Barnett giving locker room material to Bears

[Dabaddestbear]

By BOB McGINN
bmcginn@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Sept. 8, 2006

Green Bay - Nick Barnett didn't have a vote for Associated Press defensive player of the year in 2005 but if he had, it wouldn't have gone to middle linebacker Brian Urlacher of the Chicago Bears.

"I still think he's a great player but I would not have voted for him as defensive player of the year," Barnett, the Green Bay Packers' middle linebacker, said Friday. "I thought there were some other guys out there who were more deserving of the award."

Barnett said one name that came to mind was safety Troy Polamalu of Pittsburgh.

Urlacher, 28, won the AP award by capturing 34 of 50 votes cast by a panel of sportswriters.

Barnett also said he didn't think Urlacher was the greatest linebacker in the game.

"There's some good guys," Barnett said. "He's a good linebacker. I'd say Ray Lewis but he's been hurt the last two years. I like (Takeo) Spikes. I like Mike Peterson a lot.

"He (Urlacher) is perfect for that scheme. He flies around. The guy has been making plays for a long time."

Thank you Barnett. As if Urlacher and company needed any more reasons to get up for this game. Favre will have a horse head in your bed monday morning :twisted:

[Joemailman]

You call that locker room material? Yawn.

[Scott Campbell]

You better hope we give them something to get fired up for. You wouldn't want them coming out flat like they did against the Panthers.

[MadtownPacker]

I have to agree Urlacher wasnt the best D player last year. He was good but also missed games and Hillenmeyer was very good too.

I would have went with Poloumalou SP? myself. That fool was just all over the place.

[ahaha]

That's sad if Urlacher needs quotes like that to get fired up. Barnett was right though, Polamaou was a monster last year, especially in the play-offs.

[woodbuck27]

Hey Man. Tad sensitive?

how much do da Bears need to get fired up?

Isn't. . . coming into " the BEST HOUSE " in the NFL enough? :mrgreen:

[Tarlam!]

Yuh, that Poly due was outrageous. He was a tad quiet in the SB, but shit, that was a demonstartion for me on how to play defense.

Brian is a beast, no doubt, but last year the hairdo guy was ace for moi!

[MadtownPacker]

Hey Man. Tad sensitive?

how much do da Bears need to get fired up?

Isn't. . . coming into " the BEST HOUSE " in the NFL enough? :mrgreen:Hell no man.

Im just saying he is good but last year the player everyone was probably calling "that safety with the long hair" was sick, straight up crazy plays. Then he goes and saves his best for the playoffs.

Urlacher didnt do that.

[Dabaddestbear]

You call that locker room material? Yawn.
Well I think something made that defense mad enough to make you guys have a goose egg :wink:

[Joemailman]

Actually, I thought Barnett outplayed Urlacher today.

[Brohm]

You call that locker room material? Yawn.
Well I think something made that defense mad enough to make you guys have a goose egg :wink:

Actually thought it was the blindfold Farve was wearing today :roll:

[Dabaddestbear]

You better hope we give them something to get fired up for. You wouldn't want them coming out flat like they did against the Panthers.
Once again the Packers are not the Panthers. Today showed just that. Never again should you mention anything pertaining to any team other than the one YOU cheer for.

[retailguy]

You call that locker room material? Yawn.
Well I think something made that defense mad enough to make you guys have a goose egg :wink:

I'm not sure the bears had as much to do with the goose egg as you think


I'd be a bit concerned about the 4 fg's if I were you.... red zone offense was NOT very good.

good win though.... I'm really bummed. You should be pleased. ;)

[GrnBay007]

You better hope we give them something to get fired up for. You wouldn't want them coming out flat like they did against the Panthers.
Once again the Packers are not the Panthers. Today showed just that. Never again should you mention anything pertaining to any team other than the one YOU cheer for.


lol pot, meet kettle

[Dabaddestbear]

You call that locker room material? Yawn.
Well I think something made that defense mad enough to make you guys have a goose egg :wink:

I'm not sure the bears had as much to do with the goose egg as you think


I'd be a bit concerned about the 4 fg's if I were you.... red zone offense was NOT very good.

good win though.... I'm really bummed. You should be pleased. ;)
Not too concerned seeing that they never had to punt until the late in the third quarter. They moved the ball well and when it counted. If all you can complain about is 1td and four FG's with this defense then I think you have a good problem.

