Hawk and Bishop may enter as the starters, but things happen and if Barnett or Chillar prove to be better players than either one of those two, it wouldn't be shocking to see them leap frogged on the depth chart. I know contracts and money can say a lot, but they don't guarentee playtime. If anything I am happy ot have those two on the team long haul because while not great players, they are solid - and that's great to have. Be ncie to have a GREAT LB running the D in the middle, but we don't really have that. Not even Barnett is great, though most agreed he was better than Hawk pre-injuries. We'll see how it pans out.

FOr now, let sjust worry about actually having a season next year.

Chillar was taking over for Hawk in the nickel. I don't think there's anyway he would have been successful there in the base.

[Tarlam!]

Barnett's Wikipedia has him at 6'2" and 236. CMIII is 6'3" 255.

So, unless a team is willing to take over a 7 million contract and/part with a 2nd day draft pick, Barnett will have to view his options. I think we all agree with the pundits, Barnett won't be back in his current capacity.

So, can he put on 15lb of muscle, retain his speed, learn a new position and agree to restructuring his contract without becoming a locker room cancer and a twitter twit? If so, he might be a Packer still.

[pbmax]

I am pretty sure Hawk is getting $10+ mil this season. Its not all salary, but between bonuses and the like, he takes home close to the bonus amount for 2011.

[packerbacker1234]

I am pretty sure Hawk is getting $10+ mil this season. Its not all salary, but between bonuses and the like, he takes home close to the bonus amount for 2011.

Yeah, but per usual it;s mostly performance based. He has to reach certain milestones in order to recieve all that money, otherwise he has the base pay of Nick Barnett.

Barnett as an OLB is an interesting prospect, but it only works out if, and only if, Barnett is fully committed to giving it a try. He has speed, and that helps with the pass rush, but he'll need to add about 10 to 20 more lbs of muscle (which is doable) and decide that he is okay not always necessarily being on the field all 3 downs. he would be a starter in that capacity in the base, and naturally be the #1 backup MLB. Again, this assumes the packers are considering moving him to OLB, and this assumes Barnett can accept that role. With hsi salarie it's going to be hard to trade him, so the only options are to try something new or striaght up cut him.

I think the packers may try to find a use for him before outright releasing him. OLB is a possibility for that use.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Yeah, but per usual it;s mostly performance based. He has to reach certain milestones in order to recieve all that money, otherwise he has the base pay of Nick Barnett.

Wrong. He gets an $8M signing bonus. If he's on the roster (a given), he gets $10.95M. Performance, playing time, etc. have nothing to do with it.


Hawk's deal includes an $8 million signing bonus, a $1.8 million roster bonus and a base salary of $1.15 million in 2011, the source said, all of which adds up to $10.95 million in first-year pay.

[Zool]

So they really didnt reduce his cap # for this year at all? Or is that $8 mil spread out across the deal for the cap hit?

[pbmax]

His cap number for this year is $4.5 mil I think. That 8 million is a straight signing bonus. So Hawk gets his cash, the Packers get relief. Woodson was the last guy to get that big a signing bonus but Hawk's cap numbers aren't balanced like Wood's were. Its an odd deal for Thompson. And probably driven by uncertainty over the eventual cap numbers.