[Scott Campbell]

You better hope we give them something to get fired up for. You wouldn't want them coming out flat like they did against the Panthers.
Once again the Packers are not the Panthers. Today showed just that. Never again should you mention anything pertaining to any team other than the one YOU cheer for.


So you think Nick's comments were the difference in the game - huh?

[packiowa]

You call that locker room material? Yawn.
Well I think something made that defense mad enough to make you guys have a goose egg :wink:

I'm not sure the bears had as much to do with the goose egg as you think


I'd be a bit concerned about the 4 fg's if I were you.... red zone offense was NOT very good.

good win though.... I'm really bummed. You should be pleased. ;)
Not too concerned seeing that they never had to punt until the late in the third quarter. They moved the ball well and when it counted. If all you can complain about is 1td and four FG's with this defense then I think you have a good problem.

Int in the end zone, that was a given after Grossman's first reaction to pressure. One fg after a turnover on the kickoff. A general inability to run the ball for first downs. One broken play by the Packers secondary for the only t.d. A couple diving, great catches by Moose. Two bobbles caught by Clark. No drops.

I'd say things went pretty well for the Bears offense. Moose and Grossman looked pretty good, although Grossman gets an itchy trigger finger when he thinks he's "on". Surely, enough to win, but any Bears fan that thinks they played Superbowl offense is crazy.

The special teams were superbowl worthy.

The defense was put in a perfect position. In the first quarter, the packers were able to move the ball on the ground. Of course, to the Bears advantage, we were put in 3rd and 4th and 1. Our biggest weakness matches the Bears strength on those plays and for some reason we just ran the obvious play. Good stops, but the Bears need to run and stop the run a lot better than that to get to the Superbowl like the papers are claiming.

Lastly, what's up with the Chicago papers giving the Bears rb's a B grade. They were a C at best and maybe worse if you consider their missed blitz pickups.

[Dabaddestbear]

Int in the end zone, that was a given after Grossman's first reaction to pressure. He was looking to throw the ball out of the endzone but screwed that one up. take it as a punt.



One fg after a turnover on the kickoff. A general inability to run the ball for first downs. One broken play by the Packers secondary for the only t.d. A couple diving, great catches by Moose. Two bobbles caught by Clark. No drops.
One diving catch and the others were right where only he could get them in tight coverage. there were some drops just not many.



I'd say things went pretty well for the Bears offense. Moose and Grossman looked pretty good, although Grossman gets an itchy trigger finger when he thinks he's "on". Surely, enough to win, but any Bears fan that thinks they played Superbowl offense is crazy.

The offense played as well as the Colts who many say have a SB offense. Grossman molds himself in the image of Brett---good and bad thing since he will try and sling it up there when he gets hyped.




The special teams were superbowl worthy.

The defense was put in a perfect position. In the first quarter, the packers were able to move the ball on the ground. Of course, to the Bears advantage, we were put in 3rd and 4th and 1. Our biggest weakness matches the Bears strength on those plays and for some reason we just ran the obvious play. Good stops, but the Bears need to run and stop the run a lot better than that to get to the Superbowl like the papers are claiming.

Lastly, what's up with the Chicago papers giving the Bears rb's a B grade. They were a C at best and maybe worse if you consider their missed blitz pickups.

I wouldnt consider 16 total yards rushing in the 1st quarter as able to move the ball on the ground. (be careful of what you state as fact cuz I will call you on it